Red Flags in the rTerra Announcement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

i-can-hazOne has to imagine the trepedation at the EDC, er, CommerceRI as they announced their first direct business-development loan since their symbolic name change. Would they vanquish the ghosts of loans-gone-bad with a profusion of public disclosures, instilling confidence in their ability to execute? That would be amazing.

Instead, they announced a loan to a virtually unknown entity called PV Solutions. See how there isn’t a link there on the company name? Red flag.

The company that wasn’t

Other than the two Projo stories, the one in PBN and CommerceRI’s press release, I find no such thing as PV Solutions or the alleged product Tflex solar panels on the Internet. Which isn’t to say they don’t exist. But it does raise the question of…WTF? At least have a Facebook page. I mean…right?

PR isn’t everything, but it’s important, especially if your borrowing the money to spur a global sales operation. That’s a red flag for me.

As reported elsewhere, PV Solutions is a spin-off of equally un-marketed rTerra. That website is a stub at best, but at least it exists. I have no idea what they would actually do or any projects they might have successfully completed. They do have a board of directors with a famous person. So there’s that.

Only Tim Faulker at ecoRI gave any real substance about the company. (Although Stanley Weiss’s quote in the PBN piece is a plum.) The basic business is small, industrial-scale solar farms using a flexible photovoltaic panel that’s quicker and cheaper to install. More importantly, they have a completed, 10-megawatt project on a capped landfill in Delaware. (See how there isn’t a link to the project there…red flag.)

On that rTerra board of directors page, third guy down is Joe Tomlinson, who founded this business. Says he’s a “visionary marketer.” Huh.

This might or might not be a viable business. It’s all about the execution. They need to sell, deliver, install, support, rinse and repeat.

But really, they need to sell. And if they do make a sale, I hope they’ll be nice enough to tell us about it.

Global warming…? It’s freezing!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

nam_sfc_4panelOver the past several years, right-wing news talkers have made a winter ritual out of ridiculing global warming whenever there’s a big snow event in the mid-Atlantic or a major cold wave that reaches the South.

“Global warming…? It’s freezing!” they spew.

Except this kind of winter weather is, in fact, a result of global warming. What’s worse is that it’s going to be like this for a long, long time.

Global Warming, Climate Change and Weather

The best way to make yourself look like an ignoramus on this topic is to equate surface air temperatures with global warming. If it’s hot in the summer, it’s not necessarily global warming that’s making it hot. Summer is hot, right?

You have to ask, “Why is it hot? Is it that much hotter?” It may be that global warming is making it hotter than ever, or it could just be a hot summer.

Air gets hot; air get cold. Water, on the other hand, gets less hot and less cold. Water is a far more stable repository of heat than air. That’s why it’s cooler at the shore in the summer when it’s hot in the city. And warmer at the shore in the winter when it’s cold inland. Water temperature resists the day-to-day vagaries of air temperature.

And, mostly, air moves around a lot. Water moves, but much more slowly than the air, so it’s more stable in that regard as well. Unless it’s moving as vapor in the air.

Climate is the basic conditions—the raw materials of air, water vapor, land masses and, of course, that big old sun. Weather is what happens when these conditions interact on a day-to-day basis.

Evaporating oceans that become water vapor, ride in air over a land mass and then fall in the form of rain or snow is what makes life on this planet possible. If this were to stop, we would all die. Fast. But it needs to happen within a certain range and within a certain seasonal pattern for the ecosystem to work is such a way that our lives are possible.

Global warming has deposited exceptional amounts of heat in the oceans, making them more evaporative. This increased amount of available water vapor has changed the climate in ways that we are still trying to understand. What we know for sure is that the exceptional weather results we see these days are unlike anything in our recorded history, and in some cases they are unlike anything at any time that science has been able to study through fossils or ice core samples.

North America’s January Started in Siberia…in October

aer-image

Dr. Judah Cohen is no hippie. He works for one of the world’s leading private weather prediction services. He gets paid quite handsomely to help companies anticipate weather months in advance and put risk mitigation strategies in place.

As I’ve written here repeatedly, major insurers are the leading climate alarmists. Exceptional weather events destroy property, and they’re the ones who have to pay.

Over the past 15 or so years, the northeast US has seen a substantial increase in major winter snow events—costly to cities and states—that did not correlate with an exceptional Labrador counter-current, a coastal down flow of Arctic waters generally associated with a snowy northeast winter. And the storms would sometimes track far south of the traditional path.

Dr. Cohen searched the climate data from around the globe and found something that correlated well: October snow in Siberia. Like the new winter weather in the northeast, these Siberian snows were also new. Typically, these areas of western Siberia remained barren rock through the autumn and into the winter. Suddenly, these remote areas began receiving significant amounts of snow in the month of October.

This change in Siberia in October affects our weather in January and February. Or so Dr. Cohen’s team—and all the companies that pay them so much money—believe.

When this area in Siberia gets covered in a smooth sheet of white snow, it radiates substantially more solar heat than the darker, rumbled rock formations did. This mass of rising warmer air becomes so powerful that it pushes the giant dome of frigid air that covers the polar region in the winter down over North America.

Interlude: Polar Ice

220px-Arctic_Sea_Ice_Minimum_Comparison

Before addressing the madness that is the polar vortex, we should ask the question, “Why is it now snowing in Siberia in October?”

The answer is simple: because it can.

Rain or snow requires the right combination of temperature gradient (hot and cold temperatures near each other) and available moisture (water vapor). The North Pole is cold pretty much all the time; Siberia gets warm in the summer. So the temperature gradient has always been there.

What’s new is the available moisture, in the form of increasingly greater summer melt of the northern polar ice cap. The illustration (click for bigger view and attribution) compares the peak melt in mid-September of 1984 and 2012. Clearly, substantial amounts of new, open water can feed the prevailing westerly winds (moving roughly top to lower left) with moisture that then falls as snow in Siberia (left and lower left). That’s basic meteorology: more or warmer water means more precipitation.

Polar Vortex, Go Home. You’re Cold

The Siberian snowpack creates rising air that reaches the polar air mass and pushes it off its natural polar resting place so it more-or-less spills itself over North America.

The polar vortex is a weak, low pressure system that rotates counterclockwise. This 72-hour forecast loop shows the effect clearly. [NOTE: Link will open in a separate tab. Also, this link is time dependent, so if you’re not looking at this on or about January 25, 2014, it may not show what’s described.] As it spins, it polar air plunges down the western flank well into the South. For the first time ever, people in Louisiana are seeing their pipes burst because the construction of their houses does not account for this kind of weather.

Perversely, when the polar vortex descends over North America, it can sometimes be colder at the bottom of Hudson Bay than it is on the North Pole. Note how warmer air presses up over the northeast side of the system in the forecast loop.

nam_winchl_39h

One thing the polar vortex can’t do is be stronger than the ocean. So it gets stuck in the triangle created by Siberia that is pushing it away and the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. The illustration at right shows the 39 hour wind chill forecast: 15Z SUN 26 JAN 14 (about 10am local time on Sunday, January 26).

Looks like about -10 F in Little Rhody. So, yeah, polar vortex. Cold, horrible and anomalous. Also, not going anywhere.

Have a great Sunday!

Economic Intersections report, meet coastal resilience necessity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gear-grabOn first reading, I give Economic Intersections, the Make it Happen Rhode Island report from the RI Foundation and Commerce RI a B.

It’s mostly things we’ve heard before like tech transfer, support for manufacturing and regulatory reform. It has some very good, new areas of focus, and it has an interesting idea that doesn’t quite make the grade. But I’m writing this short piece because there is one, glaring, horrifying and totally irresponsible part that defies any kind of logic whatsoever, at least as it is presented in this executive summary.

Good

The best part of this is the new focus on food production. There is a clear understanding that this burgeoning sector represents an important part of our next economy, and the report recognizes many important factors in building out the industry. Farms and farmland now have much better visibility within the state’s economic apparatus.

Even better, there is a section focused on the “food-health nexus.” Simply having those two words together in a state-level economics report represents a giant step forward. Medical technologies, neuroscience and bioscience all still hold their places at the top of the economy the report envisions, but actual health and what makes it possible—good, fresh food—is in the mix. Yay!

Not So Good

The report devotes a section to making Rhode Island “stronger and more resilient.” In this area, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of expertise at the table, as evidenced by the goal of creating “scalable approaches to economic development through resiliency.”

Resilience doesn’t scale. Lack-of-scale is the essence of resilience. As I’ve written here many times, resilience is based on redundancy, which is inherently inefficient and therefore not scalable. Many small things within redundant networks so that when some of them experience catastrophic failures—as will certainly happen with greater frequency—the system continues to function through alternate paths. The only thing that scales is the network.

The intention is to spawn companies that develop approaches and technologies around community resilience, as if resiliency were a product. I think what they really mean is “protection from catastrophe,” which is different from resilience. And, certainly, there’s a market to be made in protection from catastrophe, because there will be no shortage of global warming-driven catastrophes.

Some might hold out hope that once the economic apparatus starts to examine resilience and systems-oriented approaches to the impacts of climate change, they may actually/accidentally start to pursue genuine resilience.

But don’t hold your breath. Here’s why.

Blind, Stupid, Irresponsible

I like the top-line idea here: promote access to water and marine-based businesses. When you’re the Ocean State, it’s kind of a no-brainer. But this section of the report has a glaring blind spot, a miss so incredibly stupid that it might be more irresponsible than the 38 Studios deal.

Nowhere in this section—even in this section of the full report—does one find the terms “climate change,” “global warming” or “rising sea levels.” It’s true that they throw a bone to the Coastal Resource Management Council’s current role in this area, but CRMC is conspicuously absent from the list of public entities in the plan moving forward.

The plan is heavy on access to the water and marketing. Which means, of course, building right at the water’s edge. Think “marina access to a mini-resort”.

This represents an irresponsibly short-sighted approach. Coastal properties already have almost no choice but the federal insurance pool, and these costs will certainly only go higher. It is only a matter of time before any coastal infrastructure gets destroyed.

To add insult to injury, the full report refers to New York City’s 2011 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, and the last of its eight goals is “Increase Climate Resilience.” I mean…right?

This is the kind of pull-your-hair-out stupid that still permeates our econo-think. It’s possible that they never put two and two together to make four. Or it’s possible that “certain powers” deliberately excluded the TOTALLY FRICKIN’ OBVIOUS, SIMPLE LIKE FALLING DOWN CONNECTION HERE!

(As background, Gov. Carcieri’s administration actively worked to suppress any mention of solar power in the RIEDC’s 2009/2010 Green Economy Roadmap authored by yours truly. So this kind of move is nothing new.)

CONNECT. THE. DOTS!

I know this is complicated, so I’ll go step by step.

1. The report is called Economic Intersections, so it’s about connecting things that might be complementary.

2. One idea in the report is to develop marine-based businesses, following New York’s waterfront plan.

3. New York’s waterfront plan includes increasing the waterfront’s resilience.

4. Another idea in the report is to develop resilience.

It seems so elementary, so obvious that I’m embarrassed to have to spell it out like this, but…here goes:

Focus your resiliency efforts on the coastal impacts of global warming-driven sea level rise and catastrophic weather events so that your marine-based businesses can be, oh, I don’t know…resilient.

MLK Day candidates forum meets Chris Young


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The overflow crowd spilled out the door.
The overflow crowd spilled out the door.

To celebrate the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence hosted a candidates forum, focusing on their approaches to minimize violence in Providence and Rhode Island. The forum opened with a session for gubernatorial candidates, and concluded with a session for the Providence mayoral candidates.

The gubernatorial candidates comprised only three declared Democrats: Todd Giroux, Angel Taveras and Gina Raimondo. Likewise, the mayoral candidates also included only those declared (or not) for the Democratic nomination: Lorne Adrain, Jorge Elorza, Brett Smiley and Michael Solomon. GOP aspirant Daniel Harrop sent regrets. It does seem that any other more-or-less serious candidate who wanted to participate could have…as will become clear in a bit. I never bothered to find out why Fung, Block, Lombardi and other likely participants did not attend. (If you know for certain, please add it in the comments.)

Naturally, your Frymaster arrived late, far too late to get a seat in the already-packed assembly hall, which held fewer than 100 seats. The SRO crowd jammed the back of the room, spilled out the door and filled an adjoining room with the audio piped in. Under the pretense of taking photographs, I was lucky enough to get access to the Institute’s boardroom on the second floor overlooking the assembly hall.

"Streaming" audio
“Streaming” audio

Unfortunately, the only audio we had was the mobile phone of a staffer who had called another staffer whose phone was placed in front of a loudspeaker. Eventually, yet another staffer brought a pair of computer speakers from his office and, powered through the USB port on my borrowed laptop, we eventually succeeded in providing a passable audio feed for the dozen or so who filled the boardroom.

We got the jury-rigged system working just in time for the gubernatorial candidates’ 1-minute closing statements. Thus, this reporter can only comment on the action among the hopefuls for Providence City Hall.

Mayoral Candidates: Initial Impressions

(seated, l-r) Brett Smiley, Lorne Adrain, Michael Solomon, Jorge Elorza. Teny Gross of the Institute far right.
(seated, l-r) Brett Smiley, Lorne Adrain, Michael Solomon, Jorge Elorza. Teny Gross of the Institute far right.

Other news outlets can bore you with what the candidates said, but I’ll sum up: not much. As you might expect, all the candidates were long on the “what” and short on the “how.”

Overall, they all agreed that violence is bad and that nonviolence is good and should be encouraged. The unifying element of the “how” was that the broader community collectively needs to take ownership of the city…we all need to do our part…it takes a village.

You know the rap. It translates roughly as: I have no idea how to do this, so you people figure it out.

It was hard to find enough policy differences to differentiate sharply one candidate from another. What follows is a mix of the style and substance that one observer took away from the event.

Lorne Adrain – Some felt Mr. Adrain showed himself thoughtful and open, even admitting that he didn’t really have specifics on certain topics. While that is refreshing in its rarity, I took it as a lack of preparation. For Mr. Adrain to succeed in winning the confidence of voters, he will need to start nailing down exactly what makes him the one and only choice in this ever-growing field. Bottom line: leaders need to have answers, not more questions. Approachable and smart, but not ready for this warm-up event.

Jorge Elorza – I give Mr. Elorza the win, but it was marginal. Having grown up on Cranston Street, he spoke to his specific understanding of urban violence in a way that other candidates did not and probably could not. And he had some ideas that set him apart—public schools should be accessible to more residents for more hours, including evenings and weekends; in-school accountability, not out-of-school suspensions; a police academy as diverse as the city. Well-prepared, focused, street-smart.

Brett Smiley – Mr. Smiley came in 2nd on my scorecard. Of all the candidates, he had a specific “how”—a 10% supplemental tax on gun and ammo sales that goes specifically to fund nonviolence programs and training. And he spoke directly to difficult issues, like the uselessness of public programs where the rules are such that kids with two working parents can never participate. Advocated recruiting public safety people with connections in DC to access more federal money. Well-prepared, specific, government-savvy.

Michael Solomon – Mr. Solomon did not impress me as particularly modern. More than any other candidate, he talked about more police, more police, more police. When he talked about non-punishment discipline in schools or post-prison transitioning, he somehow didn’t connect. His accent puts him at a disadvantage. And he was perilously close to the line with his “some parents don’t know how to parent” line. True though it may be, he needs to craft that point more carefully. Aware of modern thinking, but sounds like a throw-back.

And Then There’s Chris Young…

Irony: Chris Young at the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence
Irony: Chris Young at the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence

Though cropped from the photo above, Mr. Young did attend. Yes, he was a full participant. Toward the end, he got himself worked up to the point that the moderator had to reiterate the rules against personal attacks. But no, he was not asked to leave. And that’s the good news.

At this strongly left-leaning event, even his rhetoric came off as violent. He brought up abortion in almost every one of his opportunities to speak, and he somehow managed to bring up the Frankfurt School, the Nazis and “negroes.” Everybody breathed a sigh of relief when he somehow managed to get through the entire event without one of his trademark meltdowns.

Self-delusion can be a powerful force, and Mr. Young has somehow convinced himself that he offers an attractive alternative to the other candidates. In reality, he is a horror show that alienates almost everybody who sees his shabby act. It’s unfortunate that, in the interest of open debate, we inflict this ugliness on ourselves each election season.

Thus it seems clear that if Mr. Young were allowed to participate, then any warm body that could string together a coherent sentence could have participated. So unless we find new information via comments, we can assume that Lombardi, Fung and Block took a pass on this early campaign event.

RI GOP’s fatal disconnect


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RIGOP-DisconnectThe Rhode Island GOP’s new Getting to 25 agenda will likely lead them nowhere with voters. By clinging to their antiquated world views, they have isolated themselves from Rhode Island’s cultural mainstream, which has moved to a place they don’t understand.

The Getting to 25 press release spells it out in plain language. According to House Minority Leader Brian Newberry, “…on the list of good things, we rank at the bottom…” Leaving aside our unenviable unemployment rate, which all Rhode Islanders want to see improve, Mr. Newberry’s definition of “good things” shows how badly disconnected he and his party have become.

According to the RI GOP, good things consist entirely of a pro-business environment (laden as that catchphrase is with anti-environmental, anti-union connotations), low taxes and low taxes. Yes, they list “tax climate” and “per capita tax burden” as separate items.

Meanwhile, the rest of Rhode Island has a very different definition of good things, and it’s almost entirely cultural in nature. Rhode Island, especially the Providence metro area, excels in many cultural factors that young, mobile people find especially compelling.

Modern economic development across the country focuses on attracting and retaining young talent, and young talent cares very little about low taxes. A 2011 Freakonomics review of a Brookings study listed “…affordable housing, a low cost of living, a transportation and bicycle infrastructure, an arts culture, and of course, the prospect of being around other young people” as critical aspects of cities that attract young people. Other factors include ethnic and racial diversity and the cultural dynamic that it drives like the number and diversity of restaurants. Awareness of and action on environmental and social justice issues also ranks high. Finally, young people often seek a place where they can make a positive impact on their community.

Rhode Island ranks well in all these categories, as this story today from the notoriously GOP and anti-everything Providence Business News points out. (I presume…the story is behind their paywall, so I’ll have to take the headline at face value.) I and most people in my social circle know many, many people who consciously chose to move to Providence for just these reasons. In fact, many people in my social circle ARE these people. I wonder how many such people minority leader Newberry knows?

Perhaps no single thing brings together the positive impact of the now-and-future Rhode Island like the wildly successful Wintertime Farmers Market at Hope Artiste Village. (The project manager for that enormous real estate development, by the way, is a transplant now hooked on Rhode Island and a budding community leader.)

The farmers market has been so successful that it expanded this year to use both sides of converted mill. It also opened a Wednesday evening session. The number of both vendors and customers has continued to grow over the years as has the range of foods, products and services available there. It is, in a word, packed.

The point is that RI GOP, in their insistence that all is catastrophe, fails to see that a large portion of the state’s population feels otherwise. Until they can connect with dynamic core of modern Rhode Island, they will continue to languish at the polls.

RI’s real problem with jobs


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

WeldersRecently on Twitter, Editor in Chief Bob Plain welcomed mayoral candidate Brett Smiley to the RI Future family, touting Brett’s inaugural post on gun issues. But old Righty had to chime in to say, through a series of logical connections, that the real solution to gun violence is lowering business taxes and eliminating business regulations. Because of our “poor business climate”, Righty argues, nobody will move a business to Rhode Island and create the desperately needed jobs.

In this essay, I’ll go step-by-step through Righty’s thinking, point out where I think he goes astray and wrap up with some good, old-fashioned, Frymaster-style socialism. This essay will not delve into the particulars of gun control, but will focus instead on the causes of poverty and possible solutions.

Long story short: Righty’s solution is, in fact, the problem.

Guns, Gangs and Jobs

Righty’s first logical arguments seem pretty solid. It’s not the guns so much as the criminal gangs. This may or may not be fully accurate. Gun crimes require both a gun and criminal intent, so the absence of either would reduce the problem.

Next, Righty says that gangs and criminal activity result from poverty. I’m no crime wonk, but I think there’s fairly good evidence that violent crime, among many things, correlates with poverty.

Poverty, Righty contends, results from the lack of jobs, and the lack of jobs results from the poor business climate as measured by business taxes and the degree of business regulations. While not explicitly stated, Righty seems to indicate that changing these aspects of the RI economic structure would entice businesses to relocate here, creating jobs.

Of this last set of connections, only the first has any merit whatsoever. And with each successive step beyond what reality can support, Righty demonstrates how this kind of tired, 20th century thinking has created the problems with which RI struggles.

A Lack of Jobs? Not Really.

It is truly misleading to say that Rhode Island has a lack of jobs. Your Frymaster finds himself, um…, between engagements at the moment, and I can personally testify to the fact that there are many, many jobs in this area for people like me. If you have a college degree and European heritage, it’s not a question of finding a job but of choosing one.

From 1999 to 2009, RI posted the 18th highest rate of high income job growth in the nation and the highest rate in all of New England, second only to New Jersey in the northeast. (It’s a statistical tie at 58.9%.)

There’s just no truth to the idea that there aren’t jobs … for people like me. But it is true that there are no jobs for the kinds of youth that end up in gangs committing gun crimes. In all fairness to Righty, his basic point is well taken. If people in marginalized communities had greater access to decent employment, they’d be less likely to become involved with criminal gangs.

But this is the last piece of solid logic we’ll get from old Righty. From here on out, it’s typical conservative mumbo-jumbo that defines the problem, not the solution.

Capitalist Myths

The greatest and most dangerous myth at work here is the idea that the solution to our supposed lack of jobs is to lure companies from other areas to Rhode Island. These are usually short-distance moves that don’t actually change the regional economic situation. Nor do they address any of the cluster of factors that make blue collar jobs harder to find than white collar jobs.

As a positive example, UNFI came from nearby eastern Connecticut. While these workers now pay RI income taxes and some may have moved in-state, nothing about this move changes the underlying economic conditions. The multiplier effect is essentially nil.

38 Studios moved from nearby Massachusetts. Had it all gone to plan and the Baltimore group moved up after the launch of the MMORPG, this would have had some benefit to the regional situation. But, of course, it didn’t go to plan in any way. The enormous debt RI now faces is the disastrous downside of “buffalo hunting” as this practice is known in economic development circles.

Another debilitating myth that Righty suffers under is that taxes, unions and regulations are what killed the manufacturing sector in RI, the northeast and the US in general. Capitalism and no other force is what killed manufacturing. One of the great underlying tenets of capitalism is that continuous growth ensures ever expanding opportunity for workers. But this only applies until labor becomes scarce and wages start to rise.

Instead of mitigating growth and reverting toward the kind of stable-state, mom-and-pop business approach that once made the USA the envy of the world, capitalism insisted on ever growing profits. To that end, capitalists moved factories to wherever they could find cheap labor, leaving economic ruin behind. The great irony is that today, with a large and growing under-class of potential low-wage workers in cities across the US, other factors now present a cost-barrier to these kinds of ventures.

In particular, energy and transportation cost have exploded over the past decade. Thanks to the Reagan administration and the onset of radical capitalism in the 1980s, the US is woefully behind the curve when it comes to dealing with changes in the energy landscape. We’ve compounded this for ourselves by simultaneously pretending that global warming does not exist, so we didn’t need to plan for the extreme weather events that climate science predicted long ago. We now find ourselves continuously rebuilding one place or another that has been ravaged by a global warming-related event. Growth in healthcare costs that the private markets was supposed to limit or even reverse back in the 1990s have instead accelerated to take an ever-larger chunk of available income.

In the face of these brutal economic realities, it’s tragically laughable to assert that tax rates and regulations of the sort that prevent factories from poisoning their workers and host communities are somehow the problem. The truth is that we live in a very expensive place that cannot support the manufacture of cheap goods.

Poverty in RI

Righty would likely suggest at this point that there must be something about Rhode Island’s approach to business that accounts for the large disparity between our unemployment statistics and those of Massachusetts. Of course there must be, but the reasons are not what Righty thinks they are.

The difference, in a word, is education. Massachusetts has historically excelled in public and private education to the point that this is their defining characteristic; education is the Massachusetts brand. MA has higher educational attainment at all levels compared to Rhode Island, so their economy requires fewer low wage, low education jobs to achieve full employment. Nearly 16% of RI’s population did not attain a high school diploma, compared with 11% in MA. Thus we need roughly 50% more blue-collar jobs in our mix than MA does.

Jobs that most consider classically blue collar, like the welders in the image above, have become far more technical than they were. In fact, RI imports welders on a daily basis, likely because the state has few training programs. Training in the technical trades in general grew unpopular over the past few decades, and the result is that a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation imports blue collar workers from neighboring states.

As a result of the low levels of educational attainment and lack of appropriate jobs, RI also suffers from the cluster of self-reinforcing impacts that result from poverty. It is difficult for people who have never lived or worked in the poorest communities to understand that poverty is a trap that is exceedingly difficult to escape from.

At the most basic, physical levels, poor communities are usually the most toxic and have the least green space. This creates higher levels of health problems, like asthma and lead poisoning. Many poor communities are food deserts and lack easy access to other key commodities. In a bizarre expression of supply and demand, some communities rely on the ubiquitous liquor store as the local, one-stop shop.

But above all else, poverty creates a stress that those who have never experienced it cannot imagine. Unlike Righty’s cartoonish view of the poor laying about watching soap operas, being poor requires constant action simply to feed oneself. Poor families move from one place to another far more frequently than those better off, creating significant problems for children in school. And these children constantly receive implicit and even explicit messages from their schools that they will not be able to achieve success.

Thus it is the mental health impacts of this level of insecurity are the biggest problems in escaping poverty. Poverty begets poverty because it is almost impossible to break out of the cycle. For all the talk about opportunity – from both the left and the right – there really is very little for the poorest communities. In the US in general and in RI in particular, this is our enduring shame.

Prosperity, not Wealth

Most economic development groups strive to “create wealth” in the ways that Righty seems to want to do. By convincing a capitalist that your community is the one in which he can generate the most wealth in the shortest time, you also create some number of jobs that may or may not pay enough to support the workers and their families.

This is the problem, not the solution. Unsurprisingly, people who’s primary motivation is to enrich themselves are not the most trustworthy. These deals are always “pay me now, get jobs later.” If you want to see your buffalo hunt go badly, just try inserting a clawback provision in which the job creators has to repay subsidies if they can’t produce the jobs. These are people who are always willing to turn on you should someone make them a better offer.

And yet Rhode Island remains mired in this kind of thinking to the point that Righty feels fully confident in spouting this lame, discredited malarky.

To the degree he has been able, Governor Chafee has focused economic development on the real drivers of prosperity: education, health and infrastructure. But what little he has been able to accomplish is far short of the interventions we need to heal the fractured economy.

If Rhode Island did just one thing to improve its economy, it should be to adopt the mission of Burlington, VT’s CEDO – the Community Economic Development Office. This mission essentially forbids buffalo hunting, instead requiring the organization to target resources on existing businesses and new enterprises started by local residents. It also seeks to create as many impacts as possible, meaning that any given allocation of resources will be small. The idea is not to create wealth for the few but to create prosperity for the many.

The results speak for themselves. Burlington is perennially awash in cash, running an annual surplus. They boast among the lowest unemployment rates in the country in the same range as the remote, resource-extraction driven economies like North Dakota. But Burlington is not focused on resource extraction. Instead, they enjoy a mix of large and small businesses in sectors like tourism, biotech and fulfillment.

And, as a final nail in the coffin of Righty’s take on economic development, buffalos come to Burlington, no begging, no tax breaks. Burlington is a thriving city that can afford excellent schools and excellent infrastructure. If you can take the harsh Vermont winters, Burlington offers a quality of life that few other communities in the northeast can rival.

Heal the Ecology, Heal the Economy

To move forward in a meaningful way, Rhode Island needs to get past the false dichotomy that environmental initiatives come at the cost of jobs. In fact, the opposite is true. The most pressing environmental needs all require large, blue-collar workforces. By attacking these problems head-on, we can drive prosperity at all levels of the economy.

At the top of our list must be consistent, sustained action on energy creation and usage. From distributed rooftop solar to utility-scale offshore wind farms, Rhode Island needs to move aggressively to reduce the need for fossil fuel fired electrical plants. Righty, you’re dreaming if you think that oil will ever cost less than it does now. Likewise, when the environmental impacts of fracking finally come to light, this cost will also skyrocket. Cheap natural gas is a beautiful illusion.

On the consumption side, the New England housing stock is woefully old and inefficient. The house in which I write has ill-fitting storm windows over old-fashioned, single-pane double hung sashes. We’ve had cellulose blown in the walls and the attic, but it’s far from a tight ship. And in the basement…you guessed it: an oil-burning furnace. There are probably tens of thousands of homes in the region that need a retrofit. It will probably take a decade to complete this work.

Next on the list is land management and use, which means urban trees and urban farms. Surging natural resources into the toxic, food-deprived inner city neighborhoods attacks poverty on a number of fronts. By increasing green space and decreasing pavement, we reduce toxic storm water runoff, improve air quality, decrease radiant heat, increase availability of high-value foods and increase community engagement.

These things are happening in Providence, but they can increase at least double. And they are virtually unheard-of in Pawtucket, Central Falls and Woonsocket, where they are most needed.

I would very much like to hear the Democratic gubernatorial candidates speak strongly to these ideas, but I doubt I will. Ms. Raimondo talks a good game, but she clearly labors under the capitalist myths. I would hope that Mayor Taveras could see the value here, but political reality will demand that he not challenge the voters outside the city limits with ideas that are strange and new. At least to them.

Let me sum up by saying that this: the fact that these proven approaches seem radical in Rhode Island circa 2013 is the single greatest problem we have.

Little Rhody, you are behind the curve and badly so. You need radical ideas and radical interventions. Financial literacy is meaningless to people living hand-to-mouth. Quibbling over a one-cent bridge toll is just silly when we need to radically restructure transportation funding across the board.

Still Righty beefs about taxes and spouts discredited myths. The problem, Rhode Island, is that you listen.

Govt shutdown as a business: Furlough the sales force


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

closed-for-businessSome right-leaning people I know on the Twitter were confused about how the government shutdown actually “cost” money. I put that word in quotes because accounting in giant, complicated organizations is complicated, unsurprisingly. In this essay, I’ll use the hackneyed government-as-a-business analogy to attempt to explain how this seemingly counterintuitive result occurred.

I will not say too much about the relative wisdom of the decisions made by the people running this ersatz business, but I’m sure the comments will be rife them. There’s been quite a lot of stupid in that area (decisions, not comments). The point here is to create a framework for understanding how government works in the day-to-day, dollars-and-cents world we like to call “reality.”

To be sure, I’m not an accountant nor do I have deep knowledge of the specifics of which departments cost what on the expense side or contribute what on the revenue side or even which are considered “non-essential.” But regular readers know that that never stopped me before.

However, I do have a fair amount of experience at senior levels in large organizations, and I have a solid working knowledge of government. Hokay? Let’s see how this works.

In very, very brief, the shutdown closed our government/business’s retail stores and furloughed much of the admin and all of the sales force. Retail income went to zero. On the cost side, any savings on salaries were swamped by the unplanned costs of shutting and securing the stores and furloughing all the workers. The result was an estimated $3 – 4 billion in unrealized revenues and direct shutdown/startup costs. We won’t know until we can get a complete accounting. To make that up, each of the 300 million in the US must pay at least $10 for the 16 days closed.

Feel better? I didn’t think so.

The Basics: A Budget is a Plan

In a business, the budget is called the AOP – the anticipated operating plan. Businesses with fiscal years that align with the calendar year are working these out right now for 2014. The reality is that you really don’t know how much you’ll sell and how much you’ll spend on making and selling that stuff until it’s already happened. Hence the word “anticipated;” this is what we expect to happen.

At the end of the period – usually the month – you tally actual sales against actual costs and compare them to the AOP. If necessary, you adjust one or both sides of the ledger and move forward. Managers are judged on the accuracy of the predictions in the AOP, quality of execution of aspects of the AOP and their ability to adjust based on actual results.

If sales fall short, then you’ll need to cut back on the expense side. If sales are better than expected, you’ll have extra cash for expansion. Sometimes, light sales don’t result in expense cuts if a business thinks it’s investing wisely in something that will provide a return later on.

The reality is that when sales fall short and expenses need to be cut, the cuts almost always come from the admin, customer service, marketing and sales lines. These lines are, literally, closer to the bottom line and therefore considered more discretionary in nature. Ads can be cancelled, tradeshows cut back, sales trips postponed, admin workers laid off; this sort of thing. Often, cutting back on marketing and sales produces even weaker sales and the company enters a death-spiral.

Lines that are higher up the profit-and-loss report, like R&D, overhead and especially cost-of-goods-sold, is money already spent and/or essential to the enterprise. Along with accurately forecasting sales, rightly predicting these costs is the essence of generating a profit in a complicated organization.

The Government is not a Business

Even though I’m going to use this analogy, it has severe limits that really ruin things – like the country – if you take this too far. For example, no business is responsible for the roads and bridges that let them move people and things between supplier, factory and market. That’s the government’s job, and it’s a big one.

Likewise, no business is responsible for the total environmental impact of all businesses. Each business is responsible for its own impacts, allegedly, but only the government is tasked with ensuring clean air and water for everybody.

Finally, the government, unlike a business, has only a small amount of choice about what activities it should become involved in. Businesses can change their plans with great autonomy or even “pivot” from one market to another, but the federal government is constrained by the US Constitution to provide a range of services.

The “mission statement” for the US government is right there for anybody to read; it’s the preamble to the Constitution. “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”

So there’s that.

Hypothetically, Though, Let’s Say…

All that notwithstanding, let’s say the government were a large corporation that sells goods and services to a mostly national market. At the broad-brush level, this is fairly accurate, IMO. This business has numerous factories, R&D facilities, offices, data centers and other sites mostly in the US. It makes and sells lots of different products and services that it designs. It has an internal sales force for wholesale markets but also a large number of retail stores.

Now let’s say that there’s a giant battle among the directors about what the AOP should look like for FY2014. Furthermore, let’s say that the minority faction is unhappy about a decision the board of directors made under the legitimate rules of business. Because they can, this minority faction “closes the company” to try to get the majority to reverse its decision in order to save the enterprise.

Well, not really close the company. More like force some draconian measures that suspend all “non-essential activities”. To the markets it serves, the company is effectively shut, but internally, it does what it needs to do to ensure that it can reopen. Obviously, this means laying off a lot of the admin people, all the sales and marketing people and closing all the retail stores.

This minority does not want to destroy the company, so the overhead costs remain fairly steady. For example, they don’t disconnect the alarms at the retail stores. In fact, they have to hire extra security. And they keep the heat on at the main sales office so the pipes don’t freeze and ruin all the computers.

The minority expects the company to reopen, so they scale back at the factories but don’t close all of them entirely. Closed or not, those factories require continuous maintenance.

And especially, they don’t cut back on the R&D projects that almost all of them consider to be absolutely essential the company both today and into the future.

After a few weeks, the minority has inflicted a lot of pain on the company but not destroyed it entirely. They relent, and all the sales and marketing people get called back and the stores reopen.

At the end of the month, it turns out that the shutdown didn’t save any money at all. In fact, it caused a pretty big deficit.

Why the Shutdown Cost $3 – 4 Billion

In this oversimplified analogy, it’s pretty easy to see why the shutdown cost this company money. They cut income from sales plus receivables to just receivables. Only it couldn’t receive the receivables because accounts receivable got laid off. But it still had to pay for overhead, whatever admin they retained, materials for the factories that were still open and those big R&D projects.

The 21-day shutdown in 1995-96 cost $2.1B in direct costs. Given inflation, changes in revenue sources and overall growth of the government, back-of-the-napkin estimators on the White House Council of Economic Advisors expect to see at least $3 billion in unplanned costs and lost revenues. National parks, for example bring in about $76 million a day in fees and sales.

The Government Shutdown as a Government Shutdown

To unlock this analogy, the “non-essential” government offices that closed were the same ones that generate a lot of the retail revenue. National parks, for example, generate real revenue from tourists. Regulatory bodies generate real revenue from application fees.

And they should. Freedom isn’t free. (Neither are elections, but that’s another story!) In fact, people on the right are constantly talking about “running the government like a business.” That means charging fees for services.

***At this point I want to reiterate that this essay is _NOT_ about discussing the fine points of how much the government should charge or what services it should provide. The point is to lay out a broad-brush framework that explains how the government behaves as a fiscal entity and why the unrealized revenue expected in the AOP counts as a loss.***

On the costs side, very little changed. Even a shutdown EPA still needs to be heated/cooled to protect the building and stuff in it. Even a closed office building uses a lot of energy.

Nor did the NSA stop its work, and that ain’t any kind of free. As a genuine inquiry, did all the NSA contractors from Booz-Allen get their checks?

Something else that didn’t shut down – the war machine. Zero drone flights got cancelled. Zero operations got cancelled. In fact, elite forces undertook to smash-and-grabs, er, extraordinary renditions during the shutdown.

In my analogy, these are the absolutely essential R&D projects. (Essential, according to the board of directors, not me.)

Conclusion

When you prevent yourself from bringing in revenue but leave your costs essentially unchanged, you run red ink. It’s just that simple. Again, the analogy is flawed. Some real R&D at NIH got shut down and perhaps the war machine is better analogized with our businesses’ factories.

The fact is that _actually_ closing the government would be so great a shock to our economy and our society that almost no politician in Congress or the White House would do such a thing. Indeed, they are mission-constrained to:

  • Form a more perfect union
  • Establish justice
  • Insure domestic tranquility
  • Provide for the common defense
  • Promote the general welfare
  • Secure the blessing of liberty on ourselves and our posterity

I do not see how the shutdown served any of these aims.

Correction

The original version of this essay mistakenly used the estimated $24B cost to the US economy as the direct cost to the government. I apologize for the error.

David Byrne’s song for the One Percent


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

David ByrneFormer Talking Heads frontman David Byrne’s recent article in the Guardian lamenting the impact of streaming services like Spotify has appeared one too many times on my social media timelines to spare you all the following rant. In brief, the piece reveals Byrne as a one-percenter with no real sense of the lives and needs of the 99 percent of musicians and artists in the US.

No, I won’t be making the obvious you-kids-get-off-my-lawn argument. Too easy. Nor will I discuss the qualities of Byrne’s music that might make him concerned about his earning power as he ages.

Rather, this essay discusses copyright laws, the structure of the music industry at various levels and how David Byrne’s zero-point-one percent problem is the desirable outcome of the largely democratizing impact of the Internet on the musical arts. As I often try to do, I’ll add a punchline.

The Talking Heads Catalog Should be Free

Early in the article, Byrne announces that he’s removed as much of his catalog as he can from streaming services. If I were a cynical PR hack, I might think that this article was an explanation to his fan base about why they might not be able to get Artists Only on Spotify anymore. This, in and of itself, is a one percent give-away.

Surely, it’s the Talking Heads catalog and not his later solo work that is streaming at high levels and, as he sees it, depriving him of his deserved revenues. He can thank two extreme conservatives for the privilege of making this argument: Walt Disney and Sonny Bono.

According to the Statute of Anne, the English law from 1710 that is the basis of modern copyright law, all Talking Heads music published before 1985, essentially all of it, would today be in the public domain. The Statute of Anne provided 14 years copyright protection from the time of creation, with an additional 14-year extension if the creator is still alive. 77 + 28 = 105, thus the first Talking Heads record released in 1977 would have entered the public domain around 2005. All the good stuff – the Eno stuff – would be free.

As material in the public sector, these songs could freely be played, covered, added to, sampled, etc., and one could argue that it would keep Talking Heads music a relevant part of the ongoing artistic conversation. Instead, assuming that various composers live past 2030 (just 17 years from now), then this music will not enter the public domain until the late 21st or early 22nd century, depending on authorship. Thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, protections last 70 years after the death of the creator or 95 years from publication for corporate (group) creators.

So marking the 22nd century as the next time Talking Heads music will be a relevant part of the artistic conversation assumes, probably wrongly, that Congress won’t extend the term again as we approach the magic 70 years after Walt Disney’s death. That’s 2036, if you’re keeping score at home.

The new and radically progressive English parliament created the Statute of Anne to encourage creators to create, to provide a financial incentive for them and not the publishers, who tended to censor the content available to the public. Thus the limited term sought to reward creators for a reasonable period and then allow the public free access to do with the material what they would. In this regard, it is one of the most progressive laws ever created.

The framers of the Constitution patterned US copyright law on the Statute of Anne, enshrining in the Constitution that copyright would be for a “limited period.” Legend is that Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA) once argued that copyright should be forever. When informed that this was unconstitutional, he suggested that it be “forever minus one day.”

As it stands today in the US, publishers enjoy nearly complete control over the material available to the public. Or they did, until the Internet happened.

“Because a Record Label Believed in Us”

“I can’t deny that label support gave me a leg up,” Byrne states, while simultaneously admitting that it’s not a requirement. Indeed, Metallica – one of the biggest Internet haters of all – grew their fan base organically with live performances and self-produced records sold by mail-order. Granted, Metallica was a heavy-metal band back then, so it’s apples-and-oranges. But I digress.

Byrne argues rightly that services like Pandora and Spotify make most of their payouts to record labels and that the labels usually keep most of this for themselves. What he doesn’t say is that this is no different from any other kind of sale of label-managed music. From the dawn of the industry, most publishers have taken advantage of desperate and/or poorly-informed artists.

In all likelihood, Byrne was one of these. When Byrne talks about pulling as much of his catalog as he can, he intimates that some of the material – most likely the early and high-quality TH material – is out of his and probably the other band members’ control. Its the most common trick in the record label book to give artists a big advance with an unrealistically short repayment window so that they forfeit their rights for non-payment.

Labels are similarly famous for not paying artists according to contracts. I heard a story once of a CPA in LA who specialized in auditing record labels on behalf of artists. After hundreds of audits over more than a decade, he found zero instances where labels had fairly compensated artists. Not a single one.

One might wonder if Byrne is under a gag order not to defame his current or past labels, but only Byrne, the labels and the NSA know for sure.

Byrne makes passing allusions to things like live performances and sales of non-music items like t-shirts, but the basic premise of his article is that musical artists generate the majority of their income from sales of recordings. This is the one percent give-away. In fact, it’s more likely that just one tenth of one percent of musical artists make the majority of their income from recordings. As a local reference, Deer Tick would likely be in this group.

The second zero-point-nine percent cobble together income from small-venue performances and merchandise sales to make such meager existence as they can. The Low Anthem, whom I’ve come to know to some extent recently, are signed to a significant label – Nonesuch. But they are in this second point-nine percent, needing strong performance revenue to make ends meet.

The 99 percent of musicians have other jobs. Even a band as apparently successful as Roz Raskin and the Rice Cakes all have jobs. I know this because I patronize the shop where Roz and drummer Casey work. (Magma video…teh awesome.)

Technology and the Democratization of Music

So where is Mr. Byrne on these issues? 1977, apparently. The reason that fewer and fewer musicians make significant revenue from recordings is not the Internet itself; it’s the value of recorded music, which is significantly lower than it was before two key technological changes altered the equation.

At $0.99, the price of a “single” recording is lower than it was. But that lower price is due to an enormously expanded supply of such recordings.

When the labels could control what and how much music the public could access, they did so by virtue of the high costs of creating a recording and the significant logistical challenges of distributing that recording on even a regional basis. Under such an arrangement, signed artists like Byrne could benefit greatly, if they were savvy enough to protect their interests. The 99.9 percent had to keep their day jobs.

Since 1977, that second point-nine percent has entered the market, increasing by 900% (assuming these rough estimates) the number of options available to the music consumer. It’s supply-and-demand revolution, enabled by the combination of cheap, high-quality recording technology and free/freemium, Internet-based distribution outlets like Bandcamp, Soundcloud and Spotify. As an added benefit, it eliminated the labels from the equation.

Thus, for 90% of the content providers that use them, these streaming services act as their primary marketing vehicle to drive sales at their live shows. This, Mr. Byrne, is the modern music industry for almost everybody. You and the people you know are the elite.

Where are you, Mr. Byrne, on issues like universal health care that would make it so that we wouldn’t need to hold charity drives when one of our own gets leukemia? Where are you, Mr. Byrne, on the issue of living wage, which would make it possible for a person to have a decent half-time job that provides subsistence such that they could play music as a second career? Where are you, Mr. Byrne, on cutting back on the outrageous copyright laws that enable the tyranny of the labels against which you rail so meekly.

Oh, that’s right…you’re not a US citizen. (I should note that Byrne’s native UK government went even farther than the US government in its most recent copyright shenanigans, actually reinstating copyrights and thus removing material from the public domain. This villainy shames the parliamentary institution as nothing else can. Queen Anne would puke.)

And the Punch Line…

Byrne’s previous article in the Guardian…?

If the 1% stifles New York’s creative talent, I’m out of here.

Here’s your coat. What’s your hurry?

Come to the Wooly Fair Town Meeting Tonight

If you have not attended Wooly Fair, you are either a recent transplant or make mediocre decisions. Wooly Fair is an event so unique and so awesome that it literally defies description. Seriously, I can’t count the number of times I’ve spent 10 minutues trying to answer the simple question “What is Wooly Fair?” only to make the questioner even more confused. Now, I just say, “If I can tell you what it is, we’re doing it wrong.”

But now, pretty much everybody who’s ever been to a Wooly Fair has been asking, “What happened to Wooly Fair?”

The truth is that the event got too big for the rag-tag coalition of artists and activist to manage effectively. So in 2012 we chose to focus on reorganizing ourselves to support the growing event.

Now we’re Wooly Town, established 2013, and bigger and better and woolier than ever. And tonight we’re launching work on the 2013 Wooly Town Fair…WOOLY FAIR!!!

Wooly Town Meeting Tonight

At the Wooly Town Meeting tonight in Monohasset Mill the Wooly Town governors, who have been working for a year to get ourselves to this point, will present our plans for the 2013 Wooly Town Fair before holding an moderated, open discussion on the same. Then the various Wooly Town departments will hold a job fair and recruit people to work on various parts of the event.

Your Frymaster is director-nominee for the Wooly Town Deparment of Public Works, aka, the Wooly Works, and we have plans for wicked pissah building and stuff. But the 2013 Wooly Town Fair focuses primarily on electricity – generation, storage and delivery – so Power & Light will undertake an ambitious project to develop stand-alone, 12-volt infrastructure that will let us eliminate extension cords entirely.

Learn (barely any) more at the new Wooly Town website and/or sign up at the Facebook event linked above. And we’ll see you in Wooly Town!

Seven Short Essays On The Rhode Island Economy


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As Rhode Island’s economy struggles along, I’ve wanted to write several essays on the situation. Sadly, doing my part in the regional economy has me a bit over my head still…yes, even 18 months in. The ship of [redacted] turns, but slowly.

So instead of boring RI Future readers with 7,000 words, here are seven very brief essays on the RI Economy.

November Numbers

Three months does not make for a strong trend, but all the meaningful employment figures are at multi-year highs/lows. The workforce has regained its levels from February 2011, having regained about half of the losses from it’s 2006/2007 all-time peak. Employment is at a level not seen since March 2009, but it has only regained 20% of losses from the peak. Finally, unemployment is at its lowest since April 2009, tracking inverse to employment about 20% of the way from the peak to the recent low.

Geek that I am, I’m anxiously awaiting the December 2012 figures in a few weeks’ time and hoping for signs the trend will continue.

What We Don’t Know

We know that about 40,000* 60,000 people in Rhode Island are listed as unemployed per the U3 number. We can project that the U6 number (broadest definition of “unemployment”) about doubles that.  What we don’t know is who they are or why they can’t find work.

One reason for this lack of insight might be that the organization that would be able to provide deeper demographic data is the  Department of Labor & Training – the same organization that has to manage this exceptionally high number of unemployed people.

It would be great to know more, but by the time DLT has the bandwidth, nobody will care any more.

A Hiring Anecdote

I recently hired for a position at [redacted] advertising it on the RI Craigslist and some other places. I even did some personal social media outreach. It’s a good job: entry level on an executive path, salary in the mid 30s and at a cool company but about 25 miles from Providence.

I expected to be overwhelmed with resumes; I got 12. Of the lot, three merited call backs. One had more experience than we needed and declined on the salary. The other two interviewed, and one was not that impressive. The last one, though, was a gem just out of JWU. Our new employee is doing a great job for us, but does anybody wonder why I got 12 resumes for seriously good job?

Our Brand

My entire professional life has centered around creating communications channels between organizations and individuals, then creating content on behalf of the organization and interacting with individuals…I think they call that “branding”.

Such success as I’ve enjoyed is due in part to my basic understanding of how this game is played – the market tells you what your brand is, not the other way around. Specifically:

  1. If you tell people your brand is something it’s not, you lose
  2. If you tell people they are wrong about what they think your brand is, you lose
  3. If you tell people your brand is what it actually is, you might win
  4. If you let people tell you what your brand actually is, you win

Of the four scenarios, two are straight-up losers, one gives you a shot and one is a gimme. Naturally, virtually all VPs of Corporate Communications and their analogs in government prefer the first two options to the third, which they’ll take after the first two fail. And as for listening to the marketplace, well that’s SOCIALISM!

This long-winded introduction sets up the following eye-opening (for me) insight that came from a visitor last summer. A friend of the wife was visiting from out of town, and they dropped by while I was working the Narragansett Beer Neighbor Days in Luongo Square on the west side. I was too busy to talk, but after the gig he told me:

“Never before have I seen so many beards, tattoos, dogs and cigarettes all in one place at the same time.”

Like it or lump it, Providence, this is our brand.

Lifestyle Companies

Lifestyle companies are not lifestyle brands that support a particular lifestyle. Lifestyle companies are companies – small, usually family-owned – that serve as the basis for the lifestyles of the owner/workers.

The term comes from the venture capital space and serves to differentiate these companies from “investable” companies. The difference is one of scale and growth. Lifestyle companies favor control and stability; thus, they do not seek explosive growth or the venture capital to drive it.

I actually heard it said by a muckety muck inside the EDC that “if Rhode Island became the capital of lifestyle companies, there’s a lot worse fates in life.”

You know what…? That sounds like a plan.

Honoring the Trades

As the living embodiment of east coast liberal elitism, it frequently shocks Righty when I start talking about sweating copper piping, pulling cable and wiring receptacles, etc. It usually turns out I’ve done a lot more physical labor and skilled trades work than Righty has. (Not for nothin’, but they  call the GOP “the country club set”.)

Here’s my beef – pissing on the trades and tradespeople is a bipartisan effort. There’s this general idea in the US that a “good job” is like the one I describe above – inside, wearing nice clothes and sitting in front of a computer. Except that a licensed plumber with 4 solo technicians should pull in about $1,000,000 annually, pay each employee less than $100,000 and divide the rests with Uncle Sam.* [*See my comment below.] Not too shabby.

Unless something radical has occurred in the last couple of years, Rhode Island imports welders. Not nuclear engineers; welders. Welding is both dangerous and lucrative. Welding is why we not only have but absolutely need unions*. Welding underwater is really dangerous and really lucrative.

My point is that the continuous derogatory references to non-office work degrade its perceived value but increase its actual cost. Is a small plumbing shop really a million-dollar-a-year business or are prices for plumbers higher than necessary because we lack plumbers but have lots of old toilets?

The Downside of Small

I close with this stunning revelation: Rhode Island is small. Because our state is so spectacularly small, we are far more dependent on our neighbors than they are on us. Granted, the Providence metro is essential to southeastern Mass and western Connecticut. But people in Norwalk, Springfield and Boston really don’t care.

Our economy is inextricably linked to those of our neighbors, yet our leaders like to pretend that it’s not. (And kudos here to the Speaker for having both CT and MA represented at his event.) Many times, interesting conversation end abruptly when I say, “No, just over the line in Mass.”

Until we accept the regional nature of our economy and the imbalance in dependency on our neighbors, we cannot possibly craft optimal policy for shared prosperity.

Note to Obama: Leave Our Senators Alone


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Sen. Jack Reed, delegate Mary Alyce Gasbarro, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at delegation breakfast on the last day of the DNC. (Photo by John McDaid)

Could we please have one day in which one of our recently- or even not so recently-elected pols isn’t a candidate for some other job? If the #2 line prep cook in the East Wing kitchen calls in sick, Politico will immediately speculate that Obama is already talking to Jack Reed.

Leave our Senators alone. Operative word: our.

We elected people into offices to fix the serious, serious problems we face right here at home, and these are not “one-term” problems. Just as President Obama inherited an epic cluster-up that is not even half-way fixed, Governor Chafee and Mayor Taveras stepped into profoundly dysfunctional enterprises.

I find Dee DeQuattro’s speculation on changes we may see in or before 2014 deeply troubling. I want the incumbents to spend some more time doing the job they told us they were going to do when we elected them.

The Value of Good Managers

Over the past 15 years, I’ve spent almost all of my professional time in either startup or transitional/turnaround organizations. I’ve found that in all cases, the quality of the managers is key, but talent and bull-work cover up a lot of sins in a startup. In transitions and turnarounds, it’s all about the execution.

Organizations need to transition or turnaround because the asset base – the stuff they’ve built up – has become misaligned with the need set of their market. The basic job of work for the new management team is to realign the existing components to restore or enhance the flow of value through the organization.

Complex organizations comprise many divisions, departments, brands, etc., each of which represents its own specific transitional challenge. The greater the misalignment between assets and needs, the bigger a job it is to restore the flow of value.

In “transitions”, organizations change themselves; in “turnarounds”, changes are forced by external circumstances. Guess which one we got…

Bringing real and lasting change into our badly misaligned governmental organizations will take years and years of steady leadership. So rather than seeing Mayor Taveras run for governor, I would far prefer that he secure a second term and use it to develop a succession plan to carry the work forward after he has moved on.

A Case in Point

I had a meeting up in Boston with the New Urban Mechanics, Mayor Menino’s nationally prominent “Government 2.0” group. Their stock presentation starts more-or-less like this:

Thomas Menino has been Mayor of Boston for nearly 20 years. Calling himself “the urban mechanic”, he has spent those years fixing many of the city’s dysfunctional agencies, making them responsive, customer service organizations.

 

20 years. That’s a lot of election cycles. Where would Boston be today if Menino had decided to run for Congress? They most certainly would not be making smartphone apps that use the phone’s accelerometer to map potholes.

The New Urban Mechanics stressed the point that their work would not have been possible but for the quality of the organization on which their products depend. You can’t use data if it ain’t there.

Providence, then, has only just begun its journey toward organizational success. Having many years of frustrating experience with the city’s previous IT administration and having been a candidate for the CIO job, I can say with some authority that Providence as an organization could not effectively support the kind of work the New Urban Mechanics do.

But the city is starting down the path. I don’t want to dwell on this point, so suffice it to say that Mayor Taveras, his Chief of Staff Michael D’Amico and CIO Jim Silveria are doing a solid job with what can only be described as “a mess”. IT, a chronically under-resourced department, is utterly crushed under the organizational demands. It’s one of those rare cases where simply throwing a lot of money at the problem would have a massive impact, but that’s just not a possibility.

Instead, the Taveras administration will need to work piece by piece and department by department to shore up what’s weak and try to repair or replace those parts that don’t work. And such a pursuit takes time. So Mr. Mayor and all the gang – take your coats off and stay a while.

Meanwhile, in the Governor’s Office

Mayor Taveras must be pretty relieved that HE doesn’t have to deal with the absolute catastrophe that is the RIEDC. And Governor Chafee is likely spitting mad at the Carcieri mob for putting a flaming bag of poo on the state house steps, ringing the doorbell and running away.

And yet I hear people complaining that Chafee hasn’t done enough to create jobs.

In all honesty, I took my eye off the ball for the first year-and-a-half of this administration, so I can’t really assess whether or not Chafee is the manager we need. My gut tells me he is.

Look at the basics:

  • He’s a wonk
  • He’s a nerd
  • He spent significant time as an executive (Mayuh uh Wahhick)
  • Warwick seems like a competent enterprise
  • The MBTA train stops at the airport
  • That waste water treatment plant…it’s the shizz

But like most Rhode Islanders, I only have so much patience. To defend his office, Chafee will need at least one, big, ringing success. Where Mr. Taveras seems gifted with mayoral superpowers, Governor Chafee appears all-too-mortal. And please, Governor, do NOT try to make your one big thing a “buffalo hunting” trophy company such as…well, you know.

Instead, I hope the governor focuses on energy services and the environment as pathways to economic prosperity, championing:

  • A feed-in tariff for alternative energy
  • A “buy local” set aside for key state procurements (food, unis, laundry – the basics)
  • Large-scale composting
  • Farming-preferred zoning and land-use laws

And in the name of human compassion, please lead in the effort to transition our housing stock away from heating with oil -OR- develop a bio-diesel supply chain up to the scale we need for our supply.

See what I’ve done? In the absence of direct awareness of specific managerial decisions, I’ve just produced a wish list of policy items for the success of which Governor Chafee would need to wrangle the obstreperous General Assembly. Good luck with that.

Chafee’s success starts and ends with the EDC. Having spent a bit of time inside 315 Iron Horse Way, I know there’s a lot more to that place than just the kind of people who brought us 38 Studios. For example, a lot of people spent significant energy producing this Green Economy Roadmap only to see any follow-on action personally crushed by Mr. Carcieri via his henchman, Al Verrecchia.

The Carcieri mob liked to put on a good show, creating expert-laden, press-ready workshops on all the hot-button issues. All the while, it turns out, they could not have cared less. Rather, they were hell bent on the regressive economic development approaches they claimed to oppose.

Those workshops, however, actually delivered some degree of value, at least the ones that I worked on. Those experts are actual experts, and a lot of the work is quite good. One might even suggest that the Governor’s people dig into the archives of the late, lamented Economic Policy Council. (Here’s how you know somebody’s a sucky manager: they always fire the wrong people.)

So if Mr. Chafee wants to keep his job, he had better get some good people in the right positions making the right decisions. As an Independent, he’s on an island. The RI Democratic Party has a job to do. And I hear that they’re starting a Republican party in Rhode Island, too, so there’s that.

The Alternative

Rhode Islanders, against these incumbent consider the unavoidable result of changing these two key administrations at this specific point in time. Nearly two years into their first terms, each of these executive leaders has only just begun to get a handle on the deep issues, Taveras more than Chafee it would appear.

Were we to send new people to these offices, the new leaders would need at least a year – and likely more – to learn the organization and it’s peculiarities, it’s hidden power holders, it’s ins, it’s outs, it’s what-have-you’s. (You have to know the players and their ways before you can take a serious shot.) We would lose time, significant time, and time is one thing our economy, our environment and our state ain’t got.

The best thing we can hope for is that they stick and stay and make it pay.

Machinations in District 4


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Mark Binder is running against Gordon Fox.

I have long argued that the key to contemporary Rhode Island politics lies almost entirely within the RI Democratic Party. “With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans,” I quipped. In 1995.

The laws our General Assembly has FAILED to pass undermine our “most liberal state” reputation. The keystone legislation for any liberal issue area never seems to make it to the governor’s desk. Environmentalists have given up on the Bottle Bill. We lack any alternative energy feed-in tariff. We don’t have a state bank. And, most glaringly for a state as gay as ours (and I mean that in the good way), we lack marriage equality.

On this last item, we’re already behind liberal stronghold New Hampshire and soon to be behind Maryland, a state south of the Mason-Dixon line. We’re behind The South. THE SOUTH!

As a Rhode Island progressive, I see only one reason we don’t have this kind of legislation – the RI Democratic Party, the state party. Having held the reigns of power for decades on end, there is no other option on the table. In a case like this, The Machine is responsible for its own product.

How to Dismantle a Machine

In my 20+ years bathing in the waters of RI politics, the great tide has slowly eaten away at the edifice of the RI Democratic Party. While the RI GOP has done well to win the governor’s office with surprising regularity in the last two decades, the Dems have defended from a virtually unassailable fortress built within the state during the previous era.

I can only call the Dem’s traditional platform center-right; it reflects the demographics of another time. Strong, institutional labor unions with the cooperation of an inordinately influential Catholic Church served a political enterprise that specialized in inside dealings and turned a blind eye to vice.

Talk about your grand bargain? The arrangement outlined above covers pretty much everybody, and it works great when you’re flush. Riding strong middle-class growth in wealth, this model facilitated the creation of an operational network that dug itself into every corner of Rhode Island public and commercial life.

Only this: that was 30 years ago.

Since then, the grand bargain has gone to hell. Most of the players are dead or left, and growth of middle class wealth is a punch line. The network of relationships has held on with expected tenacity; nobody just gives up power.

Meanwhile, time marches on. Dedicated, old-school liberals within the party connected with smart, young activists for whom Rhode Island has become a magnet. Gen-X in mentality, these can-do, boots-on-the-ground political entrepreneurs created a grassroots network that has won a solid caucus of GA seats and, in case you missed it, Providence City Hall.

The 2010 Democratic primary decimated the old-school Machine. Frank Caprio, the Lynch brothers, Stephen Costantino and several GA Dems all routed in a progressive sweep. The writing, as they say, was on the wall.

Yours truly predicted a marriage equality bill by Valentine’s Day. Or not.

What’s the What? Who’s the Who?

Not for nothin’, but I should have been right about the marriage equality bill. Even if it lost in the full body, every Rep and Senator needed to put down a marker that would be a point of discussion in the next election cycle, i.e., now. Instead, RI Democratic Party leadership in the GA put forth a concerted effort to quash a legitimate bill put forward by the newly enlarged progressive wing.

It was a people-vs-machine struggle, and the Machine won. Despite a strenuous effort for real equality that should not be overlooked in this debate, we got a half assed cop out. And every legislator got a cop out.

Or rather, every legislator but one. And I’m sorry to break the news: it’s not Ms. Paiva-Weed.

I voted for Gordon Fox in 2010, fully expecting his powerful support for marriage equality. It’s a big issue for me. It is for a lot of people in the neighborhood, and Gordon Fox knows it. I used to describe my old micro-neighborhood as “1/3 black, 1/3 orthodox, 1/3 lesbian”.

The fiasco that was Art Handy’s bill shocked me. I kind of freaked out. I said some pretty un-nice things about the Rep, and friends know I can turn a colorful phrase. I believe this topic may have come up at one of the RI Future re-set meetings that were happening about the same time, so other authors can attest – I was cheesed.

In his position as Speaker, Fox had the opportunity to be a leadership voice for the growing progressive force. Considering his political history, it should have been a no-brainer. So his choice in this case felt to me like a betrayal of trust. And this from an in-district, many-term supporter.

Power, however, has its own ways. Rather than go with the incoming tide that he himself helped create, Gordon Fox made a political calculation that by caving in to the right-leaning, Catholic Church-influenced Democratic State Party Machine, he could somehow do more in other areas for RI progressives. Such as…?

Oh, right, that economic development idea!

When news broke about the RIEDC plan to guarantee $75mm in bonds for a video game company owned by a retired sports star, I wrote the following:

“I worry that our little state is too hungry to put out a decent headline and, like the rest of the US, terminally star-struck. This deal scares the bejeezus out of me… These are giant dice to be rolling, and surely, this will make or break the careers of the decision makers.

I am _so_ glad that I am not them.” (9 July 2010, Yesterday on the Internet)

It’s one thing to play politics with probably the single most important issue in your district. It’s altogether different to follow that up with complicity in a high-risk deal put together by an end-of-term Republican governor and his cronies. And when that high-risk deal blows up…?

Dissatisfaction in the district is pretty high these day. And yet Fox was running unopposed – the hallmark of a political machine. Everybody knew that any serious progressive candidate could do a lot of damage. So it should be no surprise that Mark Binder’s independent candidacy rapidly gained traction. It is arguably the biggest political story in the state this cycle.

Mark Binder, Independent for RI House, District 4

I’ve known Mark Binder for about 15 years. We met when we both hosted Japanese exchange students from Bryant College, as it was called back then. We’ve watched each others’ kids grow up. We’ve helped each other in our various business ventures. We’ve talked an awful lot about local politics. He published my book.

Beyond being articulate, well-educated, civically-active and pretty good with policy, Mark Binder can bring sharp insight into the state house for this simple reason: he knows what the hell is going on.

By that I mean that Mark spends most of his time “in the field”, performing as a storyteller at schools across the northeast. One might assume that the schools where Mark performs would be in well-off towns, but his actual mix spans the range from inner-city to remote, rural and poor. And perhaps no institution is a better indicator of a community’s social conditions than the public elementary school. So on a regular basis, Mark is working with the kids that policies are designed to help in the public schools that state and municipal governments provide. To say the least, Mark’s perspective is grounded in reality.

Many professionals, and now I include myself in this group, get a narrow and skewed perspective on the world simply for lack of bandwidth. We’re in the office or working at home. We go out with our clients and vendors. We travel to a conference. We don’t do much else (as my poor attendance on this blog proves out), and I believe our perspectives on the world suffer for it.

If you want to know about policy, ask a wonk like me. If you want to know about the impact of that policy on real people, ask Mark Binder.

If elected, I trust that Mark will strive to enact smart policy that strengthens the widely-shared progressive values of the community that elects him. He’ll vote his conscience and he’ll deal straight, because that’s the way he is.

The Binder Campaign and Political Costs

As I said, I was not surprised to see Mark’s campaign gaining traction. Likewise, I was not surprised to see anti-Fox forces rally to his cause – the classic “enemy of my enemy” alignment. (And, no, I don’t expect Jeff Deckman, whom both Mark and I know from our work with New Commons, to have an impact on Mark’s policy views. Rather, the opposite I’d say, as I’ve always read Deckers as more of a back-bencher and not so hard right as he plays. Be that as it may…)

It is a bit unseemly to have so direct an RI GOP connection. But, c’mon, people. What do you want from life? This is politics, right?

If Gordon Fox or anybody wants to play at the top, they are going to make political enemies, and therefore it is critical that they build a rock-solid relationship with voters in their districts. Fox critically underestimated the blowback from his failure of leadership on marriage equality. Long before 38 Studios collapsed, Fox’s potential vulnerabilities came up in many conversations.

And then 38 Studios collapsed, and the Speaker found himself in a serious fight, taking heat in the press. It’s unreasonable to think that the Speaker of the House that both failed his base and was complicit in an epic boondoggle would not face serious consequences. That this is even a story indicates how atrophied political machines make the politics that they dominate.

It looks like Speaker Fox is hung out to dry here, but only because he is. Even given today’s legal action from the EDC, Gordon Fox is left holding the political bag in this spectacularly costly and potentially ruinous disaster.

He’s only paying the price because Mark Binder is running against him as an independent candidate. Dissatisfaction is pretty high, and Speaker Fox needs to get a sense of how high via the polls.

The Machine Fights Back

Likewise, I am not surprised to see the party rally to the Speaker’s side. The recent chain of endorsements leads me to think that the Binder campaign has raised appropriate concern within the RI Democratic party about their ongoing vulnerabilities.

It’s pretty thin gruel to compare reciting an incumbent’s own failings with mud-slinging. Fox needs to stand and account for his stewardship of MY vote, of Mark’s vote, of the votes of all the people in the neighborhood that are [colorful turn of phrase].

38 Studios, frankly, I could forgive, as I never envied anybody the position on that call. I look forward to the deep study on what was said to whom when.

Marriage equality I can’t forgive, but it wouldn’t have been a deal-breaker had there been something else to soothe the sting. There was nothing else, and a negative result is unacceptable from leadership.

“Faith has been broken. Tears must be cried.” ~Wild Horses, Richards/Jagger

The Ugly Reality called “Tomorrow”

Here’s the sad truth: it scarcely matters. Whoever represents the fourth district, Rhode Island faces a massive headwind. We face high unemployment, still-massive retirement and pension costs and there’s precious little on the “plus” side of the ledger to build around. The real solutions the RI Democratic leadership needs to get behind are _not_ the ones they get from the usual cast of characters.

Progressive policy, smart policy yields great benefits that lower the drag on everybody’s life, producing prosperous economies and thriving communities. Restoring environmental resilience should be a money maker, not a money loser. Alternative energy is such a no-brainer that I will no longer discuss the topic.

I wish I could say that the RI Democratic Party was capable of assessing this complex and deteriorating situation, plotting the smart, non-boondoggle course and then mustering the political will to enact the bold reforms that constitute the state’s last, best chance.

I don’t think the leadership of the RI Democratic Party is up to this task. I _definitely_ don’t think the leadership or any other part of the RI GOP is up to this task. That’s not to say that this state doesn’t have talent that’s up to the task – and many GA Dems are part of that talent pool.

The leadership of the party, though, needs to know that this past session was not what the progressive culture sector- and entrepreneurial-types were looking for when they chose to move to RI and live in House District 4.

That is why I am voting for Mark Binder. I hope a lot of people do. I hope he wins. I and many others in District 4 want the state party to register our severe dissatisfaction with their performance.

Why America Is Screwed, but How RI Can Help


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Illustration by Jay Vollmar, courtesy of Denver Westword.

I’m in a particularly foul mood this evening, so I thought I’d share. And I’ll get right to the point:

America, you’re screwed.

With growing frequency, I’ve heard or read conversations between people of opposite political philosophies that go something like this:

Sap #1: X is bad and ruining the country.

Sap #2: Yeah, well both political parties are equally responsible.

[Some amount of discussion about which party is more responsible, ending with agreement that corporate power and its influence on government are at the heart of the problem.]

Sap #1: Yeah, that’s why I’m voting for [Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or other 3rd-party wastes of time] for President.

Sap #2: Yeah.

To me, this is equivalent to determining that your roof leaks and that a storm is on the way. And then deciding the best course of action is to draw a nice bath.

If I were an oligarch and read that silliness on the Facebook, I’d clip the end off a Cuban and light it with a one hundred dollar bill.

“Nothing to worry about here.”

The Ugly Analysis

What’s most depressing about this line of reasoning is that it gets so perilously close to actual sanity before plunging itself into madness. Let’s take it bit by bit to see why.

“X is bad and its ruining the country.” 

“X” here could be pretty much anything, and I won’t argue about whether or not X is ruining the country. The US electorate seems hell-bent on ruining the country, so it’s a virtually endless list of items we could drop in here. If you think it’s ruining the country, I’m inclined to agree.

“Yeah, well both political parties are equally responsible.”

Here, we could quibble around the edges about which political party is more responsible for what, but in the aggregate, both political parties are equally culpable for the grand cluster-up that is USA 2012. From the police state at home to the military actions abroad both overt and covert, from elementary schools built on toxic waste dumps to the outrageous national debt and ALWAYS AND ESPECIALLY the ever-present, unimpeachable, saint-like presence of “The Market” as the ultimate arbiter of both value and values, the situation this nation faces would not have been possible but for the cooperation of both major political parties. Controversy here = 0.

[Discussion ending with awareness that corporate power and its influence on government are really and truly the problem.]

Wait, really? I should look into this concept. /sarcasm

Intermission Report: The Analysis Thus Far

There is no doubt that whatever is ruining this country stems from the fact that corporations are people with the same rights as you and me, but none of the responsibilities. Their money is speech, so they can “speak” in the political realm as much as they please. In fact, they can speak so much and so loudly that they can effectively write the laws that govern us all. Only they make sure the laws are such that if they get in trouble, instead of going to jail they get a giant check from The Taxpayers. Taxpayers are just like Corporate People, only we have to pay taxes.

Thus our hypothetical conversation has arrived at a potentially revolutionary moment. Both participants have realized that they are humans getting screwed by a governmental structure designed to support non-humans (corporations).

And then, it all goes so horribly wrong…

Why You’re Screwed, America

“That’s why I’m voting for a third-party/independent party candidate for President.”

Whoever says something along these lines needs to take a moment and reflect on whether or not they really ought to vote. I mean, if you’re foolish enough to do something like this with your vote for President, who know what kind of jackassery will influence your vote for an office that could actually DO SOMETHING about the situation.

To be sure, the idea of a third party is a fine one. This nation should have third, fourth and fifth parties. Hell, we’re big enough to have dozens of parties that win offices of various sorts. The third party portion is not what’s at issue here.

It’s the foolish, corporately-supported, bipartisan charade that the president can actually do something. In these pages, I’ve called the Presidency a McGuffin. It’s the Lady Gaga of politics. (And, per the late Gore Vidal, politics is the entertainment division of the military/industrial complex!) Nothing could be more meaningless to real change.

Yet you believe the President to be THE MOST important elected position, America. And that is why you’re screwed.

Hell, the third parties themselves are so brainwashed that they run a Jill Stein or a Gary Johnson for President, and do so with a straight face. I sometime wonder if the Koch Bros aren’t funding these effort surreptitiously. Gary Johnson makes Don Quixote look like Harry Truman!

And Now, For Something Completely Different

Those who know me know I’m loathe but morally required to say that if any political force in the US were serious about changing the dialog in this nation, they would study relentlessly and without judgement the efforts of the Republican Party of Texas from roughly 1985 to the present. These TX GOPers are an exercise in democratic revolution. They have (mostly) legally changed the conversation in hundreds of horrible ways. But they have changed the conversation.

And they didn’t do it by electing a President. In fact, that George W. Bush – an aligned, conservative Texan – was elected President was at best a side benefit. In all likelihood it was just happenstance.

These hardcore religious fanatics did it the old fashioned way: they ran for office. Any office. Every office. Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, School Committee, Dog Catcher. Not just any, but ALL of the local and state offices. And they won.

In so doing, they built a base through which they affected change such as they wanted to the point that national textbook publishers must now consider their wishes when creating schoolbooks.  Look deeply into the abyss, Lefty, and behold your desires!

So successful were these grassroots GOPers that they recently got their just desserts at the 2012 Republican National Convention: party bosses (read, wealthy donors) changed the rules to severely limit their ability to influence their party. And Ron Paul and the force that he legitimately mustered…well, any fair-minded person recognizes a straight-up freeze-out when he or she sees it.

Little Rhody, the Progressive Example?

It’s entirely possible the we here in Rhode Island could be the example for left-leaning efforts across the country. We’re not big enough to influence textbook publishers the way Texas (or California) can. But we can set out a template that others can look to build from. In 2012, it seems that we have an unprecedented number of first-time, left-leaning people-of-the-people running for state and local office.

Just off the top of my head we have Libby Kimzey, Abel Collins and Mark Binder running for state and federal offices. Two first-time women are running in the Democratic primary to replace retiring state senator Rhoda Perry. I know there are many, many more independents and/or first-timers that I can’t call to mind. But we got ’em.

This is how you build a base – from the bottom up.

If only a portion of these new-to-politics candidates win, it means that more will follow based on their success as they were emboldened by the success of the Teresa Tanzi’s and Sabina Matos’s of our local scene.

In Conclusion

America, you’re screwed if you focus on the President as the elected office in which you place your revolutionary aims. But, Little Rhody, you just keep electing these outsiders, and who knows? You just might push this country in a positive direction.

Wait, what happened? Wasn’t I in a foul mood?

Open PVD Public Hearing: Insider’s Report


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Open Providence Commission for Transparency and Accountability held its public hearing tonight at RISD’s Chase Center. According to public hearing veterans, it enjoyed excellent attendance and a high level of public engagement.

As a commissioner, the energy level of off-topic, single-issue commentary on the Facebook events page gave me some cause for concern (scroll down, you’ll find ’em). But, in the end, these tightly focused concerns highlighted broad issues that the commission had already identified.

I’ll try not to get too tedious with details and focus on the key take-aways. Later, I’ll call out a few individuals by name as they exemplified some key concepts that I, personally, would love to see move forward. And one that…wait, what did he say?

I Feel Your Pain

Each of these single-issue commenters attended, each of them spoke, and yours truly spoke individually with each one during the round table portion. Inside each of these stories lies a “pain point” brought on by a lack of awareness of factors that turned out to be critical to their situations.

To be sure, the “lack of awareness” was no fault of the commenter. In each case, the city made access to the relevant information either difficult or impossible — when the information was sought some years or even decades ago. This information consisted uniformly of rules, regulations  and laws that impacted residents but was opaque to them until they confronted it in a court of law.

To generalize the basic input, “How can a resident have a fighting chance if they don’t even know the rules of the game?” I think all RI Future participants can look at that basic question and reply, “A resident does not have a fighting chance.” The city has brought some of this information forward in the years since, but opacity remains an ongoing problem.

Fair enough. If the terms “openness” and “transparency” have any meaning in this context, they mean that a more-or-less capable resident or business owner can find, read and comprehend the rules and regulation that pertain to their situation. If this commission does anything at all, it should create a path to resolving this issue. Permanently and completely.

Some Basically Good Ideas

Another set of commenters sought to put forward ideas that could benefit a wide range of residents. Some simply indicated known examples from other jurisdiction like systems that alert riders to bus arrivals. (That, of course, lies with RIPTA at the state level, even though those vast majority of users would reside in Providence.) One, quite specific, asked for better guidance on exactly which kinds of urban farming spaces qualify for property tax relief. (That guidance may yet to be written.)

Others focused on more difficult issues like how departments generate and communicate policy choices. To me, this seemed particularly ripe in that it slices deeply into the critical space between privileged, internal discussion and public debate. It’s not an easy space to mediate, but an important one; to paraphrase one commenter, why bother going to a public hearing if the issue is already decided? Why, indeed?

How can we craft policy that meets conflicting needs sets? How do we balance the desire for confidential conference and public access? What happens if “everything” is public?

As all the commissioners repeated over and over, the public hearing would not provide answers; rather, we would try to generate a set of questions. Who will answer these questions and when? That, also, remains unknown.

Mini Bottom Line

Generating meaningful questions may seem weaker than providing solid answers, but if those answers are bad ones, what’s the point? While this one 2-hour meeting did not resolve every issue for every resident, at least it created a sense that people could be heard.

And it created a space where discussion could occur, where ideas could be put forward and not immediately die. My sense is that most participants left feeling better about their chances than when they arrived.

If this commission can pay that off, it’s all to the good. And, by gum, we’ll do our best.

Name-Dropping, For Good and For Ill

This can’t be an RI Future post if I don’t drop on a few players who showed and brought their whatnot. I mean, am I the Frymaster?

First up, Ms. Tara Pinski (and please forgive misspellings, as it’s late) chair of the PVD GOP – as she described ‘captain of a canoe’. While she led with an attempt at public humiliation – How many are registered Democrats? Who is compensated? – her suggestions were very good. In fact, one of them made me say, “Damn! Why didn’t I think of that?”

Sadly, her beefs about City Council minutes and voting are actually already available via the third party resource ClerkBase, of which she had never heard (see above, under unnecessary opacity).

How sad is that? And it’s no reflection on Ms. Pinski or the GOP. PVD, that’s our bad. (Votes are only captured in the minutes. Suboptimal as that may be, it is a public record and available for your parsing. Yes, it’s like picking crab, but by all means, pick that crab, populate that database and publish it for ALL of us to see, appreciate and criticize, er, discuss…)

Beyond that, she suggested streaming and/or captured audio and the ability to “Skype in” to City Council meetings. But the one that really caught me was a monthly “open mic” night with the City Council. That’s downright Uncaucus!

Next up, environmentalist Greg Gerritt, who’s on a bit of a tear linking economic development and environmental issues. He suggested that we try to capture and publish data on trash collection. If you pay taxes, you care about this issue and about this data. Trash is heavy, and we pay to drag it up to one of the highest points in the state. The less we trash, the less we pay. Plus, giant amounts of what we throw in the trash trash is actually worth good money. To review, you’re paying money to drag money up to the top of a hill and throw it away. Care to take a look at that?

Lastly, Mr. Anthony Gemma, candidate for CD…um which one? So he made some grandiose announcements and promptly split before anybody could ask him…”What?” While some of his statements are incontrovertible – lotsa places do lotsa stuff and we don’t have to reinvent the wheel –  he claimed to have developed a Providence citizens’ dashboard at a personal cost of over $100,000.

Yeah, $100k for a citizens’ dashboard that – if it actually exists – he could post that link in these here comments.  Here’s a question he dodged by splitting: exactly what data does your dashboard deliver, given that the city of Providence does not have one single scrap of data available via API?

 

Why the Projo Has Nobody to Blame But Themselves


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Over on the Facebook, dude of awesomeness Peter Hocking shared Ted Nesi’s blog post about the continuing deterioration in the Projo’s circulation. Surprisingly, their web traffic is also down and down hard. Call it 30%.

You know me; I wrote a snarky comment about how newspapers have nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament. That comment raised the ire of one Linda Borg, a Projo journo. (That link is to Ms. Borg’s LinkedIn page. If you click her name on the Projo website, it opens an email to her instead of a profile page that would have a short bio and a listing of her work. That is nine different kinds of stupid. More on this later.)

Some of her not-particularly nice comments about yours truly inspired this post. And my point here is not to excoriate Ms. Borg, but to win her over to what I would call “a more modern way of thinking about these things”.

My Newspaper Website Bona Fides

As longtime readers might remember, I spent about a decade as an early employee and later as a consultant building up a newspaper services company that is well known at the Projo and its parent, Belo Corporation. Our goal was to help papers get more ads, but as the resident “netizen”, I spent a lot of time trying to explain to the papers what this wacky Internet thing was all about.

My short answer circa 2000: It’s your future.

The papers didn’t care for that answer or any of the follow-on advice I offered. They didn’t care for it one little bit. More than once conversations devolved quite badly.

Eventually, I gave up. Most of the webby types that try to engage newspapers end up in the same place. Clearly, the Internet – and particularly “Web 2.0” – is a space that challenges virtually every core tenet of what it means to be “the paper of record”.

Newspapers and the Internet: A Brief, Skewed History

Granted, I’m not at all objective about this issue. I wanted to be the guy that taught newspapers how to be successful in the emerging, user-centric space that was known back then as Web 2.0. I was not, but neither was anybody else.

Here’s why: newspapers know everything. Including how to be successful businesses on the Internet. No matter how much data I brought to bear, no matter how many examples of proven, successful approaches I presented, the papers knew better.

They resisted mightily the concept of allowing “reader comments”. (Um, they’re called “users”.) And they positively ruled out the possibility of direct editor/journalist-to-user interaction. At best, they would implement the easily-gamed user voting form of moderation. Oh, and a lame ass and never enforced “be nice” note at the top of the comments.

The netizens predicted that newspapers that allowed unmoderated or lightly moderated commenting would rapidly devolve to a lowest-common-denominator form of discussion. Our experience from building, you know, the Internet told us that it takes tremendous effort to create a space where more-or-less intelligent, more-or-less civil conversation could occur.

NEWS FLASH: We were right.

The Cesspool

I’m virtually positive that my reference to newspaper website commentary as “The Cesspool” is what set off Ms. Borg’s relatively mild indignation. I did not coin the phrase but picked it up from a 2009 post by David Brauer, a Minneapolis alt-weekly reporter and blogger on the media scene out there. (For comparison, click Mr. Brauer’s name in the link. Three guesses what it opens…)

The cold, hard truth is that the term is apt. Newspaper commentary – unmoderated or lightly moderated – is a wretched, wretched space; no self-respecting netizen will wallow in it.

So it should come as no surprise that newspaper websites cannot aggregate any level of “stickiness”, that is time spent, pages per visit, etc. I have parsed a giant number of Audit Bureau of Circulation circulation reports, Newspaper Association of America reports, and pretty much any data source for newspaper performance. While they were able to grow unique visitors and numbers of visits, their engagement metric barely moved. (The image below is a chart from what looks like a late 2009 analysis I did. Overall NAA newspaper website performance for 2009 in a word: flat.)

And now, perhaps, the base metric – unique visitors – might be deteriorating as well.

I’m shocked. /sarcasm

Let’s Talk, Shall We?

Readers know that I’m not a big fan of the views of some of the commenters on RI Future, but I’ll give them all this: they’re here to debate. It ain’t always the most eloquent discussion, but at least it’s more-or-less smart people talking more-or-less on topic. And commentary here stands in marked contrast to that on the Projo site.

In all fairness, Projo’s commentary is better than, say, MarketWatch or the NY Post. But it’s not anything like what we have here or what we used to have on Urban Planet when that discussion forum was HAWT. (UP was the best discussion space I’ve seen in the PVD area. Woneffe, where have all the good times gone?)

The point is, there’s a well-known, easy-to-implement and documented, like, infinity times technique to creating a good conversation space. I can sum it up in one word: ENGAGE.

Odds are pretty much 100% that I will personally respond to comments on this post, and I certainly hope Ms. Borg is amongst the commenters. Other authors and our EiC Mr. Plain might be so good as to weigh in as well. It’s all to the good.

But the “professional” sites simply don’t allow editors, journos or other authors to participate in discussion. And because neither are they present to set the tone nor do they empower others to do so in their stead, they get what they get.

I don’t say this to be mean and I don’t say this in ignorance: the decisions that newspapers make about engaging on the Internet are directly responsible for their inability to thrive in a space where they should.

As Mr. Hocking says, “It’s heart-breaking.” If I seem cavalier and bitter, it’s because my heart was broken more than a decade ago.

Open PVD: Transparency and Accountability


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Exciting news for me! I’ve been asked to serve on the newly-created Open Providence Committee for Transparency and Accountability. Let’s call it Open PVD, okay?

The committee, created by an act of the City Council, is tasked with developing guidelines and systems to help people interact with city agencies, gain easier access to government information and, hopefully, deliver the efficiencies made possible by well-designed, web-enabled computer tools. You know, the Interwebs!

The trade term for this general area of work is “government 2.o”, meaning the application of the basic concepts of “web 2.0” to government services. In coming posts, I’ll write more about what that means in real terms, but for now, let’s just say that basic idea is to find ways to use the Internet to connect people with the City and the City with people.

Open Means Open

While it’s still early days, it seems likely that a good portion of our work will revolve around the open meetings laws. As an official committee, we are bound by those open meetings laws, so the very actions of the committee will be our first area of learning. What does it mean to comply with the letter of the law? What about the spirit of the law? What kind of tools exist now? How could those tools be improved?

In very short order, those questions will rocket out of the realm of the hypothetical and land squarely on Jump Street. And you, good readers, will enjoy a running commentary. I think you’ll find in these posts a more measured tone from your Frymaster – my “inside voice” so to say.

While many aspects of the City’s web-based services can improve, it’s important to appreciate the scale of operations for the City’s total information needs and the resources made available for the task. Given the deficits with which the City struggles, people should be realistic in what they expect. Having served on the Mayor’s Transition Committee to assess IT issues, I know first-hand the incredible challenge that this represents. Far too few have far too little to do far too much.

About the Benjamins

On this point, I want to reiterate that third item in the broad definition of goals: delivering efficiencies. Web 2.0 and government 2.0 have a third sibling, enterprise 2.0. This is the direction from which I approach the work. Enterprise 2.0 is a rapidly growing space for one very good reason – it saves money!

Basic Oil Economics or No More Jed Clampetts

T"...when up from the ground come a-bubblin' crude."oday’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC featured a typically brain-dead discussion of oil prices. I’ll summarize…

Joe Scarborough: We’re producing more oil, but the price is still high. That’s un-possible!

Time Mag’s Richard Stengel: I know. Can you believe it?

What’s missing from this discussion – and all the blather we’ve heard and will hear from the GOP during the 2012 election – is a fundamental understanding of what it means to produce petrochemical liquid fuels.

Oil Pumping Basics

Since before the Macondo explosion and leak, I’ve been a fan of The Oil Drum, a peak-everything blog that focuses on the oil patch. You really can learn quite a bit from the authors and the commenters, who tend to be oil field vets. Here’s what’s most important to this discussion:

It costs money to get oil.

The photo above is from the opening credits of the classic TV show The Beverly Hillbillies in which Jed Clampett is “shootin’ at some food, when up from the ground comes a-bubblin’ crude.” Half a century ago, that was a plausible scenario – oil deposits almost on the surface could be breached with virtually zero effort. Dig a hole anywhere in Texas, and you’re rich!

Those days are long, long gone. Hence peak oil. Peak oil does not necessarily mean that there’s no more oil in the ground; it means that we’ve reached (and surpassed) the point of diminishing returns in terms of the cost of getting oil.

Think about this: the Macondo well – referred to by workers as ‘the well from hell’ – required sending robotic submersibles a mile down in the ocean and then drilling a hole an additional two miles into the earth. So you’re reaching down a total of three miles just to get to the “discovered” deposit before you find out what’s actually down there. (Satan, as it turned out…)

That kind of engineering doesn’t come cheap.

If there were an easier and cheaper place to get oil, don’t you think BP would have opted for that? Of course they would have, but the fact is that there isn’t an easier place to get oil. Hence Macondo.

“Economic” Oil Extraction

It’s silly to criticize Obama or any part of the US government for restricting off shore oil production because the oil companies are already sitting on a giant number of leases. The reason that these leases aren’t being used is that it’s not “economic” to go get the oil – the price doesn’t justify the cost of extraction.

There’s a clear correlation between the price of oil and the amount of production, and this confirms the basic peak oil argument. The cheap and easy oil is all gone, so prices have to reach certain thresholds before it’s worth the effort to go get the oil we know is in the ground.

This is why 2008 was a banner year for deep water oil. Prices sky-rocketed, and suddenly it was worth the effort to drill down three miles to get to a deposit. Drilling platforms were double- and triple-booked. Even though prices fell by half from their peak as a result of the financial meltdown, they quickly rebounded to the $70 – $80 region.

After a brief hiatus, it was back to work for the rigs. A prime driver of BP’s foolish haste capping Macondo was that the drilling rig was already late for its next assignment. They also wanted to skip a step and turn the exploratory well into a production well to get the oil to market quickly.

With the current price of oil (NYMEX) over $100, seriously whacky oil sources become profitable – shale oil and even drilling in the Arctic Ocean. That is insane!

So, we know that we can get more oil if the price is high enough. Therefore, producing more oil won’t make prices go down to what they have been in the past; it will only make prices pull back from their highs.

So, sorry Newt. $2.50 per gallon gas is exactly as plausible as you becoming President of the United States.

The Two Main Drivers of Oil Extraction Costs

Obviously, the simple costs of getting labor and machinery out to the oil deposit’s location and then drilling, lining and capping the well represent the primary factor in the equation that determines if an oil well is economic to drill. Equally obvious is the fact that the market price – and no other factor – influences the decision to produce or not to produce. There are likely a few exceptions of deposits close to population centers or very close to coastlines, but there are so many leases on known deposits that fights over the exceptions are political shenanigans and little more.

Here’s what’s not obvious and what’s really behind the peak oil equation – the amount of energy it takes to produce energy. Deep sea submersible, massive mud-pumping ships and floating cities called “drilling platforms” don’t run on unicorn tears. They mostly run on oil.

As oil gets harder and harder to reach, it takes more and more energy to pump that next barrel. And even within a single deposit, the first barrels come out on their own but as pressure drops it takes more and more energy to get each successive barrel. Pumping the bottom of a well that’s three miles below the earth’s surface requires a lot of suction!

Compare the easy Texas drilling of the Jed Clampett days to the process of separating oil from Canadian tar sands or shale. It takes a lot of money and energy just to get the crude. Then you need to include the costs and energy inputs of distillation. That doesn’t come for free either.

The bottom line is that high gasoline prices are here to stay, and there’s nothing that any politician can do about it. Anybody who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Providence: My Favorite Town

There’s a show tonight at Machines with Magnets that I won’t be going to, but it will be King Hell awesome. I think The Silks are one of the best acts on wheels right now, even though I’m not really a roots music kind of guy.

Based on the advice of my friend Lord Giovanni, we brought The Silks up to the shop to cap off one of those morale-boosting days, and they positively CRUSHED it. It’s not easy to please true-to-life factory types, ultra-genius engineers and, well, me. But they had 100% of the people smiling. The support card tonight includes The Atlantic Thrills, who will rip your face off and gave up a stellar performance at last year’s Wooly Fair.

The wider music scene in PVD also includes The Rice Cakes clever post-pop, The ‘mericans ‘mericana as well as RI Future’s own Alex Moore’s The Invisible Hours psychedelic pop and Reza Clifton‘s soulful hip-hop to name but a few.

Okay, enough with the name-dropping link bait. You get the point.

Next month will mark my 20th anniversary as a Providencean (with a few years as a Bucketeer), and right now is the best it’s been. I realize that RI features some particularly ugly statistics and that some, even many folks are having a tough time. But for me, this is the most satisfying life experience to date.

Why? It’s the cult-chuh!

Compared to What?

Here’s the thing. It’s not like I moved here from South Carolina or the ‘burbs of VA. I’ve lived in Boulder, CO; San Francisco; Burlington, VT and East Jeezum, VT.

There’s obviously a pattern. I’ve always actively sought a liberal or progressive political culture and an active local arts scene. While I didn’t choose to move to Providence, I choose to stay because I really love it here.

It’s fashionable to bash on Rhode Island, and even I was pushed over the edge by my DMV-ing last week. But these negatives quickly fade away when I have so many stimulating and satisfying options from which to choose. When I hear people beef about RI, I really don’t get it. What do you want out of life, people?

Of course, Providence isn’t for everybody, and to each his or her own. I know that one frequent commenter is quite satisfied with the VA ‘burbs, although another person I know is positively hating it down there and can’t wait to come back. I’ve had family reasons to go to South Carolina many times, but I’m hoping I never have to go there again as long as I live.

To each his or her own. Fair enough.

Three One-of-a-Kind Examples of Awesome

If you’ve never been to a show at Machines with Magnets, you have missed a fabulous and unique experience. (GO TONIGHT!) MwM in Pawtucket is a recording studio, an art gallery and a performance space. And all the parts are strong. They’ve recorded both Battles records, local heros Deer Tick and a lot of other highly demanding artists. To call the shows in the gallery/performance space “intimate” does not express the immediacy of the experience. It is at once world-class, entirely approachable and actively supportive of the local scene. Where else can you cite that’s like that?

Wooly Fair, of which I am a part, is head and shoulders above any arts event I’ve ever been to. What makes Wooly so amazing is the complete and utter lack of support from anybody who’s not an artist or creative of some sort. There’s practically no corporate or civic sponsorship, and to date, it’s been almost entirely volunteer-driven. That leaves us free to create what no highly sponsored event can – total madness.

Lastly, Thee Red Fez is my favorite restaurant anywhere. Well, Bazaar in Amsterdam gives it a run for its money. It may be the ultimate expression of Providence-ness. Founded by a (married) couple of punks, it makes eclectic seem boring. The vibe is young and lively, and the menu is constantly changing with a focus on local ingredients. Chef Ed Raposa is a food genius. Breaded, deep-fried kim chee. Quod erat demonstrum. I’ve taken numerous clients there, and one – a true world traveler – paid it the ultimate compliment of photographing the menu and sending it to a friend as part of their ongoing best-menus game called “Where Am I?” None of the three guesses was “Providence”, and the revealed answer was met with complete incredulity.

This posting of some dozen-odd examples only scratches the surface of the outrageously rich cultural life that makes Providence such a great place to live. In conclusion, I like it here.

Cryptic Crossword #1

Welcome to the aggravating world of cryptic crossword puzzles. If you’ve never done one before, they’re like crossword puzzles, but devilishly difficult. (If you didn’t hate me already, you will after you try to solve this!)

Logistics

These puzzles are too difficult to try to solve online. You’re much better off printing the puzzle and working it on paper. That way when you’re thoroughly frustrated, you can toss the paper in the recycling or burn it after drawing me in effigy with green and blue pencils. Click this link to get the full, printable version.

I usually have scrap paper handy to work out the answers. Burn that, too.

About Cryptic Crosswords

Cryptic crosswords originated in Britain, and came to the US largely through The Nation magazines’ Frank W. Lewis, who died in 2010. A code-breaker during WWII and founding member of the NSA, Lewis developed a unique style on which I, poorly, model my own.

Unlike traditional crosswords, cryptic crosswords seek to obscure the answer with a complex clue. Half of the clue defines the answer while the other half expresses the answer cryptically. For example, the clue “Chimneys hold a thousand oddities (6)” would yield the answer “flukes”:

  • (6) indicates the number of letters in the answer
  • Chimneys means “flues”
  • a thousand is abbreviated “k”
  • Flues “hold” k, making “flukes” or oddities.

This type of clue is called a charade. There are several other variations, and I’m particularly partial to anagrams.

At The Nation, Lewis has been succeeded by Cosima K. Coinpott, aka Joshua Kosman and Henri Picciotto. They’ve put together this fine page on how to solve cryptic crosswords. You might want to print that out, too, so you have yet more stuff to burn.

About the RI Future Puzzles

Unlike most cryptic puzzle makers, I theme all my puzzles; it’s my thing. The theme of this first puzzle should be entirely obvious. (Start with 28 across.) Subsequent puzzles may or may not have a Rhode Island theme or a political theme. As I look through my file, I see ones about thunderstorms, household appliances and China. Whatever strikes my fancy…

I’ll attempt to post puzzles on at least a fortnightly basis, including the solution to the previous puzzle with the new one.

Best of luck to all. Please call ahead if you’re planning on stabbing me.

RI DMV: ‘Puters…yer doin’ it wrong!

RI DMV Paper FormIn general, I’m not much for complaining about government services. Yes, pretty much everything could be a lot more efficient, but the more you know about how things work, the more you realize that budgets often determine what gets cut and what survives.

But even I have my limits.

To be sure, I’ll let you know when I get to the part that’s got me cheesed. All the other stuff that precedes it is de rigueur, par for the course. To wit…

Prelude: Johnny Is a Bad Boy

Last Tuesday, I spent a full day on a relatively simple task – renewing my extra-expired registration. If I were a good boy, it all could have been much easier. But I’m very naughty, indeed, as you shall see.

I let the notice that I needed to renew sit on my desk for many weeks. I’d look at it every time I went through the bills, but I never felt like it was the priority. (As I said, naughty.)

When I finally did jump online, I found out that I owed state taxes from 2008. I knew that I hadn’t paid, and, like the registration, it was “on the list”. What I didn’t know is that I hadn’t even filed! (Very naughty, indeed.) Someday, I’ll write a confessional about my 2008 taxes, but for now, suffice it to say that if you’re a 1099er, 1) don’t have a very good year followed by a very bad year and 2) pay your quarterlies!

Well, I got that sorted out with the state and went to register online and, guess what… I owed taxes! This time it was the excise to Pawtucket, where I hadn’t lived for some time. So, I got that paid off and went to register and, guess what… The 90 day grace period had expired. (Have I mentioned that I’m a bit naughty?)

There was nothing for it; I had to go to the actual DMV.

Reset – Naughty Johnny is To Blame

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the state to use these mechanisms to enforce payment of taxes. I owed, and I knew that I owed. That I found out about these issues online rather than after an hours-long wait at the DMV is, frankly, a benefit to me.

So good on the state for having this in place, and good on the state and the municipalities for coordinating.

My Day at the DMV

Last Tuesday, I underwent the pilgrimage. It was the next-to-last day of the month, so the parking lot was full, the place was crowded and the waits were long. Really long. Three-and-a-half hours long.

That’s really a long wait for a DMV counter, but it is what it is. If I had paid my taxes, I wouldn’t have been in this mess. So I waited, getting a little work done on the laptop, so it wasn’t a total waste.

My number came up, and I thought I’d be done in a few minutes. WRONG!

‘Cuz, guess what… I owed taxes in Pawtucket! Only, I didn’t owe taxes in Pawtucket. I had paid those taxes some six weeks earlier. SIX WEEKS! Surely that’s enough time for the notice to find its way from Pawtucket to the DMV.

Or not. According to my research, forever and a day is not enough time for the coordinated systems to update. They NEVER update.

It’s a one-way street. The city of Pawtucket can put a hold on your registration, but they can’t take it off again. Instead – and it’s like this is some horrible trick they’re playing on you – you’d never know about this until you waited at the DMV.

The DMV clerk suggested that I call Pawtucket to fax the paperwork. She had all the phone numbers on a card. Apparently, this is so common that everybody knows the work-around.

I was hungry and opted to go home, grab a bite, confirm my payment and head up to The Bucket. I said to the tax collections clerk there, “DMV says I have a tax hold…” and she cut me off saying, “…buy you already paid.” She was already reaching for the forms.

“We’re not connected to their systems,” she said. But that’s factually incorrect. They’re only partly connected to the DMVs systems – connected in the way that serves them, but not in the way that serves the rest of us.

This is where I draw the line. If you’re going to play in this space, you have to complete the loop – your system has to be a complete thought.

The DMV should insist – INSIST – that any structure that can curtail one of their processes must – MUST – include the removal of that curtailment. (And, no, waiting until you get a DMV clerk to tell you to telephone the curtailer to fax the curtailment removal paperwork does not count.)

A Fully-Assed DMV System

Never serve rancid meat to the health inspector; never present a half-assed computer system to a computer jockey. For computer systems to deliver the efficiency benefits they promise, they must be fully-assed.

Since it’s clear that nobody involved has ever thought this through, here’s the way the DMV should be set up.

All the paper goes away, as does the waiting area. If there’s a line, it should be a line to get on a computer terminal, of which there are many. This approach requires far fewer clerks, so those people can be repurposed into coaching people who aren’t that great with computers fill out the forms ON THE COMPUTER.

Here’s why. When you fill out the paper form, the DMV clerk just re-enters all that information into a database. The database that ALREADY EXISTS is so thorough that the clerk knew the gross vehicle weight of my van…but she had to push the paper form back to me so I could write it in. (Do you have any idea how insane that is?)

The sad fact is that I have an account in the DMV database, but I can only access it from a remote computer and can only access it in a very limited way. Literally, I couldn’t even access my account from the DMV because there is no Wi-Fi service there!

The Saddest Part

I actually know the people who put together the DMV’s web services. The people at RI.gov  are technically a company called RI Interactive, a specially-missioned group that can only do work for government entities. They prefer to be self-funded. That is, they don’t charge the government entity anything; they make money on those little fees we pay for using the web services.

They do spectacular work, and every service that they develop is fully-assed. But, because of their mission, they are prohibited from working on the “back end systems” like the DMV database and its interface.

I’m not saying that RI.gov should run the DMV IT program. (Okay, I _am_ saying that, but I understand why that can’t happen.) I’m saying that EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT IT GROUP should model its work on what RI.gov does.

It’s not rocket surgery. It’s basic usability. It’s basic work-flow development. It’s basic government services.

RI DMV: use your whole ass! Ask RI.gov; they’ll show you how.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387