The_Boiling_Frog's Xanga

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:45:26 GMT

The Elephant and the Donkey

Once upon the time, an elephant and a donkey were out wandering near a river. They were good friends that hunted together and explored together. As they walked along the bank of the river, they could see on the other side of the river's edge - in the bushes there a grove of wonderful fruits to delight donkey's desires and elephant's excitement.

The river was too deep, of course for the animals to cross separately. So donkey said to the elephant, "let me ride on your back across the river. I can grab on to your big elephant ears as we ford the river, and I can stay dry."

To which elephant replied... "I don't think so, donkey. If anyone should see me helping you across the river like this, others will expect the same from me. I will carry you half the way, and the other half, you will carry me."

"That's ridiculous," said the donkey. "There's no way I could ever hold your weight on my frail legs, let alone breathe while under water. It would put me at great risk and great pain. Why would you want to do that to your friend?"

"I need to know I can trust you," said the elephant. "That you're not just using me for the fact that I am tall and can help you cross rivers. I am charitable only to those who deserve it, to those who show me charity in reciprocity. How do I know that you're not just taking advantage of me, and the opportunities I create for you?"

The donkey sat for a moment on a rock and thought for a moment. "I would be happy to reciprocate" said the donkey. "But my charity would never be able to equal yours. Your charity is grand, and all you have to do is lift a finger. Any small offering that I could muster in return would come at great pain to myself. Do you not see that your charity to me is a positive sum and my charity to you is a negative sum?"

"I get great value from helping others." The elephant snorted. "But my charity cannot be infinite. It should not be anticipated by everyone less fortunate than me."

The elephant walked over to donkey and patted him on the head. "There is very little I need from you, Donkey, and much you need from me. It follows then that I decide who deserves my charity, and I choose to base my decision on your willingness to sacrifice in kind for my benefit. This allows me to measure your loyalty. I do not wish to be charitable to disloyal people."

With that, the elephant climbed across the Donkey's back. Donkey held his breath and waded his frail legs into the water. About halfway through crossing the river, a cracking sound was heard and donkey screamed out in pain. Elephant climbed off, picked up donkey with his trunk and held him above the water the rest of the way across the river.

Later, the elephant helped donkey set his broken leg. They gorged themselves on the berries and fruits and wonderful delights the grove had to offer.

-TBF-

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:18:37 GMT

A lot of my friends are full-time students living on campus, with no jobs. They dedicate 100 percent of their resources toward two goals: earning their degree in business and building their resumes.

A degree and a good resume do open a lot of doors. But they only have validity within a certain context: the context of reaching out to the anonymous, like bait on a fishing line. You're fishing for someone richer and more powerful than you to discover an unfilled position in a big company, and sift through a pile of resumes. If you're lucky, he'll find yours, and decide to interview you

On the other hand, I still maintain a job in the working world. I've had about a dozen different jobs in my life, some of them paid pretty well. And not one of them required a resume or a degree. It was all through connections, knowing people who need things done, and knowing how to execute what they need executed.

I figured out long ago I don't want to work for someone else. I refuse to be a labor input on someone else's production possibility curve. Managers are always looking to squeeze as much as they can from their resources. That's not a good place to be.

A better place to be is somewhere where your resume isn't what got you in the door. Where you're not starting from scratch with people you've never met.

Why then, am I still in school? Why am I jumping through all these sheepskin-chasing hoops and building my resume? Well, I've had a lot of jobs where if I knew then what I know now, I would have handled the situation quite differently. Now that Economics has taught me to understand incentives, and statistics is teaching me how to estimate the world, I can allocate my time better, and optimize my skill set. I am in school to better myself, to learn more. I'm not here to chase a sheepskin and build my resume. I'm not in the market to get exploited. I don't need to go fishing for "connections." I just need to learn to understand the way the world works with greater clarity, and how to asses and solve problems. I want to learn to administrate an enterprise around an idea.

I am not here to be indoctrinated, dolled up, reduced to two pages of experience and crammed into a cubicle somewhere in the private sector.

I'll work for myself, I'll even work for other people if they pay me well enough. I've decided whaty I want my Business Card to say:

Ryan Brandys
Mercenary Executive
Pay me and I'll get it done.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:44:43 GMT

Ethical, Environmental, and Economic Analysis
of Electric Car Technology.

Purely Battery-Electric Cars have been around since the 1800's. We mostly see them today as short-range vehicles such as Golf-Carts, segways, and scooters. We also see Toyota and Ford offering "hybrid cars" with electric motors to supplement their gasoline engines. But the potential exists to mass-market electric cars to the commuting consumer market. Granted, electric cars are not for everyone. They will only serve the needs of 90% of the population. But the technology has evolved to a point where it is more than feasible to sell electric cars, and great effort is being made to hold back the introduction of the technology for political and economic reasons. This is a deeply unethical business practice.

When you compare an electric sports car such as the EV1 to a similar sports car running off a combustion engine, a few things stand out. First, the electric car has no exhaust, so it does not pollute the air as it drives around. The car is charged electrically at night when you plug it in to any 110 AC power source. Essentially, your car gets its power from your local power utility. Here in Illinois, about 65% of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. If you were to drive an electric car in Illinois, you could say its power is 65% nuclear.

Electric cars are cheaper to operate than comparable combustion engine vehicles. Typical consumer questions include: How far can it go on one charge, and what does it cost to "fill up?" To put it in perspective, try imagining a car with only a 7 gallon gas tank, but the gasoline only costs 60 cents per gallon. That's what it's like to drive an electric car. As long as you charge it every night and don't need to drive over 100 miles in one stint, you could do all your commuting in a zero-emission vehicle. That range might seem like a limitation, but realize that it could double with just a few years of R&D.

If you consider that every gallon of gasoline burned in a combustion engine adds 19 pounds of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, suddenly it becomes deeply unethical for our society to burn fossil fuels when they are not the most environmentally efficient, or even economically efficient energy storage system available. The true scope of the choice between gasoline and electric becomes clear after you spend just a few minutes in Los Angeles: the American city with the worst air pollution. Roughly 40% of L.A. smog is caused by passenger cars. Roughly 80% of those cars don't need to run on gasoline to serve their passengers’ needs.

An electric car does not need a radiator, or a water pump, or oil, or an oil filter, or an oil change every 3000 miles. A technician can work on the electric motor without even getting his hands dirty, because nothing is being burned under the hood. While a typical combustion engine has about 100 parts, any of which could fail and many of which need constant maintenance, the electric car has less than twenty parts in its engine compartment that need any maintenance at all. The majority of the parts in an electric car will last for the life of the vehicle. The electric car does not need gasoline. It just needs a power outlet.

So why aren't there more electric cars on the road? Why has GM and Toyota and Ford and other car manufacturers pulled the plug on their attempts to sell electric cars to the general public? Well, the best answer I can give has a political component and an economic component. To illustrate, imagine a day when 50% of the commuting cars on the road are battery-electric vehicles. Think of all the people who make parts for gasoline engines, maintain gasoline engines, sell engine coolant and lubricant and fuel additives and radiators, water pumps, coolant hoses, antifreeze, and the other 80 components that electric cars don't need. Now imagine 50% of those people suddenly becoming structurally unemployed. Imagine your job is to sell oil filters and one day your market is slashed in half. Even if it the most viable alternative from an environmental justice point of view, a lot of people still have a lot to lose if electric cars become commonplace on the road. People are just too selfish: they can’t think long term.

The typical line that economics classes feed you is that whatever firm can provide the best product at the lowest cost ends up getting the lion's share of the profits in a market economy. That's the essence of competition, the essence of trade that spurs advancements that expand our GDP, expand our Production Possibilities Frontier and move society forward. However, in reality, this trend is the exception rather than the rule.

In the auto industry, we have an oligopoly. Not only is there is heavy horizontal price collusion between “competing” car companies, but there are very heavy ties between automakers and fuel companies. One system powers the other, so there's an understanding and a set of common interests, say, Between GM and Exxon-Mobil.

Just because a technology exists that is cleaner, more efficient, and cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to operate does not naturally move it to the forefront of consumer demand. It sounds unnatural for society to resist efficiency and social progress, and for that trend to occur, you need political pressure to hold back the naturally equilibrating market forces. You need to plant the seeds of fear and doubt into the minds of the American consumer. You need to promise them impossible futures with "hydrogen fuel cells" and fill their minds with disinformation. You need to label Global Warming as a myth and keep America addicted to oil.

Why would a company like General Motors do such a thing? Why would one of our oldest and most respected American companies resist change? Well, GM took sides on this issue in 1927, when it bought up one of the first electric car manufacturers and then shut them down. GM knows that they have a lot to lose (in terms of expensive upkeep revenues) if they produce a product that doesn’t need regular maintenance. Similarly, currently employed auto mechanics fear for the loss of their jobs. It is a fact that electric cars need less maintenance, and the maintenance they need is different than what the typical auto mechanic knows how to do.

Similarly, the oil industry has a lot to lose if the electric car becomes commonplace. Since 65% of Exxon-Mobil's revenue comes from consumer vehicles, they have good reason to suppress alternative energies. As long is there is oil in the ground, the people owning those oil fields want to make sure that society doesn't jump on the electric bandwagon and leave gasoline-based commuting "in the dust."

Critics say the electric car is not a feasible idea, that limitations in battery technology limit the range of the cars, that there is no demand for such a product. If that is the case, why has General Motors swallowed up and shut down every electric car maker it can get its hands on since 1927? Every time there is a new advancement in battery technology - something strange happens. When higher-yield Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries were developed, big oil bought the company and their patent, and closed down the facility. GM bought the patent to large-scale high-yield lithium ion batteries before they could be considered for the automotive market. They own the technology, and all they have to do is sit on it.

This month, Firefly Energy, a company out of Peoria, Illinois, developed a modification to a lead-acid battery to remove the inefficient lead plates and install a graphite sponge, with 200% more surface area and up to 10 times the power of a typical car battery. Right now, the military uses these batteries for silent-running electric tanks and weapons, but will not make them commercially available.

How can the power of capitalism hold progress back? How can greed and unethical corporate behavior be tolerated when our entire ecosystem is at stake and fossil fuels threaten to destroy our very way of life?

-TBF-

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:59:49 GMT

A corporation can have no moral worth

This argument begins with economist Milton Freidman's stockholder theory. Friedman's theory says the sole duty of a business is to increase its profits. That is its only moral obligation: to make financial returns for those who invest their money in the company. All actions taken by the corporation, even if they seem philanthropic, are always taken with the bottom line in mind. For instance, why would a cigarette company spend millions of dollars on teen anti-smoking ads?

Is it because they want to do good for the community? Not directly. If there is a payoff - like a more favorable public opinion - that has a theoretical dollar value that factors into the balance sheet, and often outweighs the cost of the advertising. Sometimes, it is in the best interests of the stockholders to also do good for the community.

The core of the issue is that corporations serve to protect their profit margins first, because profit is their “chief good.” Aristotle says that “happiness” is the chief good for the rest of humanity. Does that sound like a conflict of interest?

While corporations have been known to build parks and fund social programs, they can’t possibly be doing those things for the right reasons, for the intrinsic value of the good deeds themselves.

According to Kant, good deeds can be segregated into two distinct tiers. The first tier is the set of good deeds that were performed as means to an end. Kant calls this kind of good deed a "qualified good." The second tier is the set of good deeds that were performed for their own sake. Those deeds are ends unto themselves. This mindset, where people do good things intrinsically, is what Kant calls "good will."

So, is a corporation even capable of an act of "good will" ? Unless you count stockholder dividends as righteous deeds, the answer is no. For example, imagine you’re a stockholder who just made a lot of money investing in a company. You feel like a big shot for once. Kant says that being happy in this fashion will make you a total jerk, unless you are tempered by an internally mature good will. With the exception of certain stockholder meetings, the unfortunate truth is that the system is set up so that as a stockholder, you don’t talk to management all that often, and that means that you cannot imbue any of your good will on the will of the company. It’s a financially mediated relationship, so your money does all the talking. Further, you, as a stockholder, probably do not value money intrinsically. You value what that money will buy you: a new Lamborghini, a diamond necklace, or a pet mongoose. That’s why you’re investing your money: as means to an end. That is, at best, a “qualified good.” Suddenly, it becomes impossible for the company to be a moral agent, because the only loyalties it holds are to investors whose choices to invest are motivated extrinsically, and therefore devoid of good will.

-TBF-

Monday, November 27, 2006

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:39:10 GMT

The Ultimate Medium

About a year ago, as editor of PLR, I wrote a short piece on what makes good art. I said, "Art is good if it uses the medium properly. Every art has a medium; every medium is made up of a set of logical tools. These are the tools that help bring the art into existence. Let's take a canvas painting, for example. The tools are a brush, jars of paint, a subject, proper lighting, an easel, and hours of free time. The rest is up to the human brain - to put the paint on the canvas and create the art. When evaluating art, the â€˜human brain elementâ€™ is what's really on trial. But that brain must first master a medium before it can be appreciated.

The paint is either on the brush or it's not. It either makes it to the canvas or it doesn't. An artist might want to wave the brush in the air for hours, or thoroughly clean everything up when he is done, but those parts of the process won't show up in the final piece. The only way to make the dried acrylic relevant is to put it on the canvas."

So is a medium confining or liberating? The American existentialist philosopher Rollo May thinks you need to acknowledge the structure of medium and use it to your advantage: "If you set out to write a sonnet, you run up against all kinds of recalcitrant realities in the laws of rhyme and scanning, and in the necessity of fitting words together; or if you build a house, you confront all kinds of determining elements in bricks and mortar and lumber. It is essential that you know your material and accept its limits ... The pattern and the style in which you build your house are products of how you, with an element of freedom, use the reality of the given materials."

Could it be said that all human action is art? Every human choice is an action, executed by a brain, using its freedom to impact a medium. Is not life itself a medium? Our society, and all life in it, is still governed by the logical tools of reality and we are granted the freedom to mold our own realities.

While we use our mediums to express creativity, we must consider also how our mediums define us. They define what we work with, while our freedom and creativity determine the end result. Without medium, there could be no evaluation of these end results.

I begin to wonder what my end result will be. I am fluent in many literary mediums, software mediums, automotive mediums, mechanical and electrical engineering mediums, and soon, the economic and entrepreneurial mediums. I am majoring in Entrepreneurial Studies at UIC, and just now discovering what that really means. It means my medium is the economic context, my tools are land, labor, and capital, and somehow I must weave these together, according to the rules of business ethics, supply and demand, and opportunity cost analysis to paint a profitable picture, to design a functioning company, to spin my own sturdy thread in the fabric of our economy. Iâ€™ll be playing with the biggest tools society has. As I shift my focus from Legos to Liabilities, I acknowledge that I have found the ultimate medium - capable of influencing more than just the emotions of the audience, but their very quality of life. I will make it an honorable masterpiece.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:43:45 GMT

The Tallest Man
11 - 17 - 2006

If you have ever looked out the window of an airplane, you have seen the world as a Social Darwinist does. Ten miles above the ground, you can see tiny buildings. Houses look like postage stamps. The roads are thin as toothpicks. You can’t really see the people; you see only what they’ve built. You can’t feel their anguish or share in their joy. You see only the motion of traffic moving down the highway and assume there must be people in those tiny cars.

Even the Tallest Man wants everything he can see. If you take a man high enough, he sees for vast distances and the things he wants become larger, taller, and stronger; his ambitions become greedy and expensive. He wants to own not just one beach, but the whole lakefront. He wants it all. And soon, through his indulgent masturbation of self-importance, he no longer feels the connection between himself and other humans. He is part of something larger. It is a privilege to see the world this way, to have ambitions this big.

He looks out and down from the window of the plane. He sees cars swimming in patterns like schools of fish; he sees society bustling about in all its glory and wonder and inaudible strife. He is flying at night, and the human element below is reduced to a grove of tiny lamps.

This grove covers every useable bit of surface area as far as the eye can see. It is packed tight and efficient, like you would plant any other grove of crops. You’d use a linear grid to maximize space and productivity. Perhaps this is why you only find curvy roads in those expensive towns, where the efficiency of gridwork takes a backseat to beauty, or that artistic desire for chaos. In this modern world of social order and social control and social police, a curved road is almost a luxury. Because luxury has always had a component of inefficiency. There is pride in selectivity – Pleasure in waste.

Man can harness this pride, for it is his power, and he longs to strengthen that power, enhance his energy. But energy is never created or destroyed, it can only be concentrated. So this man, as he looks down, knows he must siphon that energy from the crop below. He has cooked up a scheme – a product actually –that he wants to sell. The sale of this consumer good will concentrate the wealth of the many into the hands of the few, like a money-funnel. He sits on the receiving end of this money funnel, and he can relax, for the motion of the funnel will propel him forward. He can lean back and enjoy turbine engines at his back and wings at his sides. Through three panes of lexan, he can look out upon the vast exploitable market, for it is a wonderful social construct. He thanks his Christian god every day because the market is beautiful to him. Oxygen-trees and money-trees - stand side-by-side - absorbing sunlight - one system powering the other.

And yet, when the plane lands, he is immersed in a culture where the commonly-held belief is that human life has intrinsic value. Our Social Darwinist might ask, “What is it that gives human life its intrinsic value?”

- TBF -

Learning In the Lap of Legislators

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:14:48 GMT

Learning In the Lap of Legislators

Both Patti Bellock and Jim Durkin love it when interested college students come down to Springfield for Student Lobby Day. But they use the opportunity to dodge the issues, advertise themselves, and enhance their credibility in the eyes of their constituents.

I heard an elaborate story about how Patti Bellock used to be an eighth grade teacher in Anchorage, Alaska. Now she lives just three blocks from me, and Judy Biggert who lives a few houses down from her. I heard how Jim Durkin also runs a successful law firm on the side. How he took over for Eilleen Lyons when she retired. How he had quite a successful career as a prosecuting attorney.

Both our Representatives talked to us at length about their “pet issues.” Patty Bellock was able to pass a bill that allocates money to treat the symptoms of autism. She said that autism was a buzzword - which made her bill easier to pass. Jim Durkin explained his pet issue: creating a new branch of certification hoops – that labs have to jump through – to become properly accredited – before they can do DNA testing. DNA testing is currently only 70% accurate. He wants to create a whole new regulatory body to bring that percentage up.

I should have said, “I didn't come down to Springfield to hear about your pet issues. “Come on, I drove five hours to talk about my issues. Now I'm finally sitting here in your office – and you're using the opportunity to advertise yourself to me.

Bellock wouldn't shut up long enough to let us get a word in edgewise, but my partner Samantha was able to bring our environmental issue to Jim Durkin's attention. "I don't know how concerned you are with the environment,” Sam said, “but... this bill will reduce landfill waste by 11% and it pays for itself many times over…"

Dirken looks at the bill. "Oh, this is dead. It's in the House Rules Committee. Yea, it's not going anywhere. In another 20 days or so it’ll be gone, unless someone picks it up. Now, see, I've got this DNA bill..."

Bellock explained that in order to get things done in Springfield, you shouldn’t take on too many pet projects. You've got to stick with a few and ride them hard if you want to see them through. This is a polite, heavily rehearsed way of dismissing COD’s needs and looking busy at the same time.

Both legislators proceeded to make seemingly important but brief phone calls to others while we were there. I was surprised that neither of them had computers on their desks - only phones and pens. I certainly need more than a pen and a phone to do my job. Patti Bellock didn’t even have a clock. She kept asking what time it was. She didn’t want to be late for her next meeting.

Patti didn’t have a watch, but she did have a four-diamond ring on her right hand. Huge rocks, at least three carats each. You could chop off her pinky finger and fund Prairie Light Review for a decade.

When we asked Jim Durkin for his help on educational issues, his response (in attitude) was, “Can’t you see I’m working hard enough?” Jim Durkin kept reminding us to vote, and he wanted us to remind our friends, too. "It's only two days away." He said.

It was clear that Durkin was comfortable being a player in a larger game. Jim runs a law firm part-time, so he is part of the "revolving door" between politics and the private sector. He does what he is told. He supports the changes in Eminent Domain Laws by making vague gestures and saying "growth... gotta have growth…” This is the same party line bullshit they give us through the media. I was expecting better, something like an analytical thesis, a unique perspective. I could tell his opinion on the issue was not his own. In his rants, Jim also used the terms "good-old-boy" and "revenue enhancement" and I have only heard those terms from one other source: my father when he rants about corrupt politicians.

Bellock further disappointed me by sipping from a giant 42-ounce Coca-Cola cup. She spilled some onto her desk. She was clearly doing a lot of caffeine – talking so swiftly and jittering that I began to wonder if she ever took the time to deeply analyze any of her issues. I had to ask her. "It's good that you’re trying to treat the symptoms of autism," I said, "But what have you discovered to be the root of the problem?" Bellock claimed others were "investigating that."

COD went through much effort to prepare me for Lobby Day by showing me how to look up bills and research my senators online. These were good preparatory tasks. However, some of the rehearsal went underutilized in the actual meeting. Instead, I had to adapt and draw from my diverse skill set. I had to know how to break the ice, read people, call a bluff, sell the concept, submit to lecture, and act impressed, just to name a few. For these reasons, I would say it is impossible to "Cram for Lobby Day" the way you "Cram for an Exam."

Samantha and I had talked to Kay McKeen (Director of SCARCE Environmental Education) before coming to Springfield, and we had agreed to take on her “pet project” of getting biodegradable food waste classified as recyclable. When Jim Durkin bluntly said the bill was dead, Sam was visibly crushed, and I could offer no conciliatory reason why the idea had been tabled. Clearly, it would have been good for the environment. It would have reduced landfill waste. It would have netted money for hotels and the food industry, and would have required only a small change in trash-collection infrastructure. It is only now that I can offer one theory why DNA and autism are more important. I can find one rather large group that stands to have something to lose by this environmental bill.

I have said for a long time that the public brain-soil is a precious resource. The whole advertising industry competes for our attention every minute of every day. And if a person wants to spend her time digging rotten apples out of the trash – so worms can create soil in a state-wide worm garden, then that person is not spending money – not working hard to earn money – not saving money – not interfacing with money at all, in fact. If a million Illinois citizens chose to occupy their time in a similar way – trying to save natural resources – it could be viewed as a tragic waste of an even more important limited resource: The attention span of the American consumer.

-TBF-

Monday, December 05, 2005

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:24:13 GMT

Title Troubles Brew at Prairie Light Review

The Prairie Light Review office sees its fair share of argumentation and debate over the merits of certain poems or artwork. But no decision is more engaging, difficult, cumbersome or exhausting than agreeing on a magazine title. My Co-editor Sarah and I have come to dread these title meetings.

The staff was able to come to a democratic consensus on which piece of submitted work should adorn the cover of the magazine. We all liked the face of the forlorn, yet, smiling girl that had been etched in different colors of wax. For the title, however, we typically get suggestions from the staff itself. Sarah, the Artistic Director, asked the group to think of suggestions for titles and scribble them on little slips of post-it note and put them in a paper cup. I reminded the group to make thematic considerations, perhaps browse through the database of accepted works, and try to match title suggestions to the cover photo of the softly smiling woman. Staff members eagerly filled the cup with their suggestions.

Sarah began giving each slip of paper equal consideration by reading each title to the group. Then she handed the slips to Tracy who put them all onto one master sheet. This gave the staff a chance to hear the suggestions while still preserving the anonymity of the contributions. Then we had to begin the process of narrowing down the set of 30 suggestions. A conflict inevitably arises because the staff members are each partial to the suggestions which they themselves have put forward.

We’ve found it easier to “vote to eliminate” titles than to “vote to keep” finalists. We’d read each title again and offer it to the group a second time, and say, “eliminate?” and everyone who hated the title would raise their hands. If more than 70% of the group voted to eliminate, we struck it from the list, otherwise we circled it. This narrowed it down to about eight semi-finalists.

The staff consists of about 12 people, so everyone submitted about 3 title suggestions. Even during the first narrowing, it was noticeable how some staffers took it personally when their titles were squashed, and they became less likely to vote in favor of other, better ones. This would only get worse as we worked our way to the final two.

Somehow we contined eliminating until we had narrowed it down to two choices: “I’ll smile anyway” and “so-called immortal.” At this point, Sarah’s command of the meeting began to ebb and the group started to have internal discussions of how they didn’t like either title, and they were choosing the one they hated the least. Then we voted on the final two and the vote was split 6 – 6.

At this point, I recommended to Sarah that we’d gotten all the input from the group that we could; we would take the matter under advisement; and to thank the board for their contributions and assistance. They hate when we say this, but as editors, it’s what we have to do to ensure our own sanity. When it comes down to it, all the board does is advise the editors what to do. Board members, however, don’t see it that way, and although we try to maintain a democratic policy, it is sometimes impossible to reach consensus, and at that point – more decisive, authoritarian leadership is necessary.

As editors, Sarah and I have the power to exercise what we call “editorial privilege” which basically overrides the opinions of the group or does the best to accommodate as many of them as possible. Every time we do an issue, we have to make judicious cuts, inclusions to fill space, or other changes at the last minute without the board’s permission.

Internally, Sarah and I function as equal halves of the Editor-In-Chief position, so we try to both agree on an editorial decision before it becomes finalized. Sometimes we run these decisions by Tammie, but most of the time the discretion is ours. In addition, Sarah gives me more leeway in matters of a technical and administrative nature, and I give Sarah the opportunity to exercise her artistic vision unimpeded.

I went to Pittsburgh for Thanksgiving, and I came back a week later. To my surprise, one of our staff members – Stu – was waiting outside my door, eager to discuss an urgent matter. I opened the door and asked him to tell me what was on his mind. I missed a PLR meeting while I was out of town, and during that meeting, Sarah made another editorial decision to change the title to “so-called immortal moments…” It was an arbitrary decision that she never ran by anyone, and the staff was noticeably upset.

On the one hand, I had to defend my co-editor and say I approved of her decision – as Sarah has loyally supported me countless times in the past. On the other hand, I had a “Stu” who felt the magazine was treating him unfairly, (Stu respects me a lot and often calls me “Doctor DeLorean” in front of the staff) and I had internal conflict because I had been partial to I’ll Smile Anyway because it was one of my title suggestions.

PLR has helped me understand that a group of a dozen stubborn artists cannot function solely based upon direct democracy. Opinions are often too diverse and many staff members – especially Gil – can be unwilling to compromise. This is why Sarah and I have to use editorial privilege to deal with the specifics of the job and get it done. I’ve actually had to go in and change the security preferences on the PLR database so that only Sarah and I can change the “voted in checkboxes.”

There was nothing Stu or I could do at that point – the file was already at the printer – but I defused the situation by explaining to Stu that PLR is excellent training for working in any formal bureaucracy, and although he and I weren’t getting what we wanted at this silly little college magazine, the experience was just as invaluable for our future endeavors.

I had upheld my loyalty to Sarah; and Stu left my office with a smile. That’s how I resolve conflict at Prairie Light Review.

-TBF-

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:07:41 GMT

Social Darwinism and Eugenics

Social Darwinism and Eugenics both get dismissed in your text as improper applications of Darwin’s theories. It is important for me to mention that social Darwinism is in full bloom today, but now it’s been renamed “trickle-down economics.”

In my philosophy class, we get into many discussions on the ethics of eugenics. I like to defend eugenics just for fun. Now I have even more ammunition to add to my argument, because social Darwinism and eugenics are two sides of the same coin.

The “inalienable rights” of all humans, young and old, diseased and healthy, smart and stupid, to reproduce of their own free will is a great and honorable notion; and it has caused more harm than good. We cling to those proud reproductive ethics as American culture is exploited every day by the effects of globalization and economic Darwinism.

American culture has allowed itself to be “dumbed-down” by modern media: the influencing engine of economic Darwinism. Many Americans have grown increasingly vulnerable and passive to this onslaught because the genetic predispositions of each new generation allow it. Perhaps what we need to do is to fight one unethical practice with another: limit the breeding rights of those who create social problems. If we grab hold of the ability to control the genetic predisposition of the human race, we stand the best chance of destroying greed: the disease that threatens our very survival as a species.

-TBF-

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:38:40 GMT

Katrina and the Waves

Imagine you have a summer home down in New Orleans. Wonderful beachfront property and you try to shoot down there once a year for Marti Gras.

But you haven’t been there for six months or so. Your last visit was the worst vacation ever. You were watching some TV and melting into your black leather couch. You left some food out on the counter – pop tarts and whipped cream – when the swarm came. Thousands of black cockroaches poured from behind the refrigerator; the stove; the sink. The pop tart never had a chance.

A pesticide allergy means you can’t call the Orkin man, so you’ve got to find another solution to this problem. You remember that you’re paying out the ass for that extra flood insurance. You’re not stupid; you know if the levees were to breach around Lake Pontchartrain, not even your cockroaches would survive.

On the other hand, flooding your infested summer home would solve all your problems. You never cared for the place all that much. You wanted granite floors, not marble. Why not take the insurance money now – and rebuild it next year after everything dries out?

Cockroach problem solved.

***

When you’re not on your couch eating pop tarts, you work for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Your job is to prepare for natural disasters and respond to them as they occur. Or at least, that was your job – before FEMA was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security. You and your new boss both honestly believe that suicide bombers – not floods – are the real threat to our nation.

You’re back at your office in Washington, munching a pop tart and looking over your new budget figures. DHS cut your funding again. Crumbly fruit filling trickles down your shirt, onto your freshly waxed mahogany desk. Your secretary scrambles into the room. She’s fiddling with the remote control. It’s the Fox News Channel. Words scroll at the bottom of the screen.

CATEGORY FIVE HURRICANE
FIFTY MILES FROM THE NEW ORLEANS COAST
WILL MAKE LANDFALL IN 24 HOURS

Your secretary plops a big binder on your desk. Three-inches thick. 448 Pages.

“What is this?” you ask. More crumbs.

“Last year, we asked IEM to theorize about this situation and they drafted a response plan. Here, it says right here.” She flips the binder open and continues. “Southeast Louisiana Catastrophic Hurricane Plan. See, here’s Pam – a slow-moving category-three Hurricane, and she’s hitting New Orleans – and the levees have failed.”

“I don’t remember voting on this…” You say.

“This isn’t finalized yet. The new budget cuts mean we can’t pay for IEM to finish the study. But it’s pretty comprehensive. See, here are the evacuation routes, and…” (she flips some pages) “…people to contact to get truckloads of ice, water, and food to the affected areas. There’s a section near the back on how to coordinate search-and-rescue operations. Should I start making some phone calls? We only have 24 hours…”

Your secretary’s name is Lindsay. You hired her because she was motivated. But you can hear a lilt of fear and urgency in her voice as she flips through the report. Your phone rings. Not the black phone on your desk. The red phone. Underneath. It’s your boss. Your new boss. From DHS. You give Lindsay a nod; she and the binder are quickly absent. You answer on the second ring.

“About that draft of that response plan…” your boss speaks in a gruff tone, slow and cautious, “ya’ll hold off on that, for a while, please. That there document was not designed to be the response bible for a major event like this. Seems we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. Cheney kept saying something about keeping all our ducks in a row, and I’m inclined to listen to him. He’s calling it Operation Clean Slate. We’re not to act until we hear back from the cabinet. They said they’re coordinating the matter personally.”

“We won’t have all those puzzle pieces until after nature takes its course. Mostly welfare nigger democrats anyway…they can wait two or three days…” you add.

“Glad to see we’re on the same page. We’ll be mobilizing all the trucks soon enough; they’ll be plentya time for the media to paint us as heroes, but we wait until after the storm hits. 48 hours should be long enough.”

You chew on your pop tart.

Your boss is wheezing into a whisper. “Look at it this way. About this time next year, all those displaced folks that survived the storm will have found other places to live, and the ones that are washed away, well … all we have to do is lose their deeds and social security numbers. Then the land becomes county property. We’re talking ten cents on the dollar. Half-acre.”

Images of drowning Americans do not enter your head. Instead, the prospect of cheap real estate has you envisioning a granite living room, your own private tennis court, and a swimming pool on the patio.

“Lindsay, um… hold the phone there. Go file your nails or something. This time next year, you can have your own piece of New New Orleans. Whaddya say?”

Music starts playing in the other room. Lindsay’s got on her favorite CD. An 80’s pop band. They called themselves Katrina and the Waves.

“Now I’m walking on sunshine, whoa oh, and don’t it feel good, hey…”

***