Mark This Date On Your Calendar

There are few opportunities to let The Big Thinkers of Oregon know how you feel about Oregon's Floating In Air policies regarding land use planning.

Floating In Air, as in m/s².

I know that in lemming terms, continuing upon the path we're currently on makes a certain amount, of what I think can be referred to as "group think", sense. It's hard to let go of an idea that makes Oregon Different. And, even though well intentioned, SB 100 has had an incredible negative effect on growth and development in this state.

On September 17th, the Big Look Task Force (all their caps, seriously) will be holding a public meeting in Tillamook at the Tillamook Public Library, starting at 6:30 pm. If you can't make it, you can send your opinion on relaxing the state's restrictive rules here. Now, this link is to a Lefty website, so make sure you delete the "autowritten" letter and insert your own.

Here is the "autowritten" letter:

"Dear Big Look Task Force Members,

"Please strengthen Oregon's land use planning program.

"We must protect all of Oregon's valuable farms, forests, and natural resources. You have an opportunity to address global warming pollution from cars and trucks by promoting efficient urban growth and giving Oregonians choices to walk, bike, and take transit.

"The proposal to give local governments greater power to develop rural lands without following existing statewide protections is very concerning. Experience tells us that development outside of urban growth boundaries will result in loss of farm and forest lands, inefficient development on rural lands, conflicts with ranchers and farmers for scarce water resources, and interference with wildlife habitat.

"I urge you to address global warming in your proposals and please do not weaken our land use planning system."

The opponents of rural development--that is you and me, bub, Clatsop county is a rural county--really want to strangle us with rules and bureaucratic barriers to job creation and growth.

The Lefties are already motivated. They want to stop any and all development in the state.

If plans permit, and so far it looks good, I'll be there. You be there, too.

Complete list of Townhall Meetings and locations.

Trust and the Level Playing Field: How Do You Change Cultures?

Today is 9/11. What do we teach our kids? What do we tell them about what it means to be an American?

There is a class of people who feel that it is only right to tell you what you need to do.

If you've ever had a job, you know there was a guy on the job who always could tell you what he would do if he was the boss. When the boss came by to give some advice or direction, this guy would tell you how B.S. the boss was, and that if it were up to him, you'd be doing it another way.

There were always two kinds of guys like this: the guy who could really do his job, and you knew it, he knew it and the boss knew it; and the guy who really couldn't do his job, find his backside with both hands, and the only guy who didn't know it was him.

The first kinda employee was always a problem. Some work is an art. It's just the way it is. As a manager, the first job was to work to insulate this jerk from his fellow employees. They made you money. The fact that they were hard on the organization meant that sometimes you even had to "let them have it". (As my step-dad used to say, "the graveyards are filled with indispensible men.")

The question for me was reduced to a need to define a corporate culture.

During the 1980's, the differences between Japanese corporate styles and American corporate styles were highlighted as Japanese companies decided to make major industrial investments in the United States. You might remember the Michael Keaton movie, "Gung Ho". There was a clash between what was accepted American corporate culture and what was represented as Japanese corporate culture.

To the average guy of the 1970's to the 1980's, getting a corporate job was either dead-ended (labour input) or a guarantee of wealth (management input). The guys on the line worked, repetitively, for a check. The guys in management lived off those guys, putting in time until they rose to the top. (Another great corporate culture movie is "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".) It is important to remember these movies, because it is my belief that they are every bit as influential on the American psyche as were movies like "Greed" with that Gecko guy. Or, if you really want an anti-corporate movie, try to sit throught "The China Syndrome."

The issue became how to change that corporate culture. To let the working guy know that he wasn't in a dead-ended job, but was important to the success of the corporation. To let the management guy know that unlike ferric oxide or coal, the human component in the work process had dignity, and if used correctly, could result in real changes in productivity. That the human input had the potential for the company to realize exogenous changes to the input system that could shift the productivity curve of the company.

The first experience I had with modern corporate culture was the study of changes made to a company that included pieces and parts of remnants, or of the whole, of the Northern Pacific, the Spokane, Portland and Seattle, the Burlington Route, the Great Northern and the Santa Fe.

How do you make a company work when there are so many different, and competing styles, of getting the job done? The chairman of the Burlington Northern set out to create--and enforce--what he called a Corporate Culture. The railroads of the '70's and '80's were suffering huge inefficiencies. The company was beset by contracts and regulations that made profitable operation of a rail line problematic. At best. If you wanted an example of an industry that was over-regulated, over-lawyered, and over-ruled, it was the railroad industry.

At the very time that the concept of a corporate culture was being created by newly created companies working to solve the problem of disparate cultural inputs, and unions were learning to work within the rules set up by these new corporate cultures, a counter-movement was starting up in reaction to this new idea of corporate culture. It is this counter-corporate movement to which I ascribe the beginnings of anti-globalism. It isn't an argument, per se, as much as it is a simple contradiction to the role of rules in the business place that requires workers and management to work toward the same goals. That is, the anti-corporate view was, if the company asks me to do it, it must be wrong.

At the time of this change I spent time talking to men and women who worked for the Burlington Northern. Yes, changes were taking place. Astoria, for one, would be affected. But the work rules of the unions and the requirements of the Federal Railroad Adminstration meant that in order for companies to survive, they had to transcend the rules of culture and adminstrative rule in order to succeed. And the management team of BN worked successfully in communicating the needs of the company to the men and women that worked for it. Even in the face of union resistance.

Today's railroads are robust and vigorous again. It took a great deal of de-regulation and the creation of positive corporate culture for them to succeed. Even though there are those who hate to hear the words "corporate culture", they cannot disprove the theory that implementing a plan for communication, through the structure of corporate culture, will work toward the success of the corporation, for the management team, and for the needs and demands of labour. The important rule for those who choose to live within the corporate culture was that those who knew better than the boss were given a chance to prove it.

And if they couldn't prove it, then they were gone. But the essence was, take the intellectual inputs of your work force and listen for ways to improve the product, or the way you produced your product.

There is room to study and learn from America' corporate experiences. America is the world's greatest economy. And Americans are the most giving, in terms of blood and wealth, of any nation in the world. Why and how we became, and are, the greatest nation in the world is important to me.

I guess that's why I'm so disappointed with our public schools. Rather than teaching our kids how we became great, and how to remain great, our public schools denegrate American corporations in our classrooms. They view individualism as a social wrong. They view the role corporations play in America as greedy vultures. How do I know this? I have listened to my son. From the English teacher who talks about greedy corporations, to the economics teacher who talks about greedy corporations, teachers in our local schools are failing in their ability to communicate what it is about America that makes America great. Whether it's labour or capital, the story of America is a great story. It's a succession of successes that has made us, and the countries whose economies depend upon us, the beneficiaries of the greatest cultural and societal success in history.

What do the schools want to teach our kids? How to be a better citizen of the world.

Not how better to be a better citizen of America.

Isn't it time our public schools started teaching our kids how important it is to be an American? Or, as union employees, are they culturally unable to teach fairly that the role of Capital in capitalism is just as valid as is the role of Labour, as an input to production? Being a teacher used to mean being a professional. Are teachers willing to admit they don't know how to teach our kids the value and meaning of being an American? Or, pride in the history and successes of Americans?

Your kids are going to see Al Gore's movie on Man Made Global Warming at least once this year. They see it at least once last year. They won't be exposed to any disagreement about whether or not global warming is real, they don't have to do so. It is, in the words of the Global Warmists, established science. They won't watch a single movie about Ronald Reagan or listen to a single person--teacher--explaining why it's important that we win in Iraq. And, today, they will not see a single image of 9/11. The Dems have renamed 9/11. Our kids, if they are told anything, will be told that today is Patriot's Day. Huh? Mebbe we should re-name Pearl Harbour Day that extremely bad day for the Navy.

They will read stories--not books--about why war is bad and why love of America is bad. They will call those of us who love our country names.

These are government, union employees, whose union controls the levers of power in our state legislature. You want improvements in our schools without looking at the corporate culture that exists in our schools. Or the lobbying efforts and political contributions made to candidates by the Oregon Education Association. Or the lawsuits filed by the OEA against their political opponents

If you, as a reader of this blog, know of a teacher in our public schools who is teaching our kids about how great our country is, I'd like to hear from you. If, you think teaching social responsibility, community responsibility, working in groups and being a citizen of the world is more important, I'd like to hear from you, too. Just don't be surprised if you find out that I think your views are questionable. I would rather my children learn to be great individuals, than learn how to be members of their community.

You always knew there was a guy on the job who knew his job, and yours, better than anybody else. He wanted to be in charge, but he never earned it. In our schools, we call these people Mister, Misses or Mizz. And they are teaching your children. And they are indoctrinating your children into their corporate culture.

The Daily Astorian Tells You How LNG Pipleline Will Benefit You

At this juncture, it seems oxymoronic to think that the Daily A would actually tell you that the proposed pipeline will help you. But, it did.

Back before the paper decided it could ruin a county commissioner, the paper told you that there were cash benefits to you, the ordinary citizen of Clatsop County. See, agendas don't always have to do with the truth. The truth is simply the truth. What people choose to say is a choice.

According to the Daily Astorian article, "Northwest Natural spokesman Steve Sechrist said his company is looking to build a new pipeline in Oregon but would only extend it to the North Coast if one of the proposed LNG facilities is approved." ("LNG pipeline may link with NW Natural", The Daily Astorian, December 8, 2006.)

What would that mean to you? Lower natural gas prices. And that's saying something. Utility prices are expected to increase 40 percent this year.

So, along with gas prices being twice as high as you're used to (and burning ethanol that means an additional tank of gas for every four you're used to buying) your going to pay another forty cents for electricity and natural gas this fall for every dollar you spent last year.

And why?

"The Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, proposed for a site 20 miles east of Astoria on the Columbia River, would receive super-chilled natural gas in liquid form from ships traveling up the Columbia River and convert it to gas before distributing it through a pipeline. Its proposed pipeline would run east to Port Westward, where it would cross underneath the Columbia River and continue 16 miles farther east through Cowlitz County in Washington to the Williams pipeline, which runs north to Canada. " (ibid.)

What happened? Well, the county commission decided that Josh Marquis hadn't lived up to his commitment to the county. So, it cut his office's funds. Josh and the paper? Who knows. All we know is that allegations were printed in the paper that weren't supported by the facts.

So, the county commission had to pay. And they did. And the LNG tombstone has saddled the backs of Clatsop county voters since then.

The funniest thing is, back when the Willamette Week was celebrating it's 25th anniversary, it turned to its earliest writers to give a perspective on Portland of 1974. One young writer, by the name of Steve Forrester wrote the following:

"A relic of the era of backroom deals, Ivancie's reign was decisively cut short in 1984 when voters threw him out in favor of a bar owner named Bud Clark." Now we're faced with the backroom deals of a new era of backroomers.

Perhaps most tellingly is this paragraph:

"It would be a mistake to say that Frank Ivancie offered a vision that differed from Neil Goldschmidt's or Vera Katz's. The truth was, Ivancie did not have a vision of Portland. He was merely the heir to an old-boy network that had run the city for decades, the last in a line of self-generating successors. In those days, public council sessions were strictly pro forma: The real business of the council was done in private, over lunch at the Congress Hotel. If there was a vision in that clubhouse, it was this: Keep business happy and don't make waves."

This is what we're facing now in Clatsop county. There is a vision in place. But the public council sessions are stricly pro forma. The real business of the council is being done behind the council's back. It is being done in private. If there is a vision, it is this: Keep the locals happy and don't make waves.

We've come a long way, baby. From the '70's to the '70's. It's funny. The good ole boys have been replaced by the good ole boys.

What Do Statistics Mean?

Working out the bugs of this intertubes thingy. It seems, every now and then, that a weblog, like this one, picks up termites and it's necessary to do a little schooling.

One of my favourite termites is known as Afpel. He has created a system of thinking about problems that has been termed the Afpel Test. This test works like this:

I believe a thing to be true. I will continue to believe it is true. Therefore, it is true.

The corolary to the Afpel Test is that if you disagree with the Afpel Conclusion, you are wrong. We have all seen the type of argument this type of thinking produces. It has one enduring trait. It is repetitive. And makes solipsism look rational.

The figures above are a demonstration of how the Afpel Test works.

Imagine you have two data sets. When you manipulate the data, the way the data is demonstrated graphically changes. Take a minute and look at the figures above. Do you see what could be a relationship between the two data sets?

Well, you've just fooled yourself. Go over to William Briggs blog and step through the statistics used to create the figures above.

See, the thing is, the data sets used to show a "relationship" are totally made up data sets. They represent nothing. And yet, by using statistical modeling tools, we can show an apparent relationship.

Which is the frustrating thing when dealing with the Afpel Test. The Afpel Test keeps repeating "look at the data!" So what? What if the data doesn't really show what the Afpel Test purports it is showing? How do we know? Perhaps now is a good time to introduce David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature.

My point is, data is fascinating. But, data is simply data.

There is a wonderful lecture by Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard's law school called The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class: Higher Risks, Lower Rewards, and a Shrinking Safety Net. It runs 57 minutes, and its worth watching. Here's the thing.

She presents some very interesting data. But having watched it, she is careful about refraining from making a thesis statement. But, the way in which she delivers her data tends to make the listener confident in making the assumption of a thesis statement, and that the data would tend to support the thesis statement.

And yet, nothing in the data is sufficient to draw the conclusion that the middle class has been the victim of higher risks, lower rewards and a shrinking safety net. She avoids the criticism herself, from never stating a thesis. Just a working title.

So watch, and think. Her data on families is important, but her conclusions--or conclusary remarks--would also support a world view that is entirely different.

Simply be aware, that people who tell you things have their own agendas. And it's the subtlety of the argument that one should always be aware of. Nowhere is this more important than in our public schools. As you watch this lecturer, think about the college kids who are taking their part in this exercise. Too often the role played by a student is to be critical of, not be critical to. How many of these older students were wowed by the Professor's presentation? How many were looking for ammunition to attack our American system? And, do our public schools teach our students to be critical of, rather than critical to?

But, it passes the Afpel Test. "I believe a thing to be true. I will continue to believe it is true. Therefore, it is true." That this can take place at a university is less of a concern of mine. Caveat emptor. But what choice does the student in our public school have when he is not the purchaser of a good, but the forced inductee of a political system?

The Impending Brilliance Of the Normal

UPDATE: Corrected link below. (Sorry, but maybe now it makes more sense.)

I've just read the most comical series of comments that I've ever seen on one website, ever.



The thread somehow focuses on I.Q. scores (intelligence quotients).



Look. If you've an I.Q. of 100 that's pretty cool. Yet, within the past week, a commenter asked me to tone down my allusions and references. I responded somehow, talking about how important I think it is for anyone who engages in public discourse to have at least some fundamentals about which he is speaking before he opens his lips. Of course, there is that constitutionally guaranteed right for every man to have his own opinion, which I support. It's just pretty simple to listen to some and realize they have no idea of that they are speaking.



Where the thread gets funny is when people attempt to convert their SAT scores into I.Q. scores. And wouldn't you know it? Hitler gets mentioned.



The laughable thing is, statistically, 100 is the center point of the I.Q. scale. If you've an I.Q. of one hundred, you're solidly in the middle of all available intelligence scores. 100 ain't bad. One hundred gives you every claim to be as smart, or as stupid, as you should choose.



And the funniest thing is, if you've an I.Q. over a hundred, chances are you think you're pretty much the "sick". (There was another "s" word contemplated, but I self-censor.)



The funniest part of any discussion of who is, or isn't, smart, is the consequence of the discussion. There is a certain segment of the population who views those with lower I.Q.'s as having a lesser voice when it comes to political discussions. How sad. How...er, Hitlerian.



I've recently had to change the way I accept comments on this blog. The reason? I had a guest move across the boundary of what I define as acceptable commenting. For those of you who have put up with his comments, I think we all agree that his comments approach the level of the Rain Man.



Is he autistic? Is he another Ted in the making?



I wonder. Anyone who camps out on this website, simply to make a counter comment, when need arises, is fairly compulsive. But, I'm fairly compulsive, too. So, compulsiveness isnt' necessarily a red flag. (I hope!)



So, read the comments that showed up here. And laugh. Humour is our best defense against the stupid that others posit.

LNG, Energy and Blame

Congress passes a law prohibiting contact between bucks and does.

Rabbit production falls.

Leftists scream that rabbit production is unsustainable.

What has gotten us to this point? Many of you are too young to remember the uranium hunt of the 1960's. If so, ask your parents or grandparents. Sales of radiation detectors skyrocketed, as thousands of dads searched for yellowcake.

It was kinda cool, running around the backyard with a radiation detector. I don't know if kids today actually get to handle a Geiger counter in their classrooms today. If they do, they know there's a thing called "background" radiation that exists. So, you'd get these background readings, but you were looking for an uptick in the count, evidence that you had the big bonanza, uranium in your own backyard! Cool!

Back in the 1980's, natural gas was the new big thing. A company called Diamond Shamrock was running around the county offering leases for your mineral rights. After production began at the Mist Gas Field, folks in Clatsop county got big eyes real fast. We were all going to be millionaires. This was okay, because we'd be getting rich.

Now, about thirty years later, we're paying too much for gasoline, too much for heating our homes and too much for electricity.

Because we're keeping the bucks away from the does.

When you put laws in place that keep bucks away from the does, rabbit production is gonna fall. (You don't have to have a formal education to understand what comes naturally.)

So, gas and energy prices are going up. Who do we blame? The Oil Companies. The Bad Guys from Texas. All the while continuing the legislative stance that we must not allow the bucks to mix with the does. It's okay when we're getting rich. But if it's not us, then we must defend the Environment, the Children and our Open Spaces.

Whooey. Clatsop county is the size of Rhode Island. With about 30,000 people. There is a Chicken Little vocal minority that continually trots out mis-representations about the horrors of living in the 21st Century. These are the same people who blame the Republicans, the Corporations and the Oil Companies for high prices. These are the same people who would choose to stop growth and development in Clatsop county.

They say these things on their cellphones. They write these things on their computers. They take advantage of the advances in science and medicine and complain when the costs of these services are too high. They blame, they blame, they blame. Yet, we have the highest standard of living in the world.

And at the very same moment, they work to limit growth and development. They use this word: sustainability.

Yet keeping the separation between the bucks and the does. Stopping what comes naturally. Nothing is sustainable if you pass laws against it.

Who can I blame for this self-fulfilling prophecy? As energy prices go up, as the cost of living goes up, I can only blame those who want to protect me. From the evil of change.

Oh, they're all for change. As long as they're in charge of what change means. That's why they're smarter than us. They can choose between good change and bad change.

Kids, I'm telling you, this type of thinking has to stop. I've met and known these brilliant people. I wouldn't want them to run my business. I doubt that you'd want them to run yours.

But they're willing to run your life. Don't believe me? Just ask them, "what would you want us to do?" Ah, they have Visions! Visions of what and how they want you to run your life. Visions of how to raise your kids.

Don't believe me? Sound too weird? Just head over to your favorite search engine and type in "oregon governor vision". Dig this excerpt from a found article:

"Governor Kitzhaber is not new to the Oregon forest arena and his vision is indeed visionary."

Man! That's like a Double Vision!

Rabbit production falls. Who do we blame? Never ourselves.