"didn't mean to slight?" Are you serious?

I haven't been tracking the Gates-Cambridge Police issue too closely, recently, but I haven't been completely out of the loop. I saw yesterday on CNN.com that President Obama "didn't mean to slight" when he said that the police acted stupidly.

Thus far, I have generally been impressed with President Obama's public interactions. He's polished, personable, and generally reassuring, which are skills that President H.W. Bush was perhaps missing.

I cannot, however, figure out how a man as publicly well-appointed as President Obama can stand at the lectern, and on one day say that the police acted stupidly, and on the next say he didn't mean to slight them. The facts of the of the event are irrelevant to the statement.

"I think you are not professional, and do your job poorly, but I hope you don't take any offense."

Beyond that, the offending statement uses harsher language than the President will use with human rights violating nations! You don't hear the President saying that North Korea "acted stupidly" by continuing missile tests, or that Iran "acted stupidly" by claiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. The President, however , feels compelled to pick out a law officer and fellow American to put down in public.

I'm not, strictly speaking, down on the President. President Obama, however, needs to recognize that he is no longer "just" a member of the legislative branch, but is the leader of the free world, the long-awaited, compassionate Ambassador, and that his words resound internationally far beyond the White House lectern from where they are uttered.

It's the swine flu, not the plague.

I have seen and heard about the "outbreak of the deadly swine flu", and would like to help people understand some basic facts about the flu.

a.) Your best protection is basic prevention. - Wash your hands regularly.  Be aware of those around you that may be coughing, or otherwise expressing symptoms, which include coughing, sore throat, lethargy, nausea and vomiting, runny nose, etc.  Note that the symptoms are consistent with the body's reaction to most illnesses, including the common cold and severe allergies.  Correlation does not equal causation, and vomiting does not equal the swine flu.  For those of you who constantly use hand sanitizer, you have likely managed to diminish your body's immune system by depriving it of consistent exposure to bacteria and illnesses, and thus, may have increased your chances of the illness, should you come in contact with it.  Nice work.  

b.) If you're healthy, and you live in the United States, it is not deadly.  It's not that the flu can't kill you; it's that the flu won't kill you.  As I write this, 20 out of 149 cases have been confirmed.  Today, that's roughly 13% (tomorrow, 20/149 is still 13%, but the numbers will likely be different tomorrow), but that is likely to explode far lower tomorrow as yahoos with runny noses from every state run to be treated with what they believe is assuredly their beginning-of-the-end. 

Good luck, and Godspeed.

The Relationship Between Hotel Quality and Cost.

I used to be a Starwood Hotels guy, but then I realized something about hotels.  

Justin's law of hotel value:  Once a set of fundamental requirements of a hotel room are met, there is a nonlinear relationship between a hotel's room rate and the total cost of the hotel stay.  

Huh?  Stay with me, here.

Basically, if you have a room at a cheap hotel, you'll have a cheap stay, but if you have a more expensive room at a nice hotel, you'll have a FAR more expensive stay, compared to an identical stay at the cheap hotel. 

Huh?

Here it is:  Once you have the basic essentials of a hotel, like a bed, TV, private bathroom, etc., you've got a baseline price for a hotel room in a given market.  If you can find a hotel room at the basic cost  "threshold" for a given market, you'll find that it includes more amenities that you might WANT for free.  The more expensive a hotel room gets, the more you have to PAY for amenities that are otherwise free at hotels closer to the basic cost threshold.  

Take, for example, any given Quality Inn.  It's a relatively inexpensive hotel room, in the grand scheme of things.  You're not expecting a flat screen in every room, or a lavish pool necessarily.  You'll expect the basics of a hotel; bed, bath, TV.  Now, Quality Inn will generally include a free breakfast, frequently a hot breakfast, free wi-fi, free small business center, free use of fax, etc.  Nothing extravagant, but note the common term, "free."  So your total hotel stay will be in line with the room rate times the number of nights.

Now, take for example, any given Marriott.  It's not extravagant, but it's a "nice" hotel.  You're going to pay significantly more for a Marriott room in a given market over a Quality Inn.  What do you expect?  A nice bed, a nice bathroom, and a nice TV.  The Marriott, though, will include, breakfast for a fee, usually a hot breakfast, wi-fi for a fee, business center for a fee, use of fax for a fee... see where I'm going with this?  Why is the hotel 20%-50% more than what I call a "threshold" hotel, but the SAME services are free at the "threshold" hotel and cost money at the "premium" hotel?  While the hotel should cost 20%-50% more, based on the room rate, it doesn't.  It will cost far more for the same stay, because you'll pay the additional 20%-50% for the room rate, PLUS the additional $20-$50/night for the same amenities.  Hence the nonlinearity.  And it only gets worse as the hotels get nicer.  

This is what Justin's law of hotel value is all about.  As the hotel rooms cost more, the total cost of the stay diverges as the price of the hotel room increases.  "Cheap" hotels remain cheap with the cost of the room, but expensive hotels become more and more expensive as the cost of the room increases.

So today, I'm a Choice Hotels guy.  I have been for a handful of years now.  The Choice Hotels program provides great benefits at a wide variety of hotels.  More importantly, though, the cost of the rooms is generally around the "threshold" price, keeping the total cost of the stay reasonable. 

Here's my recommendation, then.  If you want a nice room, book the nicest room in the cheapest hotel that HAS the amenities that you want, and they're more likely to be free and/or cheap, than if you book the cheapest room in the nicer hotel that has the amenities.  If you want a pool, clearly you have to go where the pool is, but book the CHEAPEST place with a pool, and then get the nicest room you can, for a treat.  The folks behind the counter will see you're the big fish in the little pond, and take care of you accordingly.  If you're the smallest fish in the biggest pond, you're more likely to get the "how nice that you decided to play at the $2 table at Ceasar's Palace" look.  

Campaign statistics.

I received a campaign flyer from Barack Obama.  

It contained a statement that Obama would reduce the taxes of middle-class Americans by $1000.

I would like to see the specific plan that will provide health care for all Americans, but will reduce middle-class taxes by $1000.  

If anyone has any specifics on this plan, I would like to see it.  Thanks.

Is bailing Fannie and Freddie out a good idea?

I'm a fiscal conservative.  I like small government.  I like low taxes.  I like relying on myself for the things I need.  For that matter, I like to be able to make my own decisions on what I need and don't need.  I don't like bailouts.  

All that being said, there is a time when the Government has an obligation to intervene in the affairs of the commercial world.  The Fed attempted to fix the problems brought on by the market crash in the 20s, and failed (albeit, they just didn't try hard enough, but I digress).  The Government stepped in an produced jobs and welfare programs to drive the economy from the bottom up.  The same Fed had Chernobyl-type problems with inflation in the late 70s, which, depending on how one defines "victory," the Fed was victorious over.  

What good would the collapse of Fannie and Freddie do?  The liquidity required to fund mortgages would go away.  The credit necessary to buy houses would nearly vanish.  All this would further exacerbate the problems of the housing market, as there would be no buyers for defaulted homes and homes that were "forced" onto the market (imagine a job change or a responsible buyer trying to pro-actively buy into a smaller, more affordable home).  When credit tightens, people can't buy cars, 

In the case of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the fact is that the collapse of these lending giants would not benefit any market.  Other banks already don't have the free capital to buy the companies.  Hell, the Government decided it couldn't even afford to buy the companies, so they simply nationalized them.  The simple fact is that the investors that provided the capital to support the loans, are also the capital owners that drive our economy through investments elsewhere.  Furthermore, investors that are petrified to loan money to homebuyers will only cripple our real estate market.  These investors will take their lumps; Lord knows that once the Government begins RUNNING Fannie and Freddie, those financially tethered to the company will not see any kinds of returns that they might hope to see were they run by competent, profit-driven executives.

The real key is getting the Government to declare "victory" early and getting out of the business of running companies.  This is not the kind of situation that "more oversight" is going to help. We don't need additional bureaucrats looking into the lending process forever.  Economic models might help predict the behavior of these kinds of collapses in the future, but there's no gaurantee, and if these models are put solely in the hands of bureaucrats, the process by which the legislation and regulation of the lending markets are controlled will be bastardized and perverted by the politics of the institution from which it derives its authority.  Presidents will have more authority to impress the short-term economy to provide constituents with desired results, and this will come at the cost of further mortgaging our future.  Inevitably, another collapse will come, and instead of blaming greedy executives and faceless corporations, we will find ourselves, once again, disappointed with the Authority to which we yielded our independence. 

What is necessary in this situation, is for the Feds to get involved, make sure everyone involved takes their lumps (stockholders, execs, and borrowers), and then get out, leaving everyone with the lasting knowledge that if you're not careful, you will take your lumps again.  Lenders shouldn't have been making these loans.  Many of them will go bankrupt, and their stockholders will pay.  Borrowers shouldn't have been so anxious to sign up for loans which, with their own honest personal assessments, they could not realistically repay.  Some of them have gotten in over their head, and several of them will likely default, and they should.  Investors should have been more shrewd with their money, looking for legitimate long-term investments (which real-estate has traditionally been) and performing due dilligence on their beneficiaries.  Some of the bonds they purchased should default, and likely will.  Allowing each group, in turn, to pay appropriately, for their own greed, while maintaining the stability and provided liquidity which Fannie and Freddie provide for the housing market is a good first step toward healing the real estate market, both short and long term.  

It doesn't have to be just a Government handout. By propping up the market in the short term until liquidity and stability can be naturally achieved within the open market,  it can (and should) be an investment in the American economy.

Rush Limbaugh's ego is ridiculous.

This week, I had the pleasure hearing a portion of the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. I have been exposed to Rush since I was reasonably young, as the father of my best friend growing up was a devout fan. I suspect he still is.

I hear snippets of the show every now and then, but I have yet to hear anything particularly enlightening come out of his mouth.

I'll give you two examples.

On 24 Feb, Richard Branson had a 747 flown from London to Amsterdam with one engine powered by coconut/fuel mixture. It was a demonstration of biofuel viability in commercial airliners. For the complete story, check here. Rush, authoring "Why We Can't Accept the Premise of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax," decided to provide his listeners with some thoughts on the use of coconut biofuels in commercial jetliners.

..."do you realize how ridiculous this is? Do you know what happens to coconut oil? At room temperature, it will solidify. I know, because I've got gazillion packets of it with popcorn that I use in my theatre. Coconut oil will solidify! You cannot put it in a jet fuel tank, especially at high altitude. It will freeze."

Thank you, Dr. Science. I'm sure the engineers at Boeing would like to know what will and will not work with their engines. I'm sure they would also appreciate it if you bound your thoughts in "reality." Yes, coconut oil you use with the popcorn in your theatre is solid at room temperature. (You have no idea how hard I am trying to avoid the obvious weight observation here...) Coconut oil is liquid above 76 degrees F. Last time I checked, however, jet engines don't run at 76 degrees F. They run someplace significantly higher, I suspect, depending on the design and type. Interestingly, even at "freezing" temperatures, nearing 550 mph at 35,000 feet, coconut oil could be maintained as a liquid.

As a point of interest, I specialized in rotating machinery, specifically jet engines, in college. Maybe that's just bragging, but it seemed pertinent.

It's not so much that Rush is wrong. It's that he claims to be an authority on anything and everything. "I now know what George Washington felt like." Somehow I think the struggles George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War, were significantly different, if not significantly more life-threatening, than the trials Rush faces on a daily basis. Although, perception being reality, Rush DID say that "the Revolutionary War was nothing," during his comparison of his conservative campaign relative to Washington in Valley Forge.

From conservative politics down to idea of burning coconut-kerosene fuel mixtures in jet airplanes, Rush claims to have definitive answers. Not opinions. Answers.

It's frustrating to me how conservatives allow this kind of arrogance define such a significant portion of the republican base.

Sex, drugs, and guns.

If you've read my blog for long, you'll not be surprised at my concerns regarding primary education within the U.S.

However, something that I think is well on the path to helping young people grow up is sexual education. Educating children (not too young, and no, I don't know what "too young" is) on the risks of having sex, and how to protect themselves, and the context in which sex is universally appropriate is an honorable endeavor. I think it makes tremendous sense for this to be taught in school where general information and context can be delivered uniformly to students. However, and I think most parents would agree (I will be the first to point out that I am NOT a parent,) sex education might be a part of primary education, but should be partnered with the individual context, morality, and communication of the parents. Schools probably shouldn't be involved in the "pre-marital vs. post-marital vs. extramarital," discussion, but can provide fact-based discussions of threats, risks, concerns, and protection about sexual relations.

The same thing goes for drug education. Warning children of the threat the drugs pose to our society as a whole, but also to individuals that partake in the drug culture is an appropriate venture for schools to take part in. However, like sex, it is up to parents to couple discussions and communications with the lessons in school to provide context on the individual morality associated with the values of the core family. Some values see drugs as a moral issue, others see them as a social issue. Providing that context probably shouldn't be done globally by the school, but by the parents, and reinforced by global, fact-based lessons, by the school.

So... how is it that guns don't fall into this category? It seems to me the topic fits snugly into the drugs and sex contexts. Schools could provide fact-based information on the threats, risks, and benefits of guns. Parents, however, can provide the core value context and morality of guns, gun control, and gun value to the children through open communications, much the same way this can (and probably should) be done with sex and drugs.

I believe that gun education at a young age is a start to helping folks at the most risk for abusing firearms, the same way we use education to promote (not abolish) safe sex and drug avoidance.

I would speculate that guns are a bigger threat in inner cities and suburbs, where children are not exposed to positive gun experiences and lessons at a young age (even if you normalize the data for population disparities). Truly, I would suspect that most inner city children are exposed to guns through either a negative source (someone "bad" that has guns locally, someone friendly being killed by guns) or through video games which glorify the use of guns as killing/vindication tools. However, in more rural areas, children are exposed to guns at a much younger age, and with positive connotations. Guns are to be respected. Guns are tools, not weapons. Guns are not to be mishandled.

I learned how to shoot a rifle (BB gun) when I was 3. I have a strong respect for what guns can do, and how they should be handled/treated. To this day, I do not shoot often. I own a small handful of guns, but they are on my grandfather's farm several hundreds of miles away. I have no desire to own a gun in my house, not because I'm "anti-gun," or because I don't like guns, but because I view them as a liability in my home. Why should I have a gun in my home? If someone were to break in, there's nothing in my house (aside from my wife) that I would be willing to kill for. And I have learned that if you're going to point a gun at something, you better be willing to shoot it, and if that something is a person, you better shoot to kill. That's not a responsibility I want in my home. I don't even like having the responsibility of taking out the trash! So I choose not to have a gun. I'm guessing that rationale does not go through the head of the street thug in downtown Detroit.

However, I believe the vast majority of "anti-gun" lobbyists/activists, have never been to a gun education course. They have never fired a rifle and handgun. They do not know what it means to "respect" a gun. They know what it means to avoid guns.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It's not about making guns go away. It's about making sure that only responsible, trained, educated people have guns in appropriate situations.