Dumb Coaching, Dumb Playing
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Personal
Well it coming up to half time in the national championship game and I think USC has made two significant mistakes that will ultimately cost them the game. First instead of attempting a field goal, Pete Carrol decided to go on fourth down. SC was short and Texas gained valuable momentum.
Second, on a long gain with a pass reception Reggie Bush attempted to lateral to a teammate. Had he held on to the ball SC would have been on the 18 yard line with momentum. Instead the momentum shifted back to Texas once again.
I think these are six points USC can ill afford to lose.
The China Diversion
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Politics
So the President is off to China talking about democracy. Is the purpose of all this democracy talk to shame the Chinese into seeing things our way? Or, is it just playing to the President's ever dwindling supporters at home? The Chinese will not take the bait on the Taiwan democracy, nor will they take any of the demands on currency or trade.
At home the Vice President has been left to lead the attack on all who don't buy the party line. Things aren't going well so what does he expect applause? Remember he is the one who told us "we have turned the corner" in Iraq. Are we supposed to accept his view of turning the corner, or Congressman Murtha's view of a corner turn? Its time to let freedom ring at home.
Time for a Test
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Politics
With hurricane Katrina bearing down on New Orleans, perhaps as a category 5 huricane, it is time for us to take have the President take a little test. As a President who tells us all that he is the best qualified to protect this country. Let's see how Mr Bush does over the next few days.
The test is in 5 parts. Please grade the President on his performance and the performance of his administration in each of the areas.
- Leadership - includes the ability to project an empathetic response to the situation. Instilling confidence that everything possible is being done to mitigate the situation. Cutting red tape to get the appropriate response in action.
- Vision - Natural disasters can have a greater impact than any terrorist attack. Where does such events fit within the scope of Homeland Security. Have we devoted sufficient resources to protect our citizenry from undue impact.
- Planning - anticipating the impact of a disaster. Do we have the necessary resources in place to respond rapidly and effectively. How will unanticipated issues be accommodated.
- Execution - Who is in-charge and what will they do. How long will it take to move resources into place. Will the appropriate human and relief supplies reach New Orleans and other impacted areas in a timely fashion. Will every agency involved have a clear understanding of their role and what they are expected to deliver.
- Responsibility - Will the President stand up and take responsibility if thing do not go as planned. Will credit be shared with others if things go well. Will fingers be pointed, thus diverting gaze from the points above.
Seats Shouldn't Need Instructions
Friday, April 8, 2005
Personal
Flying back from Prague after a wonder visit with our son Ryan, we found ourselves in recently upgraded high tech seats. At each seat was an instruction manual with all of the magical operations the seat could perform. My first thought was to simply futz with the settings to find a comfortable position and sit back and enjoy the movie.
Quickly I encountered my first problem, the movie simply could not hold its picture. The vertical hold was shot. Mentioning this to the flight attendant, she indicated she would reboot my system. It seems I was on one of Lufthansa's newest wifi enabled aircraft. Shortly after the reboot she returned to check on my movie. The reboot had done nothing to resolve the problem. So much for that improvement. Since I was on vacation, I didn't even have my PowerBook for alternate entertainment.
Back to the seat issue. If I was going to be flying for 10 hours finding a comfortable position was imperative. I continued to fiddle with the adjustments. No such luck. I guess it was time to read the manual. I spent the next few minutes carefully reading and trying to refine my position. Even with a manual, and all the wonderful features, the upshot was it was impossible to find the sweetspot I was seeking.
I fired up the iPod grumbling that seats should not need instructions.
An Ironic End to IBM's PC Business
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Technology
Many years ago I was tangentially involved in a join venture project to sell and service personal commuters in the Chinese mainland. Much of the project was scraped. The reason, the sale of computers with Intel 286 processors to China was restricted.
I guess yesterday's announcement of the sale of IBM personal computer division to China's largest computer maker, Lenovo, closes the book on the era of technology restrictions in the PC arena.
A Day for Decisions and Hope
Tuesday, November 2, 2004
Politics
It was Abraham Lincoln who sagely repurposed a biblical statement "a house divided cannot stand" at a bitter crossing point for the American democracy. Nearly 150 years later we have another great divide, it is our time of reckoning. Like the proverbial great divide to be crossed by explorers and settlers, there is no doubt we are a divided nation, and no doubt that we must confront the challenges ahead. In our time, we have no Lincoln to lead. It is certain that in his time Lincoln was seen by a large portion of the republic as a divider not a healer. In history's light we see quite the opposite.
Today, through our votes, we express our hopes and fears. Each of us who can and do vote must choose. Some say this is the dirtiest of campaigns. History proves them wrong. Our country is filled with bitter and divisive campaigns. True, this campaign has been light on substance and long on attacks. But in the end we must choose. Perhaps we can take solace in the fact that we will have a large turnout of voters. The more people who express their hopes, the more hope we might have for no candidate claiming a mandate. The agenda of the American people must encompass a bigger vision, not one of slogans, sound bites and exclusion.
In the end we must hope we select leaders who understand a house divided must be rebuilt.
Brief Tinderbox Weekend Reflections
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Technology
Earlier this month, I attended Tinderbox Weekend in San Francisco. My goal in attending this workshop was simple, increase my comfort and use of Tinderbox. Wow, did I get my money's worth.
For those not familiar with the niche product, Tinderbox doesn't quite fit into any particular category. My first impressions of Tinderbox was that it was an outliner that could do other things link idea mapping. I knew it could be used as a blogging tool, this blog is a Tinderbox document. As I explored further, I also realized that it is a great tool to organize my brain — bits and pieces of information, files and ideas. I even wrote a book in Tinderbox.
For me the problem must have been one of confidence. There were always doubts that I just wasn't getting it. Tinderbox Weekend took care of this major impediment. The key to unlocking Tinderbox was abandoning the concept that there is a single way to do things in Tinderbox.
During the two-day event, participants, most of whom shared my thoughts that there is something special here, I just don't know what it is, found out that there are always many ways to do the same thing. For example, I started with Tinderbox's outline view. I learned from < a href="http://www.doug-miller.net/blog/index.html" target=_blank>Doug Miller, a great Tinderbox resouce, that he is primarily a map view person. He displayed what he described as a map of his brain that was truly amazing. Ideas were organized, categorized and linked. My outline brain would not never have conceived of starting with a virtual clean sheet of paper.
By the end of the weekend, I gained several things. First, I was much further along in my understanding of Tinderbox, some even regarded me as an "expert." Second, I connected with a number of outstanding Tinderbox resources, Doug Miller, Bill Humphries, Mark Bernstein Tinderbox's creator and others. Finally, I was able to finally see why, rather than how, I might want to consider Tinderbox my tool of choice for thinking, creating and organizing.
I hardily recommend future Tinderbox Weekends to all Tinderbox users, novice and expert alike.
Freedom and Liberty in Iraq?
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Politics
NPR's Anne Garrels, one of the more insightful journalists covering Iraq, has just returned to Iraq after about a two month rotation out of the country. Her audio impressions of the country differ remarkably from the freedom and liberty is changing Iraq for the better mantra repeatedly uttered the President.
Intelligence Czar or Intelligent Czar: You make the call
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Politics
The debate in congress on the intelligence czar is increasingly ironic. The 911 Commission recommended such a position to strengthen our intelligence gathering and analysis to better protect the country. Congress and the administration continue to wrestle with this recommendation, but thus far, have not finalized any legislation. I have not yet come to the conclusion as to the merits of this recommendation. As is the case with most big schemes I can see pluses and minus to the concept.
I think there is an alternative that is not being discussed. I think we need an Intelligent Czar heading the Office of Common Sense. I come to this conclusion from repeatedly observed and reported cases where my first though is "what were they thinking?"
Do you really think we have improved our security when we painstakenly search the older lady with the walker in the airport security line? Does it make sense to apportion homeland security funds equally to high risk targets and states with virtually no risks? How about having months of backlogs of documents to translate while we boot out translators under Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Maybe we should continue to award no bid contractor to a handful of defense conglomerates who are free to spend your money with impunity. I am sure you could think of a lot more examples you have heard or seen.
So under my proposal we need to immediately create a gigantic government bureaucracy that will look over the shoulder of all the other government agencies to assure that common sense prevails. NOT! What we really need is for everyone, to constantly ask the bottomline question: does this make sense?
Perpetuating Lies: validating untrue sound bites
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Politics
As my daughter began her fellowship in Sacramento, her first contact with a constitutional officer was a spontaneous, revealing moment filled with helpful advice, support and a powerful closing admonition. "Remember," she was told, "all politicians lie."
At face value this is not shocking, disappointing for true believers maybe, but not shocking. What this statement triggered was ironically not the need to redouble efforts to critically think about all political statements, but rather the role of the media in perpetuating the lies.
The press from time-to-time points out the misstatements and lies of the candidates. Most often this "analysis" is buried deep in the paper or late in an extended newscast. Never do we see or hear this analysis up front. What we get are the sound bites perpetuating the lies.
Throughout this campaign when I hear an hourly news cast or read the front page headlines, I am astounded that the sound bite featuring misstates the facts, distorts reality or outright lies. More often than not, this is part of an attack on the opposing candidate. The selection and featuring of a misleading sound bite acts as a validation of the statement. Surely, many people think, if its on the news it must be true.
The journalists and broadcasters may think they have done their duty in their analysis pieces, but for me, they have failed to do their job by featuring the lies.
It ain't broke, why break it?
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Personal
Unlike many Americans, I have health care. When I retired from the California State University a major, but easy, decision in the retirement was to retire within the window when I would retain my health care for life.
My HMO plan, Blue Shield of California, is one of only a few choices available in my area. I am happy with my health plan because I am happy with my doctor who I have been with for close to twenty-five years.
Things changed recently, however, when CALPERS, the state retirement system, decided that the Sutter Medical system was charging too much for its services. The basis for this decision is perhaps debatable, but the decision was recently affirmed.
When the decision was first announced, I approached my doctor to discuss my options. His answer, there are no options. This is the only group in the area. He would gladly add another group to keep the 300 patients in his practice impacted by this decision, but for him, there were no other options available.
CALPERS and Blue Shield sent letters updating us on the situation. Clearly explaining their side of the issue, but hardly helpful to me was the good news, from their perspective, that I don't have to lose my doctor; I could change to their wonderful PPO. If I didn't want to stay with my doctor, I could change to Kaiser, or I could find a doctor with another medical group. To me this was not a good starting position. This breaks an essential link to a doctor I know and trust.
There are problems with these options. First, for me Kaiser is not an option. Though I have friends who are doctors at Kaiser, my indirect experience with Kaiser is too dominated by critical issues surrounding care and navigating the bureaucracy. The PPO option has the same monthly costs with much higher co-pay and lower lifetime limits. Finding another doctor is the last best choice of three lousy choices.
Back to my doctor who has been led to believe that something is being worked out. Not the case I explain based upon the communications I received. Even if something could be worked out before the changes go into effect in January, my open enrollment period is starting in September. If I can't find a good choice, it is unclear on my health insurance during the next year.
We call Blue Shield, the people who have established a special group to help us out. The first call does not go well. "Who are the doctors in our area we can choose," we ask. "Its all available on line," we are told. I go online while on the phone, and the website fails when trying to select doctors. I explain this to the "helpful representative" (hr) on the phone. "Let me look it up for you," hr comments. Hum, there are no doctors on the website. HR looks in her internal database. "I see a number of doctors," she proclaims. "Great, could you fax them to me?" I request. "Sure, you'll get them today," hr, giving great service comments.
During the same conversation, we learn that Blue Shield is working to create a replacement group and my doctor has chosen not to participate. I comment that it is not my understanding, but that I would check.
Two days later, no fax, no information on the website and getting closer to the open enrollment period. Things still look broken.
I call back to Blue Shield. "Helpful representative two" (hr2) tells me it was faxed. After explaining I did not receive it, I request another copy. She indicates it will be faxed and mailed. Belts and suspenders are a good solution to this kind of problem.
A few days later a mailing arrives and the next day a fax. Wow, lots of choices…until I notice my doctor is on the list. My wife points out the small type on a page before indicating that the following doctors are not eligible. Why list them if I can't use them?
Another call to Blue Shield to "helpful representative three" (hr3). No, your doctor is not a choice. There are 12 doctors who are. This is getting dicey, more than 2500 patients are impacted by this change in the area, and 12 doctors cannot reasonably absorb this number. Fax me a list. "Sorry," hr3 explains, "this part of the system doesn't allow me to fax, why don't I give you a name or two." If I am going to be making a decision as important as a doctor, I want all my choices, not just two randomly chosen. I take down this list by hand.
I ask about the group hr1 cited. HR3 searches and after an extended time returns with instructions for my doctor to call the Providers Line, part of the organization not available to patients.
I call my doctor, have they heard of the new group, no. Have they been contacted by Blue Shield or CALPERS on this issue, not in any substantive way. They start to tell me just hold on; we hear that this whole situation will all blow over. I explain that the decision is now final. Could they please call the Blue Shield Provider line with their secret decoder ring firmly on their finger? They promise to do so.
The doctor's office calls back. They called and were told there is nothing resembling the group I described. I again ask whether they have heard any discussion of this within the medical community. No, nothing at all. The tell me that I seem to know more than anyone. I tell them I will call back to Blue Shield on my side of the firewall.
In my next call to Blue Shield "helpful representative four" (hr4) doesn't know what new group I am talking about. There is nothing in her database. She dutifully tells me about available groups on the other side of the county. When I comment on needing a group in my area, she informs me there isn't any. I press for more information. She responds that she grew up here. Hold on hr4 proclaims, and I am now subjected to the incessant recording of how helpful Blue Shield is. She returns with two names for the doctor to call. "If they can't help them, they will get them to someone who can," hr4 explains as we end the conversation.
Back on the phone to the doctor, I feel closer to a potential solution. I give the names and phone numbers. Real people I explain. They promise to call.
Five minutes later they call back. Person number one doesn't exist and person number two works in the PPO claims department.
My health care is slipping away. I call back and get hr5 who I immediately rebuff as I ask for a supervisor. "What's this regarding," hr5 asks she gets my testy summary and another demand for a supervisor. On hold I again am subjected to the garbage messages. Hold on as she is transferring me. Woops, voice mail. Another hold and message, that person, a lead representative, also went to voice mail. Do I want to leave a message? I request the supervisor, not the lead representative. I am transferred but instead of voice mail I am talking to the supervisor. I explain the situation. She responds that this sounds bad but while she can't help me, she will walk my situation over to a special problems resolution group. "You will hear from them within 30 minutes," she promises.
Right. Okay at this point my routine interactions have completely failed. My persistent queries have not produced an apparent solution. My doctor, through his channels, knows far less than I. The window is nearly closed.
Amazingly, I receive the promised call within 30 minutes. I calmly (right) explain the situation. The special representative (s), tells me she will help break through this log jam. She will check and call me back shortly.
S calls back as promised. There is an option, and she will directly call the doctors office to get things started. As she will be out the next day, she will call Friday morning with an update. S calls as promised and leaves a message with the status and the fact that I will get more information by 4:00 pm. S calls at 3:50 pm. The doctor’s office has been contacted, materials have been Fedexed, and things finally appear to be coming together.
Later that day, new form mail arrives from Blue Shield with information to help me understand my options for the upcoming open enrollment period. Blue Shield again informs me of the fact that my doctor is no longer approved and cites my apparently limited options. I can choose another doctor (no list provided) or, if I don't choose a doctor they will choose one for me. The same "helpful" information most people impacted by this decision are receiving.
Only now, I have a secret decoder ring, and I know that what is broken for most, might, just might, be fixed for those who have the will to resist.
Chess in the Median
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Politics
When I was younger I was a chess champion in my junior high school, then I gave up the game because other things became more important. Why is this important? In this case, only because it is a metaphor for the 2004 presidential campaign.
I am no fan of the ever extending campaign process in the United States. When I was younger, There were the primaries, hotly contested until it seemed there was a winner, then a break, the conventions which sometimes undid the primaries, a longer break and then the an eight week sprint to the election.
Now we have a concentrated set of primaries, a longer break, the conventions pre-ordained, and an even longer sprint to the election.
How does chess figure into the equation? From the outside an unskilled observer doesn't see a most of the strategy of a high level chess match. Underneath, however, the participants, and the knowledgeable observers, are seeing far into the future of the match. In the chess match and the political campaign, so much focus is on the outside what is happening now. The moves are basic, the stump speeches are repetitive simplified messages. Quite honestly, I get bored hearing the same simple messages repeated with little or no depth or variation— terror, terror, terror, hero, hero, hero. Move the pawn one row at a time— boring, boring, boring.
Underneath, however, the strategy is unfolding many moves ahead. If a strategic message/policy can be crafted for this group or that group, we can swing voters our way. How can we simplify the message, simplify the message, simplify the message? The art and the science of the campaign are unfolding.
Unfortunately, to the electorate, watching this campaign is like watching a chess match held in the median of the freeway. The match may be complex and played with sophistication. However, the numbing traffic speeding by on both sides distracts from the reality of the match. We don't see what is really going on. The analysis focuses on the basics. We do not see the difficulty of balancing positions, one against another. What we see and hear is the stump speech, the rapid response to the news of the day or the attacks and counter attacks of the campaign. We do not see the beauty of the match; it is all a blur. What we think of as the match is the distraction of the freeway.
By the time the election is won, we would have been bombarded with more basics that are humanly possible to tolerated. We will be numbed to death with messages, speeches and ads. These dumbed down messages that speak not to the complexity of being president of the United States, but rather simple messages and themes that don't help us really understand how our next president will be able to look ahead, unravel complex conflicting challenges and rally the nation to focus on the issues of greater good.
There is a reason truly great chess matches are pressure-packed, endurance draining events played largely in silence. It is difficult to think strategically dozens of moves ahead. To see the match unfold before it is played, and then to respond to the twists and turns presented by your opponent.
I wish our campaigns were more like a high-level chess match than the repetition of the cars moving in opposite directions on the freeway. I want to focus on the thinking, the fully developed ideas, not the basic moves, the repetitive drone of the message, the message, the message.