Pomp & Surkanstance

Surkan Family Videos

2015-09-24T21:24:00.001-04:00

Since the only way to share private YouTube videos with people you have specifically given permission to view them is with the individual URLs, I have created this web page to list all the family videos available to my family and friends.

I sold my soul to Amazon and so can you!

2015-02-13T18:27:00.001-05:00

After 3 years of working at the cloud computing startup Uhuru Software I am happy to report that things are going amazingly well for me! True, these great things are taking place at another company (Amazon, no less) but good is good so why quibble over details?

Sadly, there just wasn't anything more for me to do helping develop the PaaS (Platform as a Service) cloud business at Uhuru. Now I see that the Uhuru web site has been replaced with a simple page that has little product info or details and that most of my engineering colleagues have all wound up at HP (except for one who is working at still another firm).

I may not have gotten rich at Uhuru but I have no regrets. Just the opportunity to work with such an amazing group of people in a family type environment was wonderful. It was also a tremendous opportunity to expand my skills with cloud computing and virtualization as well as put my unorthodox marketing ideas to work. It was fun recruiting a huge membership for the Uhuru trial cloud service and social media communities with a shoestring budget.

It didn’t hurt that Uhuru was only 4 miles from my house, allowing me to continue biking to work on pleasant trails. I was having such a good time biking to work this summer that I even started a YouTube channel recording my commutes.

Out of the frying pan and into the Amazon fire...

And now the fun is just getting started for me at Amazon. After just 6 months of working as a Program Manager for a team building financial analytic systems for Amazon Retail I can already say that this is one of the BEST jobs I have ever had in my life! I never would have believed that a large company could be so nimble and still keep acting like a startup.

I had a lot of apprehension about working at Amazon before I started in September 2014. I'd heard all the stories about round-the-clock work and burn-out. The reality has been pleasantly surprising -- at least for the Retail Systems group where I am working (I can't really vouch for all the other areas of the company).

I never would have thought working on financial systems would be so interesting, and never wouldn't have applied for this job if a friend hadn't told me to. Now I can believe how exciting it is to build software that lets managers see how profitable it is to sell baby bathtubs in China, and understand exactly how consumer trends are changing every day. Data is fun!

My managers support initiative quite unlike most other firms I've worked at, and my engineer team-mates rarely work week-ends or late nights. It was a little disconcerting to see the lack of process we had in our engineering work, but I now think it is wonderful not to be bound by a lot of processes that may, or may not, be helpful. Our team can choose the tools, technologies and processes that we feel work best.

I had forgotten how great it can be having a job you just love while I spent 9 LONG years at Microsoft trying to work in a machine I wasn't built to fit in. My job at Amazon reminds me of the amazing days I spent back at PC Week Labs in the 1990s. Life is too short to just settle.

I feel so strongly about how great my team is that I am taking some of that initiative to try and recruit unconventional engineers to come and help build Financial Reporting and Analytics tools in Amazon Retail Systems. We are changing the way business is done by empowering business leaders to make decisions in record time with pertinent analytics.

Please give me a shout if you are interested in working at Amazon and have valid US work permits. My team is eagerly recruiting software engineers. Let me tell you all about how you can sell your soul to Amazon just like me.

Creating a School of Excellence: Admissions vs. Demissions

2012-06-10T10:38:00.001-04:00

An effective student selection process is central to creating a great private school environment, but not sufficient. When the atmosphere or social dynamics of the student body deteriorate, it is easy to point fingers at admissions, blaming them for accepting unqualified students. While admissions can make mistakes, or even take unsuccessful gambles on marginal applicants, it is imperative to have a clear process for identifying students who don’t belong and counseling them out.

Many schools count exclusively on the admissions filtering to manage the student body, excepting extreme cases like felonies on campus. When, inevitably, a few students prove themselves a nefarious influence on the student body, they must be exit, both to eliminate their influence on others and to set a clear example that such behavior is not tolerated. A school must maintain clear academic and behavioral standards and apply them consistently.

Parents who send their children to private schools are not only paying for quality academics, but for a filtered environment where their children will be surrounded by quality students. The less effective the filtering, the less value there is in paying a premium over quality public alternatives.

The same principle applies to faculty. In spite of the fact that many private schools issue annual contracts to their faculty with no extended commitment, they hesitate to ask mediocre faculty not to return. Further, as pay is often based exclusively on a combination of seniority and education levels, there is little built-in incentive for faculty to maintain their vigor after they have established themselves. As long as they perform above the minimum requirements, they can focus their extra energies on their families and personal interests. This creates an environment of mediocrity.

The pass/fail assessment of faculty is in stark contrast with the graduated grading system used habitually for students. Honors ceremonies unite the entire student body to celebrate the students who make the dean’s list and who achieve great grades, but teachers are usually only celebrated for seniority or external accolades. That sends the signal that teachers are better off conserving their energy in order to last longer and thus move higher up the salary ladder.

The majority of students and faculty respond positively to effective incentives, raising the standards of the entire school. In a school employing such incentives, performance would improve such that few students and faculty would need to leave, and they would be motivated to constantly give their full efforts.

Identifying clear values and expectations and creating consistently enforced incentives to propagate those values among both faculty and students creates an environment of excellence. Quality admissions and hiring solve only part of the solution. Quality on-going incentives within the community keep it vigorous and healthy.

Taught v. Learned

2012-02-12T15:16:00.003-05:00

Teachers often commiserate with one another over how little of their lessons are actually retained by the students. The standard defense is that the material was taught, but that students are too fickle to remember or at least admit to have remembered it. Teaching cycles often look something like this: assign reading, complete worksheet, discuss in class, distribute study guide, review, test, repeat. Perhaps most perplexing of all is the fact that students often perform well on assessments and then promptly seem to forget what they learned.

The problem lies partially in our natural tendency to forget some of what we learn, but perhaps more importantly in the difference between teaching and learning. Most lessons are not meaningful to the students, leading them to focus on isolating what they need to memorize to maximize their grade and then moving on. In short, the teachers teach what they think is important for students to know and the students, finding the material largely irrelevant, develop short-term cramming skills to perform well on the predictable assessments and then promptly forget the material.

As written tests are the most common way of verifying what students learned, teachers can point to strong test results and claim that they successfully taught the material, exonerating themselves from any subsequent student “forgetfulness.” From the student’s perspective, it becomes increasingly tempting to adopt an attitude of cynicism toward the boring, meaningless process. Inasmuch as students find their classes irrelevant, school becomes a mind-numbing process of going through the motions in order to get a grade. Copying worksheet answers, cheating on tests or gaming the system appear increasingly legitimate if the process is pointless to start with.

Modern teaching techniques, often involving group work, differentiated instruction and technology, attempt to address this divide between teaching and learning by making education more interactive, and thus more engaging. Given that students are bombarded with stimuli from various electronic sources and socializing all day long, the theory is that schools have to compete for their attention by using similar techniques. Unfortunately, such theories reduce students to animals whose attention can only be secured by flashy graphics on screens and social interaction. Intellectual engagement largely ignored, and the academic engagement resulting from these "21st Century Methods" continues to fare poorly against "19th Century Methods."

Ultimately, successful student engagement involves respecting the students as individuals and as thinkers. It requires the teacher to create an environment where students discover how the world works experientially, and appreciate the relevance of what they are studying. The definition of a master teacher is whether he can create such a learning environment. It can be done with or without modern technology; the more technology is used, the more additional skill the teacher requires to ensure that the technology contributes to rather than distracts from the focus of the learning.

Evidence of this basic principle is not hard to find. Master teachers like Rafe Esquith manage to effectively and consistently engage large, public school 5th grade classes, despite minimal resources and considerable bureaucratic obstacles. Meanwhile, many private "21st Century" classrooms and schools, boasting small class sizes, minimal bureaucracy, teaching assistants, diversified teaching styles and the latest technology achieve considerably less student engagement and meaningful learning.

There are some tangible steps which teachers can take to ensure that learning is happening. First, never waste the students' time and intelligence. Start classes on time, dispense with busywork assignments like crossword puzzles and mindless worksheets. Beware of excessive use of workbooks and mindless assignments like coloring maps.

Second, encourage integration of new concepts into existing knowledge. Start with what students know and create scenarios where students have to discover concepts by actively solving real problems rather than by passively listening to lectures or viewing media. A textbook example of this is Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Exercise. It is difficult to imagine a more effective way to teach the concept of racism.

Third, find innovative assessment methods that allow students to apply their ingenuity and understanding to new problems, without creating the free-rider incentives endemic to most group projects. Factual regurgitation should never be the center of assessment. Instead, have them apply what they learned in meaningful ways, like these simulated WWII letters to investigate the plight of the Japanese both in Japan and in the USA. Beyond assessing understanding, assessments can also help students to develop presentation skills appropriate to their chosen medium. Perhaps the most misunderstood medium is PowerPoint, which few teachers know how to effectively use themselves.

Finally, listen to the students by checking in regularly, both through formal surveys and informal discussion. Students are usually honest, sometimes to a fault, about how things are going. By including their feedback in the directions of the class, they are respected and validated as individuals. In a balanced class, they inevitably teach the teacher as much as they learn from him.

Solving Education Locally

2012-01-15T14:34:00.000-05:00

I am a Middle School History teacher of 9 years and still love my profession. When I started teaching, I had a dream of creating the ideal curriculum and then simply propagating it around the world to overhaul education. My first few years teaching were in a private school which tried to do exactly this. Although the educational level was much higher than public schools, I became imminently aware that the core of quality education is not having the best curriculum, but having the best teachers. Curriculum is decidedly easier to replicate than great teachers.

I still do not understand how any teacher or parent (and I am both) who understands that the most important factor in education is the teacher in the classroom would ever seek centralized solutions, as such solutions can never ensure that each classroom has a great teacher in it who is empowered to make the best decisions for his classroom. Political solutions, by definition, are centralized solutions to a localized problem. It does not matter whether the centralized solutions come from government or teachers unions, they cannot ensure quality in each local classroom.

The only viable solution, in my opinion, places the control of the classroom firmly in the teacher's hands. It is the New Zealand solution of some years back: localize the funding and the decisions in each school in the hands of the parents/teachers. In other words, the principal and teachers of each school should be solely answerable to the parents of their students, with no tenure.

This could be achieved through the complete privatization of education, but that would be unpopular. It can also be achieved by school choice whereby each school receives a certain amount per student who attends and then parents can vote with their feet if they are unhappy. Unfortunately, this option is unpopular with teachers, who often don't trust parents to make sound educational choices. From my experience, parents VERY consistently request for their child to be in the classes of the most competent teachers. The other common problem with vouchers and school choice is that the governments start attaching curricular and testing requirements to the funding, invalidating the purpose of local decision-making.

Politicians will never favor the privatization or localization of education because that would remove it from their influence. They want to find central solutions to all of our problems, whereby they are the heroes who save us and are subsequently rewarded by re-election. Their "solutions" generally involve centralizing decisions even more, which is always detrimental to education.

I have travelled all over the world observing great teachers, both public and private. In spite of the problems with our current system, I have observed public, inner city, American school teachers like Rafe Esquith, who manage to minimize the negative impacts of standardized testing and poor curricula on their activities in the classroom. His 5th grade students' scores on standardized tests are high because his students are learning what they ought to in his own self-designed curriculum, not because he focuses centrally on testing.

Finally, I find that the "Finland Phenomenon" is possible in each classroom without fixing the entire educational system. Yes, there are horrible schools where teachers may be restricted from the freedom of achieving this in their classroom, but quality teachers should not stay in such schools. I have decided to create a "Finland Phenomenon" in my classroom and am impressed by how much control I have to independently make a difference and motivate students by creating the right environment.

Let us lobby for localization of educational decision-making while doing our best to create our ideal learning environment in our own classroom.

Mosques and Burning Quarans: Legality v. Respect

2010-09-08T20:16:00.002-04:00

After sympathizing with both views on the proposed mosque two blocks from ground zero, Thomas Sowell has proposed a perspective which I can fully support. It should not be illegal to create an Islamic center near ground zero, but it is profoundly insensitive of the Muslim community to even consider it.

Ironically, there are vehement calls for the Floridian pastor to show respect for Islam by not burning Quarans on September 11th. Unless those demanding that he not follow through with his plans are also pleading that the Muslim community similarly show respect by not building the proposed community center in New York, they are hypocrits. Some have even gone so far as to say that there may be vengeful killings of Americans in the middle east in reprisal for the Quaran burning in Florida. If this happens, it is merely a confirmation that there is a lack of tolerance among muslims and a dual standard.

Bibles have been burned by Muslims, and Christians have not reacted by killing Muslims. Nor have the people currently decrying the burning of the Quaran spoken out against the bible burnings by Muslims. If there are truly two separate Muslim communities, radically violent extremists and peace-loving, then it would be helpful to hear the peace-loving side publicly decrying the violent side.

In matters of principle, we should be consistent. Respect for others often extends beyond the letter of the law. The Muslim community should refrain from building their community center near Ground Zero for the same reason that they feel the Quarans should not be burned by the pastor in Florida. Each side stands to gain respect only if they demonstrate it themselves. Above all, the United States government should, if anything, entreat both sides to be respectful, and fund neither. By funding the mid-east trip of the 'Ground Zero' Imam, and openly supporting the Islamic Center while criticizing the Quaran-burning, our government is fueling the flames of intolerance by applying a flagrantly biased dual standard.

Let’s give drug dealers what they want

2010-05-23T18:55:00.002-04:00

I have long been an advocate of drug legalization, believing that it not only wastes huge amounts of resources on something that can’t be stopped as well as having a corrosive impact on society, driving otherwise law-abiding people into a world of illegality.

My views on this haven’t changed, but hearing the outcry over the suicide of a youthful Canadian drug smuggler, Samuel Brown, has made me want to distance myself from the broader legalization movements. For one thing, I don’t believe this young man deserves our sympathy. He was a willing participant in an illegal trade, and while I believe in legalization, I have never supported the people who are in this business. If anything, the whole reason I believe in legalization is so that these unscrupulous characters will lose the ability to make as much money as they do, which makes them such menaces to society.

When reading over the numerous internet comments around Mr Brown’s death, I can’t help but notice that a great many of these people (particularly those from Canada), just want to be able to pursue the drug trade, and get rich without the risk of getting caught by those evil American lawmen. All the righteous indignation in Nelson over Samuel’s death makes my blood boil. After all, it is the uncouth monsters who run grow-ops, and ancillary drug-trade industries in BC who are responsible for creating such a brutal environment where young men and women risk their lives in the pursuit of an easy buck.

This just makes me wish all the more fervently for true drug legalization. Then all those holier-than-thou drug-operators in BC (and wherever else they may reside) will find themselves out of business overnight. If the US really wants to have its revenge on the foreign drug producers, filling it’s streets with crime, they should just legalize the goods. Not only would such a move utterly destroy communities like Nelson overnight, but it would likewise undermine demagogues like Evo Morales (the president of Bolivia) without so much as firing a gun.

I don’t believe in legalization because I like drugs. I stand for legalization because I despise the entire drug sub-culture, and the people who pervert society through making easy money off of the illicit trade.

Michael: The Model Job Seeker

2010-05-11T00:58:00.003-04:00

Matt Youngquist wrote a very flattering piece on his career coaching blog, highlighting my podcasting and entrepreneurial efforts. Who'd have thunk that I would be cited as an example for others to emulate?

If nothing else, hearing such kind words certainly buoys my spirits, which can take a drubbing now and again, as I keep slogging away with a lengthy job search.

As a “new media” aficionado and somebody who had always prided himself on proactive thinking and creative problem-solving, he decided the best path to his career future would be to go on offense, rather than defense.

The result? After setting up a simple blog portal, Pomp & Surkanstance, Michael started reaching out to dozens of local entrepreneurs, technology luminaries, and business leaders — not to ask them for a job, but to ask to interview them for a special series of podcasts he had decided to start producing. He branded this project “Entrepreneurs Northwest” and found that his invitations were usually received with open arms...

So if you’re in transition and feeling a bit rudderless at the moment, I’ve got just three words for you. Be like Mike. Go on offense. Create momentum. Find a way to start working on something, even if it’s not a revenue-producing something. As any career coach worth their salt could tell you, the real opportunities aren’t found sitting behind a computer, they’re found out in the market and you find them by talking to lots and lots of people. So conjure up your own project that will facilitate some relevant conversations — and go for it!

You can read the full article on Matt's site.

The True Lesson from Greek Debt

2010-05-07T21:47:00.001-04:00

The deeper lesson in the Greek debt debacle is that welfare states paint themselves into a corner until they reach a tipping point of no return. All democratic, debt-ridden countries are heading for the same fate, and it is too painful and unpopular for governments to take the necessary austerity measures to avoid collapse. Any politicians proposing austerity measures will lose the votes of those who receive the benefits of government largesse. Once the group of people who believe they receive more from government than they pay reaches a majority, collapse is assured.

The political candidate's dilemma is: propose austerity and not get elected, or run on a free lunch campaign, get elected, and perhaps try to slip a little austerity in with the largesse. Even those who propose austerity as candidates tend to take little substantive action against it once they are elected. Note that the worst fate a politician faces by over-spending is getting elected out of office. If austerity policies guarantee such evictions, then largesse in the hope that the consequences will fall on a future government seems to be the best option.

Externally enforced austerity only works temporarily until either a new election, where communist candidates become attractive, or until the uprisings in the street reach a tipping point, forcing the government to declare bankruptcy. Either way, the government debt will ultimately go unpaid, and the currency will be devalued. In short, external bailouts, much like chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and domestic corporate bailouts, merely tax nations that aren't yet quite as bad off and delay the inevitable collapse. By taxing the healthier nations, such bailouts serve to weaken everybody, making it increasingly inevitable that the healthier nations will fall a little sooner than they otherwise would because of their own economic imprudence. The linked currencies of the euro merely guarantee a combined collapse rather than a selective one.

The solution to failing nations is the same as the solution to failing individuals and companies: unassisted, liquidation bankruptcy. It is unpleasant, and that is precisely the point. It needs to be unpleasant and inevitable in order for citizens to be a little less inclined to vote for governments promising a free lunch. Further, we need to let week countries fall in order for them to more quickly get on to the road to recover. It is a road that only starts from the bottom. Does only democracy lead inevitably to collapse, or is it a symptom of every form of government which has forgotten frugality and freedom?

The Freedom to Fail

2010-05-07T21:17:00.001-04:00

Among the plethora of freedoms, real and imaginary, touted by politicians and pundits, one fundamental freedom is glaringly missing: the freedom to fail. Governments create welfare programs to save us from personal economic failure, health care to save us from health care failure, business and banking regulations and agency to save us from bank and business failure. Unfortunately, we learn by our mistakes. More importantly, the risk-taking entrepreneurial spirit requires the right to fail completely in addition to the right to windfall profits if it succeeds.

Without the right to fail, we become capricious and stop taking precautions to avoid suffering. Why save money if the government will provide pensions? Why buy health care if the government will provide it? Why be skeptical of bank interest rates that are too good to be true if the government guarantees our savings will be safe from loss? Why save for a rainy day when the government provides steadily growing unemployment insurance? Why cautiously rent when the government rewards us for taking a mortgage?

Unfortunately, when you take away the right to fail, you must also take away the right to succeed. Without the risk of failure, banks and individuals take too many risks and individuals are less inclined to take care of their own needs, increasing the need for heavy taxation. We already tax the poor heavily through monopoly gambling rights for the government and sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The only way to raise taxes is thus on the less poor, by taxing the rich until their income is at a very modest level.

Many things stop happening at such a level. Potential medical students decide to not pursue degrees in medicine. Entrepreneurs decide not to create new, innovative businesses. Pharmaceutical firms decide against researching expensive new drugs. In short, the advance of civilization slows. Everybody focuses, instead, on hiding their income from the taxman and maximizing their government benefits. How many of our decisions are already driven by their tax or benefits implications?

Finally, when innovation has slowed, and new companies are scarce, the government becomes fearful of large existing firms going bankrupt, as new firms will not rise to replace them. They they provide subsidies to the weak companies and tax the successful companies until they also become unprofitable. If the companies no longer face the risk of failure due to taxpayer bailouts, then it is understandable that we then spurn profitability and bonuses.

The only solution is to harald a return of the right to fail. Eliminate chapter 11 and other corporate bailouts. Eliminate all government subsidies and regulation of retirement, health and unemployment. Encourage entrepreneurs to take risks, but allow them to bear the full loss or success of those risks. Inasmuch as we reduce the freedom to fail, we reduce the freedom to succeed.

Poll Taxes

2010-04-26T22:14:00.003-04:00

At my private school, the faculty are encouraged to contribute to two faculty scholarships for graduating seniors. Those who contribute to the scholarships are allowed to vote on the recipients, but those who don't contribute are excluded from voting. Were I to point out how undemocratic this restrictive voting policy is, I would be understandably scorned.

Strangely, many of the same people who would spurn such a suggestion at this local level, believe that restricting political franchise to taxpayers would be unamerican and immoral. Is it any wonder that we continually choose leaders who redistribute the wealth of the minority to those who contribute the least in taxes?

Why do the Poor Teach the Rich?

2010-04-14T00:30:00.001-04:00

As a teacher in a respectable private school, I'm starting to wonder whether the fact that lower middle class teachers, often educated in public schools, teaching upper class students is not just an ironic juxtaposition, but a necessary relationship. Often the students in my classroom have never had to perform basic household chores, light a match or learn the plethora of life skills that a lower class teacher learns by necessity.

As I contemplate the justification for spending $17,000 dollars a year to send a child to middle school, safety, nurturing and academics come to mind, but is there more to it? Maybe the fact that we poor teachers spend considerable time learning basic survival skills and street smarts growing up qualifies us to prepare these privileged children for the bump and tumble challenges of life. What are the students receiving for their parents' $20/class?

Meanwhile, we teachers can appreciate the fact that we don't have to go as far out of our way to teach our children to appreciate what they have: we can't afford a maid, and they'll have to work their way through college. Perhaps their challenges will on day qualify them to teach the wealthy.

Getting Older: Back to Basics

2010-04-14T00:01:00.002-04:00

As I get older, I find my interests and awareness slowly evolving to become more like those of my parents, who are now grandparents. Simple pleasures like spending time with children, playing cards, and gardening are becoming increasingly fulfilling, and intellectual debates about saving the world are fading in their allure.

A heightened awareness of the wonder of nature is my latest rediscovery, as I marvel with my young daughters who are discovering it for the first time. The clichés about staying young by seeing the world through their eyes have some truth to them, but I believe the more fundamental reason for the evolution of interests is a greater awareness of what really counts. By this point, I'm fairly set in my intellectual ways, so rehashing them doesn't accomplish much, but I seldom tire of spending time with family and friends.

After I learned how to play hearts a few years ago, I quickly thought I had mastered the game and it became boring. When I play it now, I recognize seemingly endless subtleties that not only help me to become a better card player, but seem to parallel life. Knowing which cards to pass off and which ones to hold is akin to coming to terms with our daily dilemmas. In life, finding pleasure in what others reject or ignore is also much safer than searching for the holy grail. It isn't really important whether I win the card game, but rather whether I play my hand to its full potential.

The same analogies apply to parenting and teaching, my chosen vocation. Regardless of what others are doing, I can always improve myself if I only take the time to contemplate my situation. Is this what it means to grow old?

Canadian identity: un-American

2009-11-27T02:50:00.000-05:00

Kevan, Jeremy and Michael ponder the Canadian identity and its historical roots, digging back to the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, confederation all the way to medicare and Afghanistan. Is the Canadian identity nothing more than the never ceasing struggle not to be Americans?

Germanic Charms...

2009-11-26T17:47:00.000-05:00

My family and I recently returned from spending three weeks in Germany and Austria, where a number of charms were particularly noteworthy to our North American eyes.

Bread, beer and sausage are exceptional: both tend to be made from simple ingredients with extraordinary variety and flavour. Beer benefits from the German purity law of 1516, which limits the ingredients to water, hops, barley and yeast. In spite of these limitations, there are hundreds of beers, and the flavours vary considerably, along with the appropriate glass for the consumption of each variety. My personal favourites were the various Weiss / wheat beers. In the summer, a little lemonade can add a refreshing zest to an already exceptional beer, making it into a radler (with Pils) or a russ (with Weiss) depending on which beer you use. The broad variety of alcohol-free beers, admitedly a little counter-culture to fine beer, are thankfully plentiful for those who are driving or cycling after visiting the beer garden.

Visiting a German bakery is an adventure unto itself. The pretzels and dark, hearty breads are full of flavour, not to mention the rolls made of a variety of grains. Where else can you by bread by the pound? Though Germans do eat white breads, the dark varieties are my favourites, especially the spelt (dinkel) flour rolls!

Sausage seems to be a European delicacy with each region producing its own varieties. Some sausages, like white sausage (Weisswurst), even have special serving bowls and rules. In Bavaria it should be consumed before noon and with beer; so much for avoiding alcohol in the morning.

Not to be mixed with an early-morning beer and Weisswurst, the culture of commuting by bicycle is also very refreshing. Not only are bicycle lanes and paths very common and well-maintained, bikes configured for comfort and all-weather commuting, especially the fenders, friction-powered lights and bike racks/baskets. While racing cycling has its following, cycling for daily transportation is very common and comfortable.

German homes are as utilitarian as their bicycles. Inner doors are made of solid wood and most windows open in two directions: they can be tipped up or opened like a door depending only on the direction in which you turn the handle. Even commercial buildings often have windows that you can open for a breath of fresh air. The German tendency to take fastidious care of their homes is both a blessing and a curse. They are delightful places to live, but difficult to part with when schooling and job changes increase commuting times.

The public transportation network is also a pleasure to use, whether for long journeys or within large cities. The stations are generally well-kept and trains tend to run on time. Many people live comfortably without driving their cars often or at all.

Like their homes and train stations, Germans tend to be well-organized and pay close attention to detail and keeping their environment not only clean, but delightfully inviting and attractive.

Although sales and income taxes tend to be high, property taxes are almost negligible, allowing those who own their homes to stay in them when they retire with limited incomes. This is truly a blessing.

Definitions of Freedom: Europe v. America

2009-11-26T01:43:00.000-05:00

Americans like to believe that their country stands out as particularly free on the world scene. My recent travels around Europe remind me, however, that freedom is an ambiguous term. Americans generally have more freedom to own firearms, go shopping at any hour on any day of the week and create entrepreneurial businesses than Europeans. Europeans, however, enjoy other freedoms and quasi-freedoms.

Among the most obvious freedoms in Europe are the freedom of movement between countries and the considerably wider access to alcohol than in the United States, both in terms of locations of purchase and drinking age. There are fewer border restrictions travelling between countries in Europe than there are when driving into California from a neighboring state and they don't share the uniquely American folly of allowing citizens to vote before they can drink.

There are also some ambiguous freedoms. The bans on motor boat use on many European lakes could be considered a freedom from noise and water polution or a reduction of freedom to use public spaces. The lack of restrictions in Europe on taking animals into public places, including restaurants, is arguably an increased freedom in Europe. There seems to be less of an over-active fear of microbes on the continent than in the USA.

Restrictions, especially those involving employment and taxation, are often more apparent to locals than to visitors. Taxes, while high in both Europe and the United States, are distributed differently. The higher sales tax or VAT here in Europe is offset by considerably reduced property taxes. Whereas even a hermit without income who owns his home outright in the USA would soon lose his home for failure to pay property taxes, a German homeowner of limited means has almost no fear of losing his home for lack of abilty to pay taxes.

It is difficult to say which continent is the most desireable place to live, especially for retirees who are less affected by employment restrictions in Europe. If anything, the limitations of freedom are becoming more homogenous between Europe and the USA. The European Union is encouraging more commercial competition between hitherto national monopolies, and the United States is adopting more of the nanny state policies so common in Europe.

The (First) Unemployment, Anti-diversity and Outsourcing Encouragement Act of 2009

2009-11-25T02:23:00.000-05:00

While Obama's first law, forbidding wage discrimination, sounds noble at first glance, it is ultimately destined to reduce employment and erode the possibility of merit pay. It effectively pushes businesses toward rigid, union-style pay scales based on easily-measurable differences like seniority at the expense of pay differentials based on intangibles like merit, reliability and market conditions.

The law forbids companies from having pay disparities based on gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disabilities. The problem lies in that the most noble reasons for pay disparities, market conditions and merit pay, are intangibles that are difficult to measure. This opens up employers to the potential for litigation if they don't follow a rigid pay scale based on seniority and measurable experience like diplomas and licenses.

It would be folly to argue that there are never injustices in pay structures, but the solution to such injustices is for workers to move on to work for employers who pay them their true value. In my own salary negotiations, I have found that there are few negotiating techniques more effective for a valuable, underpaid employee than seriously threatening to leave the company. Great employees are hard to come by and considerable worth a premium over other employees who may have the same race, education and years experience but not work as effectively.

Market conditions can also play a considerable role. During the Internet bubble of the late nineties, my company had such a difficult time finding workers that I ended up hiring less qualified workers than myself at higher wages that I was making. I knew, however, that if the wage disparity continued, I could move to another company or request a pay rise. Further, I was well aware that these new, highly paid employees would be the first to be fired when times were hard. Ultimately, my company raised wages of existing "underpaid" employees to curb the tempation to leave the company.

In bear markets like the current one, with rising unemployment, the expanding pool of skilled, unemployed workers will cause wage levels in many industries to fall. New hires are rationally paid less than existing employees, creating pressure for existing employees to work harder to avoid getting fired. If companies were forced to re-level wages to market conditinos every six months or to hire new workers based on a rigid, out-dated pay scale, they would be unable to effectively adapt to changing labor market conditions. Who would want to work for a company that re-leveled their wages to market conditions every year? Who would want to work for a company that paid mediocre and exceptional workers with the same seniority the same wage?

Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the new policy is that Obama also actively promotes volunteerism. In other words, he encourages people to work for free. We have a lot of unpaid volunteers at my school, for example, and they are mostly the wives of well-paid husbands who have their children enrolled. This new law makes a dangerous proposition of paying a modest stipend to such volunteers. Unless such volunteers are paid the same wages as other full-time employees performing similar functions, they cannot be offered a cent for fear of litigation under this new law. In other words, Obama would prefer that some people not be paid at all, rather than allow the possibility of them being paid at pay levels agreeable to both parties.

Most noble reasons for wage disparity are intangibles like work ethic, reliability and market conditions which are difficult to measure. This new law will force companies to try to defend such practices in court. Companies should be fearful of hiring new workers under these conditions and may very rationally consider outsourcing more of their operations to countries where merit pay is still legal. They might also be expected to hire a less measurably diverse work force, as gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disability diversity is now, more than ever, a liability. All hail the first unemployment, anti-diversity and outsourcing encouragement law of the Obama administration.

Altruism v. Benevolence

2008-12-12T21:31:00.004-05:00

At a Liberty Fund conference this last weekend, the discussion touched upon the role of informal institutions on cultural behaviour and, separately, why there seems to be a decline in honesty among the youth. After some thought, I postulated that the two subjects might be linked.

As our society increasingly emphasizes, both in theory and in practice, that one person's need implies an obligation of others to share. If somebody has less food, we should feel guilty that we have more and donate. If somebody has less money, we should pay higher taxes so that they can have a minimum of comfort. We use euphemisms for our guilt, like "paying it forward," or "giving back to society," when really we simply mean a morally mandatory redistribution of wealth.

Worse yet, we downplay greatness and achievement. Many of our schools, even private ones, offer financial aid on the basis of need alone while even their top students of any given year receive not a farthing in scholarships. Bill Gates, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, rather than being praised for realizing the American Dream by producing incessantly better products that improve the lives of millions at steadily declining prices, we vilify them. Instead, we worship volunteerism and pop stars who ask us to ask our government to help poor Africans.

Among this orgy of selflessness, is it surprising that students have less and less respect for the answers and property of others? If those who have less of anything have almost a right to receive from those who have more, why is copying wrong? Why is stealing wrong? If the government is morally justified in taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, why shouldn't the private redistribution of wealth be equally justified? What if Johnny has a better brain than Jane, shouldn't Johnny have to share his intellectual wealth with the less endowed?

We have replaced benevolence, the voluntary, discriminate giving by one person to another whom he finds deserving, with a cultural obligation to engage in indiscriminate giving by all who have more to all who have less. Whereas benevolence engenders profound satisfaction on the part of the giver and gratitude on the part of the receiver, institutional altruism engenders resentment in the giver and entitlement in the recipient. Where weakness is rewarded and achievement scorned, we should expect life to once again become nasty, brutish and short.

Competition: The Key to Restaining Government Power

2008-09-21T11:20:00.004-04:00

The famed balance of power between the three branches of the federal United States government is often credited with the success of the American government experiment. While this healthy competition between government powers certainly has some restraining powers, it constitutes only one of the many levels of competition which have slowed the usurpation of power by the government.

At the highest level between governments of countries. A government with poor policies encourages its citizens to emigrate. A sure sign of poor leadership comes in the form of restrictions on emigration. This constraint on poor government is only as effective as the quality of foreign countries willing to accept immigrants. It is also constrained by the natural inclination of citizens to "suffer, while evils are sufferable." Abandoning family and community is not something undertaken lightly.

Competition between government jurisdictions does not always require families to move. Businesses can take some of their operations, like the manufacturing and call centers, abroad without necessarily taking their employees. Such outsourcing is quite simply the result of foreign governments outcompeting ours to attract business. The solution is not laws forbidding such competition between countries, but rather to create a more competitive business environment at home. Government regulation against businesses moving operations abroad, like communist laws against emigration, indicate an unwillingness to accept the hard fact that jobs are leaving because the domestic environment is uncompetitive.

Below the federal level, there is competition between local city and state governments. A poorly run city government is easily evaded by moving outside the jurisdiction of the offending city. The same is true at the state level, albeit a little more inconvenient to move between states than cities. At an even more local level, there is competition between public schools, as families vie to find homes associated with quality schools. Companies shop around as well, looking for the most favorable environment for both the company and its employees.

By removing their ability to create money, the Constitution forces local governments to pay for their decisions through explicit tax revenues, be they immediate or delayed through bond issues. Cities with favorable trade and tax policies, like those of Hong Kong and Singapore, prosper as a result, without any substantial natural resources. Competition between cities, like the competition for Boeing's new headquarters in the early years of the 21st century, is healthy.

The most local level of government, the individual, is perhaps less controversial. That individuals should be judged by those with whom they interact based on how they govern themselves is fairly well accepted. If individuals can't find jobs or spouses, they need to work on themselves, to become more competitive rather than blaming others.

The sharing of power in the United States between the federal and local governments (all the way down to the individual) is a vital competition that has long kept the federal government from expanding as rapidly as it might have liked. Alas, this competition has been breaking down since the Civil War, when the federal government made it clear that secession, another form of peaceful government competition, is not allowed. Instead, the federal government extensively expanded its powers, beyond the intended limits, to include national railroads, national bank charters, fiat paper money, and conscription. In more recent times, the federal government has further eroded competition by increasingly adding social programs and getting involved with traditionally local issues like K-12 education.

Freedom, by definition, is the retention of decision-making power as locally as possible. In the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, it is important for voters to remain vigilant in not only seeking candidates who have noble intentions, but who want issues to be dealt with at right jurisdictional level. May we vote to localize power and maintain domestic competition between jurisdictions. May we vote for freedom.

Fascism: A Cure-all?

2008-09-21T10:30:00.004-04:00

As diverse as the dissatisfaction with the economic, environmental, government status quo might be, there seems to be general agreement in the continued strengthening of central governments. The only disagreement lies in whose desires this power should obey. Virtually nobody suggests that strong central power will always attract a variety of powerful interests willing to pay to access that influence.

The environmentalists rejoice at the idea of using this power to force environmental legislation more universally upon the populous. They dream of invisible wind farms forests, and solar panel lakes, funded by government grants and subsidies, which are then funded by suffocating taxes on conventional nuclear and carbon-based power generation. Were such changes economical, they might happen in a free market, so implicit in these desires is the fact that they will reduce our quality of life, and must thus be achieved through via an enlightened, powerful government.

Likewise, a wide variety of conspiracy theorists, ranging from gold bugs to Lyndon LaRouche believe that big business interests control our current regime, but their solution is not to reduce government power, but to centralize it even further and put it in their enlightened hands.

The status quo major political parties also want more centralized power. Fascism, with a powerful central government exerting extensive control over private citizens and companies is the undisputed mainstream government of choice. The dominant parties differ only in how they propose to use that power and how enlightened a despot each leader claims to be. Though they may not have a complete plan for recreating utopia, they generally favor of bigger government, regulating more of our lives in everything from investment banking to education and health care. The resulting potpourri of policies are concocted with the intent of trying to please a wide variety of interest groups. A dollop of environmental legislation, a pinch of business deregulation, and a spoonful of income tax mollification.

Rather than continuing to dream that centralized power can avoid attracting power-mongers of all colors, perhaps we should consider allowing the markets to function. We can count on governments doing nothing efficiently and selling their influence to the highest bidder, so let us return government to its proper role defined in the Declaration of Independence. Alas, governments seldom willingly relinquish power. Any cure to encroaching fascism will likely involve war, revolution and depression. Let us hope, against most historical precedents, that the governments which follow such upheavals will protect our natural rights and freedoms, leaving market competition to bring sustainable prosperity to ourselves and our posterity.

Reining in Government: Sound Money

2008-09-21T09:22:00.006-04:00

The United States Constitution is a marvel to behold for its clarity, brevity and limitations on government power. Some of its unfortunate compromises, like the protection of slavery, are understandable given the context in which it was written, but others are perhaps less comprehensible. In the case of money, the founders understood intimately the dangers of issuing paper money, stating that, "No State shall...emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." Such restrictions were unfortunately not placed on the federal government, allowing the Congress the vague rights to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin," which have become (mis)interpreted in conjunction with the elastic "necessary and proper" clause to allow for the creation of fiat paper money.
While it is understandable that the founders were frustrated with Britain's restrictions on coinage in the new world and the general shortage of coin that resulted, they neglected the market alternative of allowing private mints to competitively create coinage. In a competitive currency environment where merchants have the freedom to accept or reject any form of currency, there is a natural incentive for mints/banks to create reliable, quality currency so as to not have their currency rejected.

In any monopolistic currency regime, the temptation to use the monopoly to tax users of the currency via inflation and debasement of the money supply is irresistible for the monopoly issuer. The main restrictions on such inflation, revolution, emigration and foreign currency competition, have delayed and muted effects proportional to the size of the domestic economy. Large economies, like that of the United States, can force domestic acceptance of the national currency, thereby taxing the substantial domestic wealth. Debtors, who benefit from inflationary monetary policy, then provide democratic support for the perpetuation of such policies, along with the largest debtor of all, the government.

Sound money favors prudence and saving, punishing excessive risk-taking and debt with bankruptcy and failure. While sound money does allow for periodic fluctuations in the value of currency, be it through changes to the supply of precious metals, wars or other exogenous events, such fluctuations are minor in comparison with the rampant inflation caused by fiat money. Small fluctuations are even healthy because they can be both inflationary and deflationary, rewarding the prudent and punishing the over-extended.

Without access to the ability to monetize debt, governments are unable to bail out industries as the U.S. government recently did with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the bad debt purchases. Indeed, such industries would never have been allowed to become so insolvent without the rampant encouragement of debt possible in a fiat monetary system.

Unfortunately, rather than calls to return to private, competitive money, the general cry is for more government inflationary and regulatory intervention. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming U.S. elections, the resulting regime will surely comply, inhibiting market forces in the financial markets until such time that the necessary re-alignments lead to depression and revolution. Is there an alternative route?

Consumer Report: Socialized Medicine

2006-07-04T19:49:00.001-04:00

Growing up in Canada, I was oblivious to the fact that there were alternatives to many of the government programs that were an integral part of life. Government medical care was one such service. As I child I had little need for medical care, except when I broke bones or such similar childhood mishaps, which wasn't often. Such minor problems were quickly and cheerfully treated. As I grew older and more aware, I witnessed friends receive contaminated blood because the Canadian government had decided to save money by not testing for HIV and Hepatitis long after blood screening was systematic. Later, I visited Cuba to discover first hand that many basic ailments - including broken limbs - sometimes involve weeks of waiting lists to receive treatment, often without painkillers. Here in the UK, I had multiple first- and second-hand experiences where basic care was appalling. On one occasion, for example, the admitting nurse in the emergency ward perfunctorily asked me to wait while she sat and ate a sandwich for half an hour while I writhed in pain before her - before admitting me or even asking me why I had come to the emergency room. In the UK, it is not uncommon to wait for months, even years to receive an MRI and subsequent surgury or treatment. In the US, such waiting lists would be considered inhumane.

For those who consciously choose to live under socialized medicine, I can respect the trade-offs that they implicitly accept with that decision. If every one is to receive free care, then it must be rationed as there are limited resources. They are effectively accepting mediocre universal health insurance with premiums paid indirectly and disproportionately through taxation instead of having the option of choosing their own insurance provider. My concern lies rather with those who criticize private medical systems, even ones that are becomingly increasingly socialized and regulated like that of the USA. For all of its imperfections, I have received more prompt, friendly and effective service in the US under private insurance than I have experienced under various socialized systems.

True Poverty = Starvation

2006-07-04T19:26:00.001-04:00

There is some confusion regarding definitions used in discussing poverty in industrialized countries. Proponents of minimum wage laws and welfare refer to the number of people considered to be "in poverty" based on some arbitrary definition of a poverty line. Aside from discussing whether their proposed policies help or hinder "the poor" - usually, legislation to help the poor has quite the opposite effect of its intent - I take issue with the basic definition of poverty.

Poverty is fundamentally a question of basic human needs. Truly poor people are not obese, they're under-nourished. In America, like most industrialized country, there are relatively few who are truly poor. The very fact that there are so few truly poor people in countries which have better-defined property rights and more capitalism is itself a strong hint as to the true solution to poverty (http://fte.org/capitalism/introduction/). While it is not uncommon to hear disparaging comments about the alarming degree of poverty in America - including rising obesity - I would entreat such commentators to remember that the poor do not include the fat.

another lost cause: Canada in Afghanistan

2006-06-08T11:47:00.002-04:00

The Canadian government has just decided to keep throwing good money (and people) into the growing sink-hole that is Afghanistan. It’s all well and good to want to help other countries (as Canada prides itself in doing with peace-keeping), but there is no point in expending precious resources when the effort has no realistic prospect of success.

It’s been 4 years since the over-throw of the Taliban, but Afghanistan has little to show for it. The national armed forces are still useless, the government is rife with corruption, and reliant on war-lords. All the while opium production, and the narco-economy, has become ever more firmly entrenched. Oh, and let’s not forget that the Taliban is actually posing a bigger threat today than it did when they were originally deposed in 2002.

The die is already cast: the central Afghan regime is growing increasingly weaker, as war-lords and the Taliban seize tighter control of the regions. The Afghan military and policy are degenerating even further (hence the reliance on regional thugs). Reconstruction efforts are continuing to shrink as the security situation deteriorates.

So remind me, please, just what Canada hopes to accomplish by continuing to have its soldier’s killed in Afghanistan with car bombings and sniper attacks? Is it to build Canadian prestige abroad, by demonstrating the nation’s ability to project force? Maybe this is just a way to get the US off Canada’s back for its refusal to get involved in Iraq (another futile foreign imbroglio).

Unfortunately, Canada has a long history of involving itself in foreign conflicts for all the wrong reasons. Canadadian politicians viewed the Boer, and both world wars, as great opportunities to burner world prestige, and gain greater independence from the motherland (i.e. the United Kingdom). I am sure that made all those mothers who lost their sons at the Somme just thrilled that they were able to contribute to Canadian independence.

At the very least, Canadian policy makers should be asking themselves the very realistic question as to what criteria they are looking for to convince them that a withdrawal from Afghanistan is necessary. Would Canada withdraw after 8 years of peace-keeping if the country isn't any better off? What about increasingly higher Canadian casualty rates over a couple years?

Whatever the reasons for Canada being in Afghanistan, it will all be for not when the Canadian forces eventually withdraw, their tails between their legs, letting Afghanistan tear itself even further apart. But I won’t blame the lowly Canadian military, they are just dealing with an impossible task foisted on them by timid leaders who don’t know how to say “no”. Clearly there must be some point at which Canada's leaders would decide to cut their losses and bring the troops home. Let's just hope it is sooner rather than later.

don't punish the soldiers

2006-06-02T11:40:00.001-04:00

The US administration is at it again, punishing the lowly soldier for war crimes that were the inevitable result of the precarious situation these patriotic warriors were placed in. The prosecution of marines for a civilian massacre in Haditha (Iraq), will result in the same hollow justice found in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

Don't blame the soliders. They have been placed in an impossible position, fighting for their lives in a hostile country where everyone is a possible enemy. It only makes sense that there will be over-reactions, now and again, with the tragic loss of innocent life. The people who deserve the real responsibility are the leaders who put these soldiers in a no-win war, that destroys the psyche.

No matter. The US administration will get it's mug-shots of disgraced marines to parade in the media, allowing it to demonstrate it's commitment to justice for the Iraqi people.

Of course, no one will ever comment that the real solution to avoid future such civilian massacres by US troops is to get the hell-out-of Dodge, and leave Iraq to it's own devices. Sure, Iraq will descend into messy civil war, and cause great instability (and possibly terrorism) if the US withdraws, but the presence of US forces isn't making things better and only delays the inevitable.