Head Slapper of the Week

Well, the votes are in and the rankings have been announced for America's Best Bike City according to Bicycling magazine.  After a long, difficult year playing second fiddle, Portland, Oregon has regained it's top spot as America's Best Bike City over Minneapolis.  While I would guess that cyclists all over the Twin Cities Metro are simply crushed by yet another Minnesota-type disappointment, at least one individual is quite pleased with the result.

Bill Donahue's column published on the magazine's website, www.bicycling.com, does not hold back in his glee on Portland regaining the top spot.  Here's a highlight from the column:


"Sit down, please, and take a deep belly breath now, for the truth is harsh: When a bicyclist pedals down toward the Willamette River, which divides Portland, Oregon, the waters do not part. The automobile traffic does not cease. Cars honk, and in a city obsessed with green transit, there are train rails—a gleaming cyclist’s nightmare—crisscrossing everywhere. 

And it rains. The sky is a brooding gray between October and May, and in winter the rain, falling as a fine, gentle mist, can be so cold that your gloves almost freeze on your handlebar. And as you near the river, you may find one of Portland’s five drawbridges raised high so a giant steel China-bound cargo ship can come churning through." 


Sounds like mighty committed folks in Portland.  But Mr. Donahue didn't stop there.  He had to talk about Portland's real commitment to cycling in all walks of life:


"Those of us who ride daily in Portland, we know. We know we are the vanguard of American cycling. No other city in the United States has more cyclists per capita, and no other town has a coffee shop like Fresh Pot, which boasts 25 chairs and parking for 26 bicycles. We have trains of elementary-school bike commuters, and we have Move By Bike, a relocation-company that trundles couches across town on overstacked bike trailers. Even our city’s noncycling Lotharios know it is a deal-killer to ask, at the end of a sprightly first date, “Can I throw your bike in my car and give you a lift home?” 


Imagine those cyclists moving those couches down the hills of Portland.  I guess that's real commitment to Mr. Donahue.  Of course, he couldn't write about this distinction without bringing up Minneapolis:


"Minneapolis? Please. Let’s ride—along the Willamette now, on the paved Springwater Corridor, where, off to the east, great blue herons and snowy egrets pick about in the reeds and the mud of Oaks Bottom. Three miles on, amid the grain silos and rail yards of north Portland, you can feel the industrial heft of the city, built a hundred-odd years ago on shipping and logging. In Forest Park—which, at 5,000 acres, is the nation’s largest urban preserve—there is a growing network of singletrack on the slopes of Portland’s west hills. But me, I like to take my road bike higher in those same hills, past gracious manses built by long-ago timber barons, until I am up on Skyline Boulevard with its horse pastures and country-road dips and turns. It is cooler up there—sometimes in winter snow whitens the bows of the evergreens."


I guess this man is being blunt and I guess we should all be happy for him and Portland, Oregon.  But perhaps we could accept these honors will just a tad less pride.    Three Head Slaps.

A Short Note on Best Buy and a Myopic Observation

My first week at Best Buy has been quite the whirlwind.  After three days of orientation and two days in the division, it’s clear that I have a lot to learn and that I’ll be working with erudite folks.   However, due to Best Buy’s social media policy, I won’t be able to tell you what I have learned.  So from now on I will simply not talk about work subjects.

-----------

I would like to provide my observation, perhaps myopic, on an aspect of the current Presidential contests.  A couple weeks ago I read through a slideshow presented by the President’s re-election campaign titled “The Life of Julia.”  The slideshow pretty much is a list of government programs the President supported and/or implemented for a lady named “Julia” from cradle to grave in contrast to what they say Mitt Romney’s positions are in denying “Julia” these programs.  While you can guess the Hayekian instinct in me was not too enamored with the President’s positions, I was really struck by this slide on the issue of government-mandated contraception coverage.

“Under President Obama: For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.”

 While the issue of whether the government should mandate that insurance companies cover contraception is a serious issue, what struck me is the implied context of this statement in the slideshow.  For one thing, throughout the entire slide show there is no male presence, thus no encouragement of a traditional family relationship even when “Julia” decides to have a child later in the slideshow.  But the idea that women, especially single women as this slideshow insinuates, should not have to pay for their contraception themselves instead of through their insurance is a clear statement of our culture.

The debate over contraception glosses over a fundamental issue that underlies it: the issue of where sex, relationships, marriage and family fit within our culture. 

What I see is two worldviews colliding.  The traditional view based on Biblical teaching that the self-discipline, committed heterosexual relationships, intimacy, sexuality and healthy marriages go hand in hand to enhance society and children’s welfare has been under cultural siege for decades by secularists.  Secularism seeks a libertarian view on these issues where individuals are unhindered from all authority that has been especially growing in cultural popularity since the 1960s. 

In regards to the contraception debate, the secularists believe that a wider availability of contraception is a pragmatic way to ensure that individuals, especially single individuals, can express unfettered sexuality without consequences. Therefore, sexuality becomes as recreational activity, not an activity that fits within a committed heterosexual marriage that has a desire to create and raise a family.  In such a context, pregnancy is treated like it’s a disease as opposed to a miracle of life.  Or as the President said during his 2008 campaign, having a baby is a punishment.

So what’s the result of the increasing popularity of the secularists’ view?  The growing popularity of the secularists’ view has unleashed millions of abortions worldwide, dehumanizing venereal diseases and a growing number of broken homes, especially among the poor and minority communities.   Instead on focusing on how individual behavior in contrast to Biblical teaching is a root cause of these societal costs, the secularists promote a wider use of contraception as a way to address these issues.

So as the President continues to largely promote the secularists’ view to address questions with significant fiscal and cultural implications, we need to ask ourselves if we want to continue down this path when the last 50 years provide evidence that this path has imposed significant costs to our society.

Head Slapper of the Week

For the MN GOP, it’s been a rough year.   Currently, the party is well over a million dollars in debt.  Then we find out that Tony Trimble, the man I hold personally responsible for giving President Obama the vote he needed to pass items such as Obamacare due to his mishandling of the Coleman-Franken recount, got paid over a million dollars from the MN GOP.  Then we hear that the former state deputy chair of the GOP and former Senate Majority Leader staffer Michael Brodkorb threaten suing the party for a half million bucks due to a lack of cultural relativism in regards to adultery and fornication.   You already read last week’s head slapper regarding Rep. Linda Runbeck’s naiveté regarding cable sports channels.  

This past weekend, the former MN Secretary of State, current Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, wrote a letter to fellow GOP caucus-goer John Kriesel that his ardent support of the Vikings stadium bill and his decision not to run again due to family considerations demonstrated a lack of courage. 

Kiffmeyer wrote, “Not only (do you have) no clue but no courage to run again and be accountable and see what your district thinks.”

We have two issues here.  First, the lack of civility with fellow caucus-goers, especially one not running for re-election, is simply poor judgment.  Second, Kiffmeyer is lecturing a man who got both his legs blown off in the Iraq about courage.  Now if that is not utterly poor judgment, I don’t know what is.  Three and half Head Slaps. 

Head Slapper of the Week (with a P.S.)

As the stadium debate in Minnesota moves into its final stages, the actions are getting intense here at the Capitol.  I hear stadium all morning long on sports talk radio, in the elevator of my condo building overhearing phone calls the State Senate Majority Leader is taking and throughout the Twitter-sphere.  However, all this debate has a certain lack of intellectual heft to it.  One such instance of this lack of intellectual heft was last night when State Rep. Linda Runbeck presented an amendment to make sure that all games are on free, local television.  While imposing such a regulation on private business is strange enough for a conservative (I used to work for the lady), what was stranger yet was her rationale for her amendment.

"I don't know what their current contract provides," continued Runbeck. "But there are certainly rumors floating around that because of the NFL's insatiable need to have more profits and more revenues, they are talking about a specific premium NFL sports cable network."

Rumor?  Is it just I or hasn’t the NFL had a premium NFL sports cable network for about ten years now?  Can someone help State Rep. Runbeck on simple background research before offering amendments on significant pieces of legislation like the stadium bill?  Three and a Half Head Slaps.

P.S.  I will for the record say that I personally oppose public funding of stadiums in principle since it’s simply bad economics and it’s corporate welfare.  Bad economics since it’s a large expenditure to simply shift the majority of the money from one part of the state to another part of the state, the public doesn’t realize the long term economic benefits that the advertised Economic Impact Analysis repeatedly claim they do have.  The biggest beneficiary to publicly funded stadiums is the team owner due to higher attendance, greater revenues and more attractive team viability by their peers, raising the value of the sports teams.    

However, what makes the current Vikings stadium bill so undesirable is that gambling largely funds the public share.  Studies have shown that gambling destroys families and many a bank account by playing on their aspirations for large-scale success.  It’s also been empirically proven that gambling is simply a regressive tax on the poor.  Don’t take my word for it; take the words of the current President back when he had less grey on him.

However, the specter of another Minneapolis Lakers/Minnesota North Stars type migration haunts many Minnesota sports fans.  So GOPer and Dem alike have joined hands to support this stadium, even calling those who criticize the expansion of gambling due to its de facto regressive taxation effects “buffoons” because the poor chose to gamble.  No class warfare worries there.  What a shame on all of us.

The Times are A Changin'

Today I notified my fellow staff at the Improve Group that I accepted the offer I received from Best Buy last week working in their Consumer Insights Unit.   My first day at Best Buy is May 14.

It was a difficult decision where I took much time in consultation and prayer to make.  I recently was able to help procure a renewal of the Improve Group’s biggest contract, the Department of Human Services, which accounts for more than a quarter of the company’s revenue.  Telling my client that I’m leaving was difficult and hopefully that doesn’t deteriorate the relationship between the Improve Group and DHS.    However, I made this decision for the following reasons:

The desire to work in business – At the Improve Group, my clients was exclusively in nonprofits and government agencies.   I was fortunate to work at the Improve Group over the past six years as the recession persisted as the additional government spending during 2009-2011 has been a real boost to the company.  However, I have had a desire to work in the private sector for quite some time and this opportunity fit the bill.  The opportunity allows me to use my analytical skills to help Best Buy as it recalibrates its business model.

The growth opportunities – At the Improve Group, I pretty much had reached the pinnacle of my growth opportunities.  As a company with only 12 employees and about a $1 million in revenue, I don’t have much more room for career growth to further develop my skill set in business settings.   At Best Buy, the growth opportunities are much greater at a company with over $50 billion in revenue.    I was concerned about the recent turnover at the company.   However, when I considered that Best Buy, despite its difficulties, has over $3 billion of free cash flow per year and is still growing revenue at nearly eight percent per year, I’m hopeful that with the right CEO the company can turn around quickly.  I’m also very compelled to know that working at Best Buy really enhances my resume as I move into the corporate world.  Finally, at Best Buy, I can network and transition within the company as my skill set builds and my interests change.

It’s a better fit – At the Improve Group, I have not been able use the MBA skills within the company to the extent I want.  At Best Buy, I’ll have plenty of opportunities to do so.  Also, the gender and political makeup of my co-workers at the Improve Group has put me at unease over the past few years.  I have been the only male employee at the company over the past year.  This past month three interns and one full-time employee was hired, all women.  So starting next week there will be 15 women and me working at the Improve Group.  Also, the pronounced liberal bent of my co-workers tends to get annoying.  So much so that a former intern of the company told me that he noticed that I didn’t friend any of them in social media.   There is a reason for that.

So looking at these criteria and much prayer, I made the decision it is time for a change.  With the Almighty’s help, I can make this transition one day at a time.  

Austerity Measures? An Erudite's Opinion

Being one who keeps up with the news, I’ve been paying some attention to reactions to the austerity measures throughout Europe over the past year or so.   I actually have been quite surprised that Europe had been accepting austerity measures as much of they have in Europe after initial public discontent.  Technocratic prime ministers in Italy and Greece have strong public support and voters have elected reforming governments in Spain, Portugal and Ireland.  However, with the recent economic slowdowns in Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as well as political discontent in France and the Netherlands regarding austerity measures, many are casting doubts on the effectiveness of austerity measures.  Generally, they use the Keynesian argument that restricting government investment reduces demand at a macroeconomic level, which in turn reduces economic activity and growth.  They captiously state the events cited above as proof that austerity doesn’t work and government needs to “prime the pump.”

As you may suspect, I was skeptical of such a point of view.  But I decided during my visit to Carleton last week that I would ask for the normative opinion of a much smarter man than I, a Carleton economics professor.  So I asked him bluntly about whether he agrees with the critics of austerity measures in Europe.  The professor gave an insightful answer.

·      After the disclaimer that he was skeptical of macroeconomics in general, he said that the critics of austerity measures in Europe should look at them in context.  These countries imposed austerity measures because the interest of their debts was crowding out all other public investments.  Therefore, these countries forced to enact austerity measures or lose the confidence of the entire international finance community as well as probably their voters.

·      Thus, if the cost of paying interest in the debt crowding out public investment opportunities is the case, the answer is simply not to take measures to increase the debt’s principal, thus increasing the cost of debt servicing.  The answer is to attempt to lower fiscal obligations and decrease the debt principal not only to increase fiscal capacity, but also to create confidence for outside investment.  Thus, the economic effect of initial spending cuts will be negative, but once confidence is gained by domestic and foreign investors in a particular country due to structural stability, the country’s economic will be stronger over the longer term.

·      What would that mean for the United States if it imposed austerity measures? The professor conjectured that perhaps in the short term there could be a slowdown.  However, it would create much more certainty of a more stable fiscal condition over time as well as opportunities to encourage stronger long-term economic growth as well as an improved debt rating.

So that was the professor’s tidbit.   If the professor wants to correct my lack of interpretive insight, please let me know and I’ll make the corrections as needed.