Steve Speak

I am currently taking a class on Christianity and Capitalism at school. We’re looking at the underlying assumptions of economic systems (esp. capitalism) to see how they fit into a Christian worldview. While doing some research I ran across this interesting article by A. M. C. Waterman. He has some interesting stuff to say about our current economic situation and stimulus packages.

Sorting Through Keynesian Rubble

However, I also ran across a bit of interesting history. It turns out it was both parties who led us into this financial mess. Big surprise, huh?

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

While I wouldn’t align myself with the source (or agree with them on the whole), some of the quotes and information in the article are pretty interesting. If you read nothing else of it, read the last 2 or 3 paragraphs, remembering that this was written in 1999!

Consider:

“Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse.”

or

“A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s … lifting many restrictions … of savings and loan associations … to the home-loan market … culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout … more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.”

Well, it happened, and we bailed it out. The question remains if we can afford it. It may still well prove ‘beyond the scope’…

For anyone still wondering how the U.S. got into the economic mess it is now entangled in, this entry is for you. Here is a hint, as put by Alan Pisarski in this Washington Post article.

“You keep doing what you’re doing, and you just keep assuming that growth is going to go on forever. And then at some point it just drops out from under you … ”

Alan was speaking about the glut of automobiles now on the market since people have stopped buying, but it applies equally well to the majority of the overall mess. I thought we might have learned from the dot.com crash, but people just found a new ‘get rich quick’ scheme to chase after. But, the bigger concern I have is if people have learned any lessons… and not just about investing.

Most public companies are run as if they are operating in the above fantasy world… the growth just can’t possibly stop or even slow. Making constant profit is no longer the mark of a good investment, but year over year growth by some percentage X. In places I have worked, X was often over 100. It doesn’t exactly take a rocket-scientist to figure out that this can’t continue. The damage this kind of investing has done to companies is horrific. Super short term thinking and operation has become the norm.

The only hope the U.S. has of getting out of trouble is if the average person, as well as the government, stop living on borrowed money… AND companies start running in a more long-term, sustainable manner. If not, the house of cards will fall… if it hasn’t already started beyond repair.

With talk of a bailout of GM (General Motors) looming, I figured I had to make some kind of comment. In the past, I have commented several times in this blog about the poor management decisions of GM and other automakers. I noted that just about any person off the street would have seen the trends coming that have put these companies in crisis. Heck, I’ll hire myself out as a consultant to them for cheap! I can’t do a worse job than the current top management of these companies.

This bailout, though, shows just how bad that management has been, and is a very troubling development. Yes, the sudden downturn in the economy means that an already fragile auto industry needs help. The repercussions of not doing so would be catastrophic to the USA if not the world. That said, how we got here is very troubling. What overly greedy investment tactics and sub-prime mortgage failure have to do with falling profits of automakers? I think this is a good question. If you have some answer, I’d love to hear it.

What we have here, is an extremely mismanaged industry, the failure of which would have too severe of repercussions to ignore. At the same time, the failure of which is to be expected. Now all us tax-payers have to foot the bill. This is absolutely unfair, but unfortunately, a likely reality.

The trend here that is so extremely dangerous, is that huge companies can be mismanaged, with such extreme waste… and then expect to be bailed out because of their critical importance to the national and global economy. Why even worry about the long term when running such an organization? Take the maximum money you can extract and waste… worry only about the shareholders…. if everything falls apart, the tax-payers will just bail us out.

I think we’re going to have to implement some kind of check and balance on any company that gets this critical to national and global economy. This means either breaking them up, or some other kind of external oversight to be sure they don’t get into this kind of mess. I’ve see this coming for a long time with GM. I’m sure others have as well. Yet, they just blindly fumbled down a path of destruction for many years now.

So, who will be the next industry to cash in on government bailout? It’s easy money if you are a big and important industry. We can hardly let them fail. Yet, they don’t seem to care about anything but feeding internal and external greed… not even enough to do any planning for the future.

Mark my words on this… if we do not fundamentally change the way companies are run, and how investors invest in them… we WILL NOT get out of the economic crisis we are currently in. If we do temporarily because of bailouts and governments manipulating the economy, it will only be covering up the the real problem. The current history-breaking swings of the stock markets show the investors don’t have a clue about the nature of the problem. Companies like GM are prime examples of the cluelessness on a corporate level as well. Can we fix the problem without letting it all come crashing down? I think the answer is yes, but it will take fundamental changes in thinking about investing and business. Unfortunately, I’m not sure this will happen without a complete collapse.

Yes my friends, the time has come to be vigilant for low flying pigs.

Why you ask? Well listen closely… very closely.. cause I’m only going to say this once. Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer said something that I actually agree with. Gasp! Ekk! Did I really just say that?

Now, in case you haven’t been following along, it is really no secret that I don’t have a lot of love for Microsoft. Not only have they laid waste to the technology industry for decades now, but they have some (P.C. mode) kinda goofy (/P.C. mode) characters heading the company up. One of these would be ‘monkey boy’ Steve Ballmer. Think I’m being too harsh? You be the judge:

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

Anyway… I’m reading the tech headlines, as I typically do, and I run across this article that frankly, I can’t disagree with to any great extent.

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/72412

What is going on here. First the the iPod packaging experiment leaks out of M$. Then, Steve Ballmer is saying things that actually make some sense? Things are getting scary in Redmond.

He recognizes that the keyboard and mouse aren’t going to go away, though other input methods will advance. I have to give him a lot of credit for admitting this, especially after the fuss that was made over Origami. (see my previous blog)

He also talks about Google’s key not being the search engine, but the business model. Who can argue with that? You have to make a decision between good and evil at some point. I’m glad he recognizes this. (See my friend Mark’s great article on this topic.)

But, what really caught my attention, is what he said about the future of the iPod. It’s no secret that Ballmer is more than just a bit jealous of the success of the iPod. In a March 29, 2006 article in Fortune magazine, when asked if he used an iPod, he said, “No, I do not. Nor do my children. My children–in many dimensions they’re as poorly behaved as many other children, but at least on this dimension I’ve got my kids brainwashed: You don’t use Google, and you don’t use an iPod.”

The key in the current article, however, is that he sees something that Apple might want to wake up to REAL quick. Ballmer said, “Portable music is not limited to iPods.” So far, Apple’s strategy seems to be in keeping the music limited to the hardware. I, along with Ballmer, think this trend isn’t going to last all that much longer. The problem isn’t really the iPod itself, but how the music is locked to it.

For example, other than using up some gift certificates I was given at the iTunes Music Store, I won’t buy more music there. I love the experience. I love the convenience. I love technology in general. I love the iPod! But sooner or later people will wake up to the reality of what they are being sold. Unlike the normal CD in the store, you get a lower quality version that is locked to the hardware Apple (or the music industry) will allow you to play it on.

I put a nice car stereo in my Miata. It can play MP3 and AAC tracks. Can it play what I buy from the iTunes Music Store? Nope… not without a bunch of quality loss. Up until a few months back, I was able to use a great program called JHymn to free my purchases to play on my car stereo. But, with iTunes v6 the party is over. What I buy is once again locked to my computer. Sorry, but that is not good enough for me… especially at the 99 cents per track price. If it were 25 to 50 cents… I might be interested in a lower quality version. But at full price, I’ll just buy the CDs.

But, I can’t just blame Apple here. It really is the fault of the music industry, as well as a society seriously lacking morals. These two forces are locked in an opposing battle, and it is us honest consumers who get burned. Some want to steal and distribute the music while the music industry doesn’t have the ability (or wherewithal) to catch the real offenders. So, we end up with the sad world of DRM. And, if you think any of this is bad… I think you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait a couple years when DRM invades just about every facet of your interaction with TV, movies, music, and phone. It might be enough to make us just want to ‘pull the technology plug’, so to speak.

First, we hear that GM is having problems and cutting back. Now, about a month later, we hear the same or worse news from Ford. Huge cuts and changes affecting tens to hundreds of thousands of employees.

I feel very bad for these folks. While in my field, IS/IT, jobs can be had just about anywhere, the same is not true for auto workers. Many towns literally revolve around the plants located in or near them. This will ultimately affect more than just those who work at the plants getting shut down. They might even take whole towns down with them. NPR had a worker on who was just moved from one state where a plant closed, now he is facing the same thing again… even IF he could get moved to a plant in yet another state.

One has to ask how this could happen. Sure, the American auto makers are competing on a global scale now. But, many of these companies now own some of the foreign car makers, or have partnerships on many of the models. The problem is much deeper than that.

I typically am not a big fan of unions. My story on this goes back to personal experience within my family while growing up, watching how the union interacted with my father’s work situations. Then, I had more direct interaction with a couple of the large national unions on a project I worked on later in life. They have become very self-interested entities that I believe are out of control in many ways. Yet, even the UAW hit it square on the head on NPR today. Ford had simply not kept up with the times on what people want to buy. BINGO!

I still come back to the question of, how and why??? If just about every person in the country can figure it out… and has had it figured out for several years… how can highly paid people who have for their primary job watching the industry mess up so badly? I just can’t fathom the stupidity of it. Sorry I can’t be more diplomatic about it…. but it is just that, stupidity!

How long have gas prices been going up? How long have we known people were beginning to become more aware of the environment? How long have other companies like Honda and Toyota had hybrid models? How long has flack been growing against the popularity of SUVs?

I suppose SUV sales haven’t drastically declined until the super high gas prices of the last year or two. But, couldn’t they see this coming? Again, I just don’t understand. If I were the share holders of these companies, I’d clean house of all the upper management. You could hardly pick worse people to run things. Heck, just go randomly pick folks walking down the street and they are likely to have better judgment for what the market wants and needs.

I really hope one day the American car companies ‘get it’. America is a country that seems to be able to be on top of technology in any area that we put our minds to it. The auto industry should be no exception. American autos have come a long way on build quality, and the workers should be proud of that. But the workers and unions can’t do a lot about poor design, market research, and planning. This time, the fault falls squarely on the management… shame on them!

There has been a lot of debate recently on ‘science’ vs. Intelligent Design. I’ve been following all this quite a bit as both an ‘amateur scientist’ and ‘amateur theologian’. I wrote this essay for a class, so I thought I would throw it up here. I’m also preparing a more in-depth technical analysis that is still on the editorial table… I’ll get it out soon I hope.

***

Galileo’s Telescope: The Sequel?

In the early 1600s, a major debate broke out that had a direct impact on science, religion, and philosophy. Legend has it, that the bishops and church officials refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, because they believed that the Bible should trump science in regard to the workings of the universe. Aristotle’s geo-centricity (that the earth is the center of the solar system) was under attack from scientific evidence for heliocentricity (that the sun is the center of the solar system). Galileo was instrumental, with advances and use of the telescope, to help prove Copernicus was correct. Thus began the battle between religion and science, or so they say.

While this legend is quite inaccurate, it makes a good starting point for the discussion of science, religion, and their relationship. (Lessl, 2000, pp. 27-33) Steve Kellmeyer describes in “Galileo Redux” that at this point in time, the ‘scientists’ were actually primarily philosophers. Copernicus’ theories were much more in the realm of mathematics, which was seen as a lesser discipline. (Kellmeyer, 2005) This combined with the fact that Aristotle’s model had worked so well for predicting seasons, navigation, and the weather, made looking at anything new a risky proposal. So, Copernicus and Galileo were not met with favor by by the majority; scientists or theologians. These ‘scientist’ philosophers actually used the Bible and the church’s power against Galileo and Copernicus, though the church did go along with it for the most part. (Lessl, 2000)

I believe we are watching the sequel to this event today over the debates between evolution and intelligent design. Once again, some people are unwilling to ‘look through the telescope’ for fear their positions may be overturned. But, who is unwilling to look? There are certainly conservative Christians who refuse to take a serious look at the evidence. But it is the scholars in the scientific community who I believe are refusing to ‘look through the telescope’ once again, and they should know better. This is bad for science and bad for everyone.

The playing field for this debate in the present day is primarily showing up in the debates and trials over evolution vs. intelligent design. This area is so misunderstood that I am going to try and give you a brief overview of the positions, and some of the myths and incorrect views on both sides of the debate, before I explain how this relates to my overall thesis.

What is evolution? Well, basically it is the idea that organisms change. When an organism is put in an environment, changes which are beneficial will increase the survival rate, while detrimental changes will cause death. No change will lead to death as well, because of limited resources. This is called ‘natural selection’. This in itself is quite a dandy concept, and we can observe this happening to various extents in the world around us. It is, for sake of argument, pretty much at a level of scientific ‘law’. However, it is debated to what extent there is evidence for natural selection explaining the needed species jumps to take evolution to the next level. In other words, is that apple you are eating the distant cousin of your poodle?

What is Intelligent Design? It is actually a multi-disciplinary approach, far too complex to go into great detail here. However, in brief, it looks at things such as the necessary characteristics and parameters of the earth in the universe necessary to even be able to support life; if it is possible to get life out of ‘soup’; how life gets enough information to reproduce (survive). This leads into information theory and the patterns we see in life and DNA (which nature left to itself is not known to produce). When we put this all together, Darwin’s theory begins to quickly fall apart. In fact, Charles Darwin realized this. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, 1859).

What I find particularly convincing in the various disciplines of intelligent design, is the evidence of design pre-natural selection. Darwin’s theory depends on life to begin with. Rocks don’t beget living life forms that know how to reproduce. For life to even happen at all, there are a number of finely tuned parameters the earth must meet. Every year, we find more of these parameters, so the odds decrease. An example might be the distance of the earth from the sun, or levels of nitrogen to oxygen in the atmosphere. (Ross, 1995, pp. 132-44) In fact, renowned scientist Dr. Nicholas M. Short agrees with this assessment. He says, “It is the Goldilocks dictum: not too hot, not too cold, just right. If chance alone were the governing determinant, the odds are enormously against all the above parameters/factors, and others, being just right. Some intelligence, be it God or any other analogous name or concept, had to play the pivotal role in establishing and structuring a scientifically developed Universe.” (Short, 2001)

Now, scientists certainly have a right to complain about what many Christians say when they hear the word ‘evolution’. For many, this immediately evokes a battle, and the Christian says, “I don’t believe that. It is not what the Bible says.” Science is wrong, they are right, no matter what evidence is presented. But, the scientists are not without blame in this matter. It seems they have purposely loaded ‘evolution’ with a lot of meaning that does not belong.
They lump evolution (fact/law) to natural selection (theory), to origin of life (hypothesis). Christians could also likewise claim: evolution (fact/law), intelligent design (theory), to the design we see as coming from God (hypothesis).

Many scientists have extended the application of evolution ‘the law’ into the realm of cosmogony (study of origins of the universe). If we take this observable phenomena (micro-evolution), and assume our way back into time, we could imagine a time where people evolved out of some lesser species, until we get back to more basic organism, right back to the origins of life on this planet. Still with me? Well the problem with this is that they often forget to change from a ‘law’ to a ‘theory’, to a ‘hypothesis’ at that point. The average lay Christian smells a rat in this, but does not know enough to divide the term evolution up into its proper parts. The scientists then throw this back on the Christian, and tell them they are ignorant.

But, the biggest flaw in this debate seem to be the argument of the ‘scientists’. The primary case being brought against the intelligent design position is what in logic is called the ad hominem fallacy. This is the fallacy of character attack. They say that the intelligent design position is not science. But they don’t say why. Then they try and link ID to religion, therefore automatically make it void. While it is certainly true that many Christians back intelligent design, it does not depend whatsoever on religion for its basis. This attack is simply out of desperation.

While ‘separation of church and state’ might loosely be a theme in our Constitution. It is not a basis for scientific inquiry. If the evidence leads to a design for the universe, it is no less scientific because it could have implications for religion, any more than it would be if it leads to an absence of support for religion.

This leads to a fundamental point of contention between the two camps. It really boils down to how one defines science. John Hanna of the Kansas City Star states that, “The old definition said science is the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe. The new definition says science is a systematic method for developing better explanations of natural phenomena by doing experiments, testing hypotheses, making measurements and building theories.” (Hanna, 2005)

Do you see the difference? In the first definition, the words ‘natural explanations’ are used to define what the results of science must to be. While the scientists like to claim intelligent design is motivated by Christianity, the motivation of that first definition seems to be under the influence of another religion, namely Humanism. Compare it to the Humanist Manifesto which states, “ Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” (Humanism and its Aspirations, 2003)

But is this fair? Can science rightly exclude supernatural possibilities? The answer to that is most certainly not. While science will likely never be able to prove the existence of God, it can neither exclude the possibility. This is something the humanist does not want to hear, hence the battle before us.

We find ourselves once again full circle to philosophy and religion. In both the Galileo episode and our debates of today, science and philosophy are getting confused and competing with one another rather than cooperating. Both must be informed by one another, and have respect for each other. R.C. Sproul says that scientists today have become extremely good at the induction part of science, but have become very poor at deduction. They will look at some data and then make illogical statements like ‘… so many billion years ago the universe exploded into being…’ (Sproul, 2003).

I would agree with that assessment, and take it one step further. I believe that like the the ‘scientist’ philosophers of Galileo’s who did not respect the mathematicians, we have a situation here nearly opposite. The scientists buried in the data are not respecting deduction, logic, or philosophy. If anything, are under the influence of what I would call a religion, excluding other religions. This is certainly not good for science as a discipline, or any of us. We must get to true and pure science, and fearlessly ‘look through the telescope’ on both sides of the debate.

*****

References:

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. Chapter 6. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/

Hanna, J. (December 9, 2005). Corkins defends standards as debate over science definition rages. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from Kansas City Star web site:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13372695.htm

Humanism and its Aspirations, Humanist Manifesto III, 2003. (2003). American Humanist Association. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

Kellmeyer, S. (August 16, 2005). Galileo Redux. The Conservative Voice. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7533

Lessl, T. (June 2000). The Galileo Legend. New Oxford Review, 27-33. Retrieved December 10, 2005 from

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html

Ross, H. (1995). The Creator and the Cosmos, 2d ed. (pp. 132-44). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress

Short, N. M. (2001). Is God Compatible With Science? Retrieved November 16, 2005, from NASA Goddard, The Remote Sensing Tutorial web site:

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A11a.html

Sproul, R.C. (Narrator). (2003). Creation or Chaos: Modern Science and the Existence of God. [Audio Program]. Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries

AP writer Liz Austin reports on Thursday that Sony is being sued by the Texas Attorney General and a California-based digital rights group over their latest botch of an attempt at DRM (Digital Rights Management). I’m laughing by butt off on this one, but it is not because I’m some music stealing kid going, “Score another win for the pirates DUDE!” There is a much more important consequence to this battle…. if I have your curiosity peaked… read on.

You can read all about the threatened lawsuit at:
Texas Sues Sony BMG Over Anti-Piracy Software

To summarize, it is just one more desperate attempt by the media companies to control how the product is used. Sony put an auto-install program on the CD which was to limit the number of times the CD could be copied. But, it backfired for a couple of reasons. First, the system was flawed such that it allowed hackers to then hack the system it was installed on… DOH! Then, to make things even more exciting, the ‘fix’ they distributed did the same… DOH! DOH!. The groups suing Sony are using anti-’spy ware’ laws to go after them. I think it is a great and legitimate use of such a law. Go Texas!!!

So why am I laughing? I guess it is out of sheer joy at the negative publicity Sony is getting over this one. It is one thing to have to ‘make a deal with the devil’, so to speak, as Apple had to do to pioneer on-line music sales. But, it is quite another to cross that line into destroying someone’s property (even if they have done nothing illegal) in an attempt to protect your own.

While I respect the position of the DRM folks that something must be done to combat the rampant theft that is taking place, this is certainly not the way to do it. Unfortunately, the industry seems to be taking the approach of hurting their entire client base, rather than going after those who are guilty of the crime. If they keep this up, they might just lose their customers. Hopefully this one will wake the industry up a bit.

Why am I so passionate about this one? Well, for one, I LOVE music. I played in band through my school years. I started buying CDs over 20 years ago now. I haven’t really counted, but I would guess I have 500 to 600 CDs. So, at an average of $12 a pop, that’s like $6000 to $7000 (yes, there was a day kiddies when you could buy CDs for $10 to $12). You might think Sony would be interested in keeping me as a customer (not including having 2 Sony car stereos, a Sony TV, etc. over the years). I play guitar and keyboard, and have played in bands (I only wish well enough to go pro).

However, my music buying has slowed down. I’m just too busy these days to hang out at the record stores. However, Apple changed all that. I LOVE the iTunes Music Store. Yet, I have purchased under 50 songs from there so far, and there is a reason why. It’s the DRM. To put it simply…

I want to be able to use the music I buy, when and where I want!

I don’t have a pirated music track that I know of at all… zip, zero! I have no problem buying my music as all as the above might indicate. (And, yes, I spent a large percentage of my very hard earned couple dollars an hour when I was a kid buying my music… so please, no I’m a poor kid excuses). But I just have not become comfortable at this point investing money in music which I might not be able to play in a few years if technology takes a turn… or that I can’t play where and how I want.

I recently installed new Kenwood car stereo in my Miata. It has the ability to play MP3 and AAC music tracks. However, it can’t play the AAC files from iTunes Music Store, because they are protected by Apple’s DRM. This basically sucks! Sure, I can use an iPod (I have one which I’ll be selling soon), but at every turn down the road, I’ll have to watch what I do. To play them to our home stereo, I can’t buy just any receiver that can accept AAC files… I have to use an Airport Express with AirTunes. So, Apple has been doing well to be sure I can do ‘most’ of the things I want, IF I spend some serious cash buying more products from them… how convenient.

There is a ‘work-around’ sort of. You can try and strip the DRM using a tool such as JHymn. It has worked well so far in its ability to strip the DRM off my protected-AAC files, so they become just normal AAC files. I can then use them in any device that plays AAC.

http://hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/

This is a really wonderful effort to help us folks that just want to use the music we have bought. But, Apple keeps breaking this thing with new iTunes releases (6.0 broke it again, with no fix yet). I’m not sure if Apple is doing that purposely or not (or maybe under pressure from the music industry to keep their licensing ability), but either way, I don’t like it. At this point, I can’t upgrade iTunes now, and I’m thinking about not buying more music from them.

One can also burn the files to a CD, then import them back to iTunes as MP3 files. However, the AAC files have already lost quality. By converting to MP3, I lose even more off a format that is ‘just’ barely good enough in the first place. I’m just not willing to go that route.

My solution… find a legal way to really solve the problem. Auto manufacturers don’t make the car’s axle break when it goes over 55 MPH… maybe someone uses that car to legally race at SCCA events on the weekend, or they live where the speed limit is 70 MPH. Instead, a police force catches speeders from time to time and keeps the general society in check on the speed limits. Why not do the same in this case. Get the legal ability to track those distributing files illegally, and then crack down. Maybe if they could get good at tracking, they could get warrants, come to the place where the kid is sharing out a ton of tunes, and confiscate the computer equipment… donate it to an organization that gives computers to underprivileged kids. That might be the best fix… hurt those who are the actual thieves in a way that hurts most.

Bottom line, leave the rest of us who buy our music to enjoy it the way we want.