Category Archives: News

What’s More Valuable — Money or Life?

It only happened about 3 hours ago, but with how quickly news travels today, you’ve no doubt heard about the school shooting in Connecticut. As I heard some of the coverage (and watched some of the reaction on Twitter — most notably from a fictional Twitter handle: President Bartlet), I couldn’t help but think of something that I shared on Facebook recently.

It was a post about Bob Costas and his mention of gun control on national television — the same weekend where a professional football player took his own life (along with his girlfriend). There were some reactions to my sharing this on Facebook, which precipitated my going and finding an article about what it was like to own a gun in Canada (vs. owning a gun in the US). I’m very aware that there’s a second amendment to the United States Constitution and that it’s probably there for a very good reason, but it’s painful — painful — when there’s a tragedy that may have been prevented if there were better rules/regulations in place.

People who want stronger regulations to own guns are not infringing on citizens’ second amendment rights. Let me say that again: people who want stronger gun control regulations are not trying to take people’s guns away.

There are a few important points from the article detailing the differences between getting a gun in Canada and getting one in the US:

The first step in legally obtaining a gun in Canada is taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and Test.  The course is required to obtain a possession and acquisition licence.

Obtaining an PAL does not allow its owner unfettered access to firearms, but instead allows its bearer to obtain a “non-restricted” firearm.  Non-restricted firearms are generally considered to be sporting rifles, shotguns or airguns.

…

The PAL allows Canadians to own and operate “non-restricted” firearms. A “restricted” firearm generally refers to handguns, and requires a separate certification training course, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website.

The people in this class will have to wait several weeks to find out if they pass, but even if they do, there are several more steps before they can actually get a gun.

They still have to apply for a firearms license, which like a driver’s license requires a photo.

There’s a 28-day waiting period for that and the government runs background checks and calls personal references to talk to them to see if they think the applicant can handle a gun.

But that still doesn’t allow the person to buy a handgun and bring it home. There’s a separate license required to take the handgun out of the store.  The Authorization to Transport (ATT) is even required for person to a gun from one location to another in Canada – even to move a gun from a home to a firing range.

The whole process takes months, but for the most part the students in this class don’t mind the restrictions. In fact, they appreciate them. [Emphasis added]

And one last quote that I wanted to share from the article:

“I don’t really consider it going through hoops.  It’s a weekend, a couple hundred dollars,” said one student Paula.  “For the responsibility of carrying around a firearm?  I think that’s more than worth it.  I would like to know that anyone around me who has the ability to use a firearm knows what the hell they’re doing and knows how to do it safely, and knows how to think of me and my family and not just themselves and I want to do this so I’m gonna do it,” she said. [Emphasis added]

These are not unreasonable expectations. A common argument you hear from supporters of gun control: you need a license to drive a car, why wouldn’t you need a license to own a gun? I hear that argument, but I think it incorrectly equates cars with guns (somewhat ironically — both lead to a number of deaths in the Western world).

A far more important argument — in my eyes — is the question of what we value as a society. What does our society value more — money or life? Because that’s what it costs. “Unfettered” freedom with regard to gun control — costs lives. Today’s event wasn’t the first school shooting and if there continues to be such lax gun regulations in the US, it probably won’t be the last.

Yes — regulations cost money. But what’s more important, money or life?

What Do You Stand For?

In skimming through this week’s The Economist, I noticed a rather intriguing letter. I’ve included it below:

Go west!

SIR – I am a water-treatment operator in Fort McMurray, in the heart of Alberta’s oil-sands country, and I read your piece about our boom town (“The sands of grime”, November 17th). There are labour shortages here and we really do need 100,000 skilled tradesmen, as you said. But I’m worried that articles like yours might frighten off workers by writing about, for instance, our “ultra-low temperatures”.

Of course it’s cold here. It’s Canada. Last night was -27 Celsius (-17 Fahrenheit) and I went out without my jacket zipped up; you get used to the cold. And it is expensive to buy or rent property, which is why many people share apartments. In order to attract more workers the site camps are improving their facilities and financial packages.

My grandfather owned an iron foundry in Britain’s West Midlands. I was always taught that dirty hands make clean money. If you tell someone here that you are out of work you will get no sympathy as so much employment is available. Over the past 20 months I have earned $300,000 and spent a few weeks on vacation in Miami, a few more in Virginia and a few more in Toronto. It certainly beats overturning cars and waiting for some Russian or Arab billionaire to buy my local football club while collecting benefits.

The oil-sands boom is happening, like it or not, so why not make some money during this gold rush. Come on out and get your hands dirty.

Simon Moss
Fort McMurray, Canada

The letter-writer makes some good points, but as I considered the closing thoughts, I struggled with imagining myself as someone working in the oil-sands of Canada. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that oil is an important part of life (and the economy) as it stands today, but I just don’t know if I could bring myself to work for a cause that I didn’t whole-heartedly support. When I started my MBA back in the fall of 2011, one of my first thoughts was that I would graduate and work for a firm for which the mission was wholly congruent with mine. This was a strong contributing factor that led to me interning with Ashoka this past summer.

While providing energy/goods is a noble mission, I don’t know if I want to be directly part of it in this way. That is, I don’t know if I would want to use my skills in this way. However, I wouldn’t absolutely rule out working for a firm/organization that is in this industry. My way of reconciling something like this would be working for the firm’s department/area responsible for corporate social responsibility.

Stephen Colbert: Political Satirist and… United States Senator?

The Junior Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, is retiring. By retiring, DeMint will vacate his Senate seat before the term is up. Meaning, there will be an opening for a United States Senate seat in South Carolina. As a result of this opening, the Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, can appoint someone to the seat to serve the rest of its term.

There’s a certain South Carolina son who a number of people think would be a great person to fill that seat: Stephen Colbert.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Stephen Colbert ran for office. Back in 2008, he made a push to be President of the United States of South Carolina. His bid was often thought of as not serious, but Colbert contended that he was serious.

Appointing Stephen Colbert to the seat wouldn’t be that absurd, would it? A reputable polling firm, Public Policy Polling, asked South Carolinians who they wanted to fill the seat. Topping the list: Stephen Colbert. Although, the Governor has poured water on that fire, stating that she wouldn’t appoint Colbert to the seat.

I have to say: this is a little disappointing. I understand that, politically, this probably isn’t the best thing for Haley to do, given that Colbert is a satirical Republican. But when I think about Colbert in the Senate, it gets me excited. Think of the possibilities! Colbert does an excellent job of satirizing the issues of the day — can you imagine what it would be like if he did this in real-time — in the US Senate!?

[Note: I thought that the Comedy Central clip of Colbert would embed properly — guess not. I found the same clip on Hulu, though.]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/433905

Appreciative Inquiry and George Mason University’s Strategic Vision

This morning I was fortunate to be part of an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) event at George Mason University. If you’re not familiar with AI, from Wiki: “Appreciative Inquiry is primarily an organizational development method which focuses on increasing what an organization does well rather than on eliminating what it does badly.” The whole purpose of today’s AI was, “to help shape aspects of the new Vision related to Mason’s mission, values and the Mason Graduate (the attributes we wish all of our students have in common by the time they graduate).” Currently, George Mason University is creating a new strategic vision.

During my time as the student body president of Saginaw Valley State University, I contributed to the university’s strategic planning process. I was fortunate that during my time as the president coincided with when the university was in the process of redoing its 5-year plan. I say this because at the AI event today was George Mason University’s student government president. It made me a bit nostalgic about my time in that role.

Getting back to AI: I really like this method. By focusing on the positives of an organization, it certainly feels like there’s a better energy about the process. I could be demonstrating one of my biases, but even the faculty facilitator (who was there at the birth of this method in 1987!) spoke about the importance of steering clear of falling into a trap of opining the things that an organization lacks. Why? Simply stated: that list is never-ending.

The group of folks that I spent morning with really came up with some great ideas. This process gave me a new appreciation for some of the positives of George Mason University. In fact, I even joked with the group that it made me want to forget about moving back to Canada and get a job here at Mason.

Lastly, I wanted to say that today’s event reinforced my enjoyment of being part of strategic planning. While there wasn’t any actual “strategic planning” that happened today, I knew that the things that the larger group (of about 100 people) talked about today would be a data point that could be used by those folks who are doing the strategic planning. So, in a larger sense, today’s event was about strategic planning. And strategic planning is something that I can get really excited about.

Oh, one last thing. There was a really great line that was said during the meeting that the room seemed to love. I captured it in a tweet:

Markets Are Cyclical: Why the Internet Monopolies Don’t Matter (that much)

Survival of the biggestThere was a nice feature on Technology in this past week’s Economist. In fact, there were a number of articles I found intriguing (medical tricorders was a good one!), but I want to draw your attention to one in particular: Battle of the internet giants – Survival of the biggest. The case is made that these internet behemoths are getting too big and that their scope needs to be curbed. Okay, I understand that, but I think that the fear is a bit unfounded. Here’s why.

Remember back to when railroads were the only way to get around? Remember when all commerce and long-distance travel was done by locomotive? Now, I don’t know if this is a perfect comparison, but bear with me for a second. There were at least a few big players in the railroad game back in the 19th century (Union Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southern Pacific). I’m sure that there were people back then who were irked that there were monopolies in the railroad business and probably wanted there to be more regulation (like is being argued in the article about the internet).

However, with the turn of the 20th century, a new form of transportation was starting to emerge: the automobile. It didn’t happen overnight, but the automobile eventually became a much more preferred method of transportation.

There’s another example: television. Remember in the early days of TV, there were just a few channels? If you had a TV (and you watched it), you probably saw the same program that everyone else who had a TV was seeing. Again, I don’t know, but I imagine that some folks were pretty peeved by this monopoly. Although, slowly but surely, there came to be more and more choice of TV channels. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where we’re unlikely to ever see the most watched television program eclipsed because there’s so much choice.  Though, some would argue that there still are monopolies in television.

And now what’s starting to breach the monopolies of TV? The internet and online media. There was a slide deck that was passed around courtesy of Business Insider earlier last week that shows the future of digital. There were lots of graphs and lots of data. One of the graphs showed that the percentage of live TV watching has dropped 25% in just the last 4 years. Conversely, recorded TV watching is up over 50%! And a new category has emerged: streaming TV. Whereas there was no streaming TV watching in 2008, it now makes up 7% of primetime viewing in the US.

So, even with all of this choice in television, there is still room for newness and growth.

Tying this back into my argument about the internet behemoths: maybe we can’t see it now, but based on history, I would bet that there’s going to be something that comes along (eventually) and unseats these internet behemoths. Of course, that’s not a reason not to regulate them, but it is something to keep in mind when you see articles like the one in last week’s Economist.

The Psychology of the Petraeus Affair

I’ve had this link on my list of things to write about for a few days and even though it’s not the most compelling thing to write about right now, I wanted to make sure I wrote about it before it got to be too far away from the incident. The link is a panel discussing the motives behind the Petraeus affair.

The only thing I’ve written so far is my bafflement with Petraeus’ forced resignation “because of possible blackmail.” When I heard about this discussion, I thought I should also add something to the discussion. Some of the reasons that were discussed in the video/article:

  • Invincibility
  • Self-sabotage
  • “God made us this way”
  • “Men are simply no good”
  • Opportunity
  • Risk-seeking behavior (paired with the first one, invincibility)

While those are all plausible explanations, some carry more weight than others. Better yet, I think that there is an important one missing from this list: drive.

As the panelists tell us, this is not the first time that we’ve seen high-profile people and infidelity. In fact, this isn’t even something that’s limited to politicians — athletes do, too. Both Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods come to mind as two very high-profile athletes who’ve publicly admitted to infidelity. (I say publicly admitted because who knows how many other accounts of infidelity there have been that the public has not been privy to.) In researching for this article, I came across a good summary of the literature on infidelity in a post about Tiger Woods:

The precursors to cheat could be summarized as:

  • Significant, ongoing, unresolved problems in the primary, long-term relationship or marriage
  • A significant difference in sex drive between the two partners
  • The older the primary relationship
  • A greater difference in personality than perhaps the partners realize
  • And to a far lesser extent, perhaps some theoretical, evolutionary remnants that may have reinforced multiple partners over monogamy (although this is just a hypothetical argument that would be difficult to disprove)

While these are some helpful (in understanding) precursors to cheating, there’s still one more I want to discuss — personality. Yes, personality is named in this list, but I don’t think that it adequately gets to the point I’d like to make.

File:Triangular Theory of Love.svg

Think about the kind of personality required to make it to the levels that Petraeus, Woods, and Bryant have. It takes quite a bit of discipline, dedication, and perseverance. These men didn’t just wake up one day at the pinnacle of their professions. They worked hard for it. While, of course, talent plays a big role in being able to make it to the upper-echelon, drive also plays a big part, too. It is this drive that I think plays a large part in infidelity. It’s almost as if we could theorize that there’s a triangle.

In fact, it reminds me of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (pictured above-left). I would argue that drive is one of the vertices of a triangle, invincibility is another, and opportunity is the third. Without these three things present, one won’t necessarily cheat. Similarly, with these three vertices present, one won’t necessarily cheat. Though, when these three vertices are present, I would bet that the incidence of cheating is elevated.

Where on the Internet is Jeremiah Stanghini — November 2012

Everything is dynamic — nothing stays the same. As I looked back at on the first time I wrote a post of “Where on the Internet” I am, I was struck by how much has changed. As it is, I updated the other post 3 times (I didn’t include a note when I updated it the first time) — and that was just between January 2011 and June 2011… 6 months!! Now, a year out from there, a lot more has changed. As a result, I thought it worth it to give you an update. Notice this time, I’ve included a month/year in the title of the post because — while I don’t anticipate any major changes, there’s a good chance that things will change. Without further adieu!

Jeremiah Stanghini’s Blog — Since moving my posts from Genuine Thriving to JeremiahStanghini.com, this is probably one of the best places to find me. In the top right-hand corner, there’s a button you can click to get updates of every time I publish a new post — which — I’ve been aiming for two a day (during the week) and once a day on the weekend.

Twitter — Jeremiah Stanghini — Since starting to tweet in June of 2011, I’ve gone through quite a process. I used to only use Twitter through the web client (twitter.com), but since realizing the value of TweetDeck and lists (!); if my computer is open, there’s a high probability that I’ve got TweetDeck open, too. I do my best to tweet things that are interesting, news-y, noteworthy, or funny. Of course, I don’t always tweet links. On the sidebar, you’ll see some of my most recent tweets and a follow button — (shameless plug) — follow me on Twitter! There’s also a link to my Twitter page in the menu at the top of the page.

Facebook — Jeremiah Stanghini — I recently switched my Facebook profile to a Facebook page. Like Twitter, I do my best to post articles/videos that are interesting, noteworthy, or funny. Like with Twitter, there’s a Facebook widget on the wide bar — (shameless plug) — like me on Facebook! Again, there’s also a link to this Facebook page in the menu at the top of the page.

 – Of course, I have a profile on LinkedIn that provides my professional resume. As with Twitter/Facebook, there’s a link to this profile/resume in the menu at the top of the page.

As I wrote in the first version of this post in January of 2011, I have profiles with two of the more popular commenting services for blogs,  and . On these profiles, you’ll be able to see the various comments I have made on blogs around the Internet.

Quora — Jeremiah Stanghini — Lastly — I’ve started to Quora use a little more frequently. There are some interesting questions that I find on Quora and when I can, I try to pitch in and answer questions.

Day 60 of the NHL Lockout: Learning From the Past

Previously, I’ve written about my interest in history and how I think it’s important for us to have some semblance of an understanding of the past, so that we can make more informed decisions about the future. That is, the past can certainly help in forecasting the future (to some extent). This is part of the reason one of the categories I write about is “history,” and it’s also one of the reasons why I was so keen to watch John Green’s Crash Course in World History.

One thing that has baffled me recently is the inability of the NHL and the Labour Union to come to some agreement. No, that’s not true. The thing that has baffled me is that this is not new. This has happened before. There was a lockout in 2004/2005. There was a lockout in 1994/1995. There was also a strike in 1992. All things being equal, one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first lockout that could have helped prevent the second lockout. And then one would think that these two sides would have learned something from the first two lockouts to have prevented the third lockout. I guess not because as you can see from the title, we’re into Day 60 of the lockout.

I should say that part of my bafflement with this situation may be a bit colored by my disappointment in the cancellation of the 2013 Winter Classic, which was to feature the Toronto Maple Leafs (!) and the Detroit Red Wings. I grew up watching the Leafs and the Red Wings duke it out in the Western Conference Playoffs, so I was pretty excited (and strongly considering traveling to) see them play at the Big House in Michigan.

Getting back to the lockouts…

Before I sat down to write this post, I had the sense that the NHL Labour Relations were going to be worse than those of the other 4 major sports in the USA and Canada. So, I was a bit surprised to find that the other sports have also had some poor labour relations (in recent history):

  • NBA: Locked out in 2011, 1999/1998, 1996 (only for 3 hours), and 1995 (well before the season and no games cancelled)
  • NFL: Locked out in 2011. Strike in 1982 and 1974.
  • MLB: Locked out in 1990 (no games cancelled), 1976 (no games cancelled), 1973 (no games cancelled). Strike in 1995/1994, 1985 (no games cancelled), 1981, 1980, and 1972.

In looking at the number of lockouts and strikes, it certainly seems like, while the MLB has had a number of labour relations issues, most of them had no ramifications on the games. The NFL has only had a few labour relations issues, though I wonder if there may be some more on the horizon. The NBA has had a couple in the last decade (and a bit), but that’s about it. So, we might conclude from this that the NHL has had more labour relations issue than the other major sports.

Regardless of when this lockout ends, I sincerely hope that the NHL can find a way to keep (at least) the next decade strike- and lockout-free!

How Can You Be Blackmailed with Public Information: the CIA, Petraeus, and Paula Broadwell

By now, you’ve no doubt read about Gen. Petraeus‘ resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). And, you’ve no doubt read about how this resignation came to be. I’m not inciting conspiracy, but something about this situation doesn’t feel right to me — particularly — the idea that Petraeus could be blackmailed.

The argument goes that it was important for Petraeus to resign because the information (affair) could be used to blackmail him. Okay, I hear that, but — the information is now public. Why does he have to resign? Why couldn’t the information have been made public and then Petraeus could have gone on as the Director of the CIA? Of course, this might not have been the most pleasant news conference or press release, but it would have allowed someone who is widely considered one of the smartest minds in Washington to continue in an integral position for the administration of the US.

I want to say that I’m not endorsing Petraeus’ actions (nor) am I endorsing extra-marital affairs. Though, it is worth noting that public officials having affairs (and resigning) is not new. One would think that they may learn from other’s past transgressions. Of course, expecting them to learn from other’s past transgressions is a bit unreasonable.

Circling back to my main point: why would someone have to resign if the information is public? In this particular instance, that information had to do with an extra-marital affair. Due to the culture of the US, this kind of transgression is just about unforgivable and as a result, requires that the leader resign. However, sex (and affairs) are seen much differently in other countries. That’s not to say that other countries would endorse extra-marital affairs, but it’s worth noting that had this happened in another country, the leader’s resignation would not even have come up in conversation.

[UPDATE: I wrote this post on Saturday afternoon, so there’s been some time for the story to develop and for others to opine. Here’s the closing paragraph from an article in The New Yorker posted on Sunday:

A final question, at least from my standpoint, is whether Petraeus had to resign at all. It appears that Clapper, who like Petraeus is a military man, saw it as a no-brainer. Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be? The line of the day on the morning talk shows in Washington seemed to be that Petraeus did the “honorable” thing, or “he had to resign.” The old saw that, if he wasn’t squeaky clean, he could be subject to blackmail by his enemies, thus endangering national security, was mentioned again and again. To me, the whole Victorian shame game seems seriously outdated. Something like half the marriages in the country now end in divorce, and you can bet a great many of those involved extra-marital affairs. Is it desirable to bar such a large number of public servants from top jobs? It certainly seems fair to question Petraeus’s judgement, ethics, and moral fibre in this matter. But if infidelity wasn’t treated as career-threatening, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers.

There Is No Fiscal Cliff: A Lesson in Metaphor

If you live in Washington, DC, you most certainly hear and read about the “fiscal cliff” on a daily basis — especially as the “impending doom” inches closer. If you don’t live in DC, you’ve probably still heard/read about the fiscal cliff because there are national implications. I wonder — did you stop to think about the “fiscal cliff?” That is, does the metaphor accurately represent what it is that we’re talking about?

From Matt Yglesias:

A salient fact about non-metaphorical cliffs is that falling over them is generally irreversible. If the cliff is high enough that falling off of it would kill you, then if you fall off you’re going to die and that’s the end of it. The “fiscal cliff” by contrast isn’t like that at all.

And from Steve Kornacki:

That’s not a good way to understand what we’re facing. The reality is that the “cliff” is really more of a slope. A gradual slope. It works like this:

If nothing happens between now and the end of the year, then on January 1, the Bush tax cuts will expire, the alternative minimum tax will reach further down the income ladder, and payroll tax rates will revert to 6.2 percent. (They’re 4.2 percent now — that was part of the big Obama tax cut that no one ever seemed to notice or give him credit for.)

But — and this is the critical point — this won’t all happen at once.

It’s not like John and Jane Taxpayer will wake up on January 1 and be socked with a bill for $3,000. Only the payroll hike would go into effect right away.

It would be months before most taxpayers were actually hit with higher income tax rates or the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax].

Ditto for the big, scary spending cuts you’re hearing about, which will be phased in over the year, and even into future years.

And why is this important?

Because it means there’s time after January 1 for Congress and the White House to reach a deal — lots of time.

I’ve written about the importance of words, but when it comes to instances like this, the words we use are even more important. The fact that so many of us are constantly using this metaphor to discuss the impending changes to America‘s fiscal policy makes the metaphor that much more entrenched. And by extension, that also makes those people who only hear about these changes in passing that much more frightened (by the metaphor).

So, when you hear dramatic metaphors, especially from politicians, be sure to look into the details to decide whether someone’s using hyperbole to scare the public.

Oh — and in case you’re interested, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The greater danger is that misguided fears about the economy going over a “fiscal cliff” into another Great Recession will lead policymakers to believe they have to take some action, no matter how ill-conceived and damaging to long-term deficit reduction, before the end of the year, rather than craft a balanced plan that supports the economic recovery in the short term and promotes fiscal stabilization in the intermediate and longer run.