So now I’m an author

I’ve been writing for money since I was 19 but had not planned on writing a book. Writing is my favorite activity and I have been incredibly privileged to make it my career. But I never aspired to write the Great American Novel, nor felt a book inside me yearning to be released through my keyboard.

I’ve written just about everything else: newspaper and magazine articles, executive speeches, business white papers, booklets and brochures, opinion survey analysis, legislative testimony and, more recently, web content. I have been the editor of more than a dozen corporate magazines and newsletters and enjoy editing nearly as much as writing, especially when I can help writers bring out the best in their work.

So when my neighbor asked me for help with a book he was writing I agreed to take a look at it. He had known a World War II veteran who had survived a Japanese POW camp and made a deathbed promise to write the guy’s story. My neighbor had been working for years to sift through interviews and family memories, had researched military records and was working on a rough draft of the narrative.

I know a good story when I see one and accepted my neighbor’s invitation to sign on as co-author nearly a year ago. I edited my neighbor’s draft, added more research and writing and helped shepherd it to publication. The project was mind candy for me, and in the process of collaboration we gained a deeper insight into the heart of the story: why this guy survived when so many prisoners of war did not.

The result is Don Jose, An American Soldier’s Courage and Faith in Japanese Captivity. You can read about the book, and the story behind the book, on our website. Our copies of the book finally arrived a few days ago, and we have launched an aggressive marketing campaign that will dominate our lives for a year or two.

It feels a little odd to have my name on something that’s registered with the Library of Congress. I started my career as a newspaper reporter with the understanding that my work would line birdcages in a day or two. Permanence was never part of the deal. All the trees I’ve killed over the decades have long since been recycled, and much of my more recent work (such as this blog) exists only on the Internet as bits rather than atoms. Now I’ve helped create an artifact that may outlast me. People are even asking me to sign it.

Promoting something I’ve written is another new experience. I’ve learned a lot about book promotion from my daughter, the semi-famous author. I’m generating publicity, and my co-author and I are organizing book signings and working our networks. I’m getting accustomed to promoting the book shamelessly to everyone I know. And I’m trying not to obsess about the book rankings on Amazon. 

Posted in Idle Ruminations | Comments Off on So now I’m an author

Solar power

I think solar power is a great idea. Free electricity: how cool is that? I’d love to use it at home because my house is an ideal solar site:, with a big flat roof under a New Mexico sun that shines 300-plus days a year.

Problem is, it’s too expensive. The last time I checked, converting my house to solar power would require an investment of tens of thousands of dollars. Even with the savings on utility bills and all those tax credits, it would take as much as a decade to recover my costs. I could break even about the time they wheel me off to a nursing home.

I suspect that one reason why solar power is expensive is because solar equipment still lacks the economies of scale needed to make it affordable. The more of something you manufacture, the lower the cost of each unit. That’s why many things that used to be expensive, like flat-screen TV sets and cell phones, are now available at WalMart.

Solar energy is still overpriced despite years of government subsidies. At this point the biggest reasons to go solar are noneconomic: ecological guilt and government mandates. My utility company offered me a deal a couple of years ago to pay a voluntary surcharge for the assurance that some of my electricity would come from renewable sources. Seriously? My bills are likely to go up anyway because of government mandates that utilities use more solar and wind power. Forcing us to pay more for something because it’s good for us is not a compelling strategy.

The telecommunication industry faced a similar dilemma in the 1990s. Fiber optic cable was many times more efficient than copper cable, but the stuff was expensive. That was frustrating to telcom executives who wanted to convert more of their networks to fiber but could not justify its cost. Ameritech solved the problem by offering long-term, large-scale contracts to suppliers who could offer fiber cable at a price comparable to copper. Suppliers jumped at the deal because the long-term contracts enabled them to expand their manufacturing volume and achieve lower costs.

Government programs to encourage renewable energy may be falling short because they tend to focus on subsidizing manufacturing and creating artificial demand without reducing costs. There is a lot government can do by focusing its efforts on the areas where government is most effective.

It makes sense for the government to fund research, because research grants and subsidized national laboratories can perform more basic research and development than most private companies can afford.

Government also can create markets in its role as the biggest customer in the country for practically everything. Instead of paying companies like Solyndra to build luxurious factories in expensive locations, I’d like to see the feds announce a program to spend, say, $500 million a year for the next five years to convert government buildings to solar power and award contracts to the lowest bidders.

Companies with the winning bids could then raise private capital to build factories, with investors looking over their shoulders to ensure that the companies are managed prudently. The likely outcome is that a lot more solar panels would be manufactured and, as a result, costs would go down. Not only would the government get something for its money (for once), but solar panels would be more affordable for the rest of us.

Posted in Commentary | Comments Off on Solar power

Snow? No, thanks

I don’t like snow. Really, I don’t. That realization came to me on a snowshoe hike in the mountains in the light of the full moon. I thought: “This would be more fun without all this effing snow.” (And that was before I fell and ruptured a tendon.)

Winter sports are big here in New Mexico. We have lots of mountains and, I am told, some of the best skiing in the country. I know a guy who moved to Santa Fe primarily for the skiing. There’s downhill skiing, snowboarding, cross-country skiing. And snowshoeing, of course. The TV newscast has a ski report every night. My neighborhood mountain, Sandia Peak, boasts the world’s longest tramway to whisk snow fanciers the vertical mile to the top.

My lack of interest in winter sports may be a result of spending most of my life in Chicago. For Chicagoans, skiing entails a long drive to Michigan or Wisconsin for mediocre skiing, or an expensive airplane ride to the Rockies. I could never see the point of spending money to travel from one cold climate to another. It made more sense to board an airplane in the winter if there was a tropical beach at the other end.

As a child I enjoyed playing in the snow as much as the next kid: snow angels, sledding, skating, snowball fights, building snow forts and snowmen, getting a running start to slide as far as possible down an icy sidewalk. The novelty fades, however, when the snow sticks around until April, you have to put on galoshes whenever you venture outside and remember that your mother told you to never eat yellow snow. Spending more time with a shovel than on a sled made snow something to be endured rather than enjoyed.

Snow in Chicago means shoveling the end of your driveway again after the city snowplow pushes the snow back… trudging through ankle-deep slush everywhere … spending an extra hour to drive home in a rush-hour blizzard… hoping the weight of the second fifty-year snow in three years won’t collapse the garage roof. I will confess that I was a little less grumpy about snow once I bought a big, noisy snowblower.

Snow is easier to enjoy in New Mexico because in most parts of the state it’s optional. When snow falls in the mountains by the foot, everyplace else gets a dusting or none at all. My neighbors in Albuquerque do not own snow shovels and snowplows are scarce. While cities like Chicago take snow in stride, the rare equivalent of a heavy Midwestern frost paralyzes Albuquerque. A moderate snowstorm closes the schools and shuts down the Interstate.

For the most part, however, snow in New Mexico is a choice and not a mandatory condition. You can be on a ski slope within an hour’s drive but can be a weather wimp the rest of the time. You can spend the day snowboarding and come home to a dry driveway. If you really, really love snow you can live in the mountains, buy a four-wheel-drive vehicle and savor the adventure of being snowbound. It’s your choice.

That’s one of the reasons I moved here. I enjoy looking out my window to see snow on the mountains but not on my driveway. If there’s snow on my deck in the morning it’s probably going to melt by noon.

I’m looking forward to hiking in the mountains this summer.

Posted in Idle Ruminations, Life in New Mexico | Comments Off on Snow? No, thanks

Anyone for a Mediterranean cruise?

I’ve been watching the unfolding story of the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster and the growing list of ways in which the captain and others screwed up. I have a little experience in things nautical even though I spent more of my Navy career behind a desk than at sea.

The Costa Concordia grounding looks like a classic case of human error rather than weather or mechanical malfunction. This was no uncharted reef: people have been sailing ships along the coast of Italy for 3,000 years. Piloting a ship along a coast is the most accurate kind of navigation because you can see landmarks on shore, either visually or on radar, and can plot the ship’s position within a matter of feet. The guys on the Costa Concordia’s bridge should have known exactly where the rocks were and where their ship was.

The risk of bumping into things makes mariners extra-careful when they’re close to shore. When they enter or leave a harbor ships post extra lookouts, watch every radar display and depth indicator, and often hire a local harbor pilot who knows all the shoals and currents. This is when the captain’s reputation is most on the line, so skippers are on the bridge micromanaging and tend to avoid distractions such as blondes.

Cruise ships are especially good at close-quarters maneuvering because they enter and leave harbors every day. Most have side thrusters (jets that nudge the ship from side to side) that make them highly maneuverable for their size. When I took a couple of cruises a few years ago, I was impressed by the skill with which the captains parked their ships alongside the pier. That’s not easy to do, even for the nimble minesweeper I served on.

Update: Apparently the Costa Concordia was going 16 knots as it approached the island. That’s a good cruising speed in the open ocean, but close to shore it’s the equivalent of navigating the WalMart parking lot at 50 mph. When the ship turned, its excess speed carried it onto the rocks.

One effect of the Costa Concordia disaster is that cruising will be safer than ever (for a while, at least) because the cruise ship industry will overreact by doubling down on safety measures. I saw this happen in the Navy.

Pratas Reef is a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the South China Sea. It’s marked on all the charts and can be seen from space, so ships know where it is and have used it as a navigational aid to fix their positions. Easy as it is to find (or miss), the destroyer USS Frank Knox (DD742) somehow ran bang into Pratas Reef in 1965, resulting in a massive salvage effort and several courts-martial.

The following year my ship passed through the area on a course that took us within about 50 miles of Pratas Reef. The captain doubled the watches and was on the bridge all night. Can’t argue with his logic: If there’s anything worse than being the first captain to hit Pratas Reef, it’s being the second.

As I write this, every cruise line is reviewing its safety procedures and issuing stern memoranda to its captains. Cruise ships may be the safest places on the planet in the near future. I’ll bet the Costa line is offering some terrific deals. If you don’t mind a lifeboat drill every hour, that is.

Posted in Commentary, Sea Stories | Comments Off on Anyone for a Mediterranean cruise?

Economic demagoguery

Politics is my favorite spectator sport. It’s often amusing, a little like watching monkeys at the zoo. But when politicians tinker with the economy they’re downright scary. The continuing recession (or recovery, depending on which party is talking) means that the economy will be a political football until the November election.

Most of us don’t fully understand the economy. I sure don’t. But the economic causes and solutions we’re hearing from the politicians set off my bullshit alarm practically every day. Every government attempt to fix the economy, especially in recent years, seems to result in unintended consequences. The only certainty seems to be that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

The economists are no help. Every approach to the economy, however loony, is supported by at least one professor of economics. Want to starve a bunch of economists? Lock them in a room until they agree on a pizza order.

So we hear economists and politicians urging the kind of central planning and government spending that is bankrupting Europe. Some want us to emulate China, where a planned economy is headed for a crash and the high-speed trains already are crashing. Others urge a return to Reaganomics, which grew the economy in the 1980s but resulted in leveraged buyouts, junk bonds, and the migration of talent from productive business to the financial sector. All of this politico-economic blather is filtered through the lens of a mostly partisan news media.

A political campaign ought to focus on ideas about the economy and the government’s role in it. Can we reform the tax code to tax entrepreneurs at a lower rate than hedge-fund managers? Must energy policy and environmental protection remain mutually exclusive? Can a targeted job training program help unemployed workers qualify for all those unfilled manufacturing jobs? How can government and the banks team up to allow the housing market to hit bottom with a soft landing for homeowners?

But we’re not going to hear any ideas, are we? Instead, the economy will be fair game for demagoguery such as the attack on capitalism by Republicans who claim to support a free-market economy. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry in particular revealed their ignorance of business and disdain for the private sector when they attacked Mitt Romney for Bain Capital’s corporate reorganizations. Just think what we’ll hear from the Democrats.

As I understand it, Romney did the same thing my neighbor does when he flips houses. This neighbor bought the crappiest house on the block and invested in a major rehab. In the process he scrapped the inefficient furnace and outdated cabinets, and that sounds like what Bain Capital did to turn around failing companies. Wonder if the executive branch of the federal government could use some remodeling?

The vulture-capitalist schtick is only the beginning. We’re going to hear that Democrats want a socialist system that will bankrupt the economy, and that Republicans want to help millionaires oppress the middle class and cancel Grandma’s Medicare.

It’s going to be a long, depressing campaign. What few economic ideas emerge will be written in crayon.

Posted in Commentary | Comments Off on Economic demagoguery

I’m dreaming of a Black Friday

It’s Black Friday and I have not set foot in a single store. My objective is to avoid shopping malls and big-box chains until 2012.

Christmas shopping is intended to get everyone into the holiday spirit. Not me. My shopping is strictly utilitarian:  enter store, find what I need (or not), exit store. The only store I actually browse is Home Depot. Christmas shopping in crowded stores, especially under pressure to find something (anything!) for a hard-to-buy-for loved one, is a bah-humbug experience. I can’t enjoy the holidays until the ordeal of shopping is over.

My aversion to Christmas shopping is nothing new. When the Navy sent us to Japan in 1966, my wife and I were looking forward to a non-commercial Christmas in a mostly non-Christian country. To our dismay, the Tokyo merchants had recently discovered Christmas and were embracing it with same manic enthusiasm the Japanese bring to manufacturing and baseball. Every store in the Ginza pulsated with decorations. Christmas carols blared from loudspeakers. One memorable sign read: “Melly Xmas.”

My holiday outlook has not softened over the years. I’m even grateful I do not have grandchildren at Christmas time, because the obvious delight of watching grandkids open presents might not compensate for the traumatic feeding frenzy of a Toys”R”Us store.

Last year I did Black Friday for the first time to get a sale price on something I needed. I stumbled into the store at dawn, found what I wanted in five minutes, and then spent an hour in the longest checkout line I’ve ever seen. Never again.

This year I needed to buy a couple of items of clothing for the holidays, so I anticipated Black Friday by visiting a Kohl’s store just before Thanksgiving. The store didn’t have what I wanted in my size but Kohl’s web site did. Paying $6.95 for shipping beats an hour in the checkout line.

What gets me in the Christmas spirit is the Internet. Ho-ho-ho to you, Al Gore. Amazon.com has been my family’s Santa for years. The kids and I post our wish lists on the Amazon web site and finish our holiday shopping in minutes. I’d set out milk and cookies for Amazon.com if I could.

I won’t avoid all the stores, of course. In a week or two I will spend a leisurely evening on Albuquerque’s luminaria-bedecked Old Town plaza and pick up a few artsy stocking stuffers in tiny, adobe-walled shops. And as I speed past the gridlocked shopping centers I may murmur “Melly Xmas.”

 

Posted in Idle Ruminations | 2 Comments

Occupying attention

It must be tough for this season’s new TV shows to compete with the soap opera of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Tents! Drums! Anarchists with iPhones! Convoluted speeches and loony signs! Celebrities and the homeless! Liberal mayors unleashing the cops! You can’t make this stuff up.

What’s nearly as entertaining as the Monty Python antics of the protesters is the strained attempts of the news media and politicians to take them seriously. The consensus seems to be that the occupiers are similar to the Tea Party as an expression of economic discontent, which is like comparing Spring Break to a Realtors’ convention.

Tea Party envy may be driving union bosses and liberal politicians to gingerly embrace the occupiers. There also may be some nostalgia for the anti-war protests of my generation that changed the world and elected Richard Nixon. (I missed out on those because I was in Vietnam.)

Albuquerque’s protest, with a distinctive New Mexico spin, is called (Un)Occupy Albuquerque in recognition of New Mexico’s historic occupation by the Spanish and Anglos. This implies that the place actually belongs to the Indians, but no Native Americans appear to be participating in the protests. Perhaps they’re busy running their casinos.

To better understand the protesters’ demands, I checked the movement’s web site — http://www.occupytogether.org/ — and learned that the occupiers blame corporations for all the ills of the world. They do not advocate any specific solution, such as electing a president who will unleash the power of government to defeat the corporations. Didn’t we already do that?

There are some legitimate issues in there somewhere that many of us might support, but at this point the protesters are not saying much about the economy. Instead, the protest itself has become the cause as occupiers fight for their constitutional right to sleep in the park. This strategy has been a spectacular success in mobilizing the homeless. Why stay in a boring shelter when you can hit on college students, get free food and maybe get on television?

In Albuquerque, the protesters wore Day of the Dead costumes (big holiday here) to mourn the death of their civil rights. One protester claimed they were standing up for their First and Second-Amendment rights (which is a little odd because New Mexico does not require gun registration). Another got on every newscast by announcing a hunger strike until the university president meets with him. The whole issue may wind up in court because the protesters have lawyers. Is this a great country, or what?

All of this is great theater, but whether it can change the course of the nation remains to be seen. The Tea Party had the right idea: They came, they protested and then they went home. Now they occupy the House of Representatives.

Posted in Commentary | Comments Off on Occupying attention

Don’t rain on my fiesta

I never fully appreciated rain until I moved to New Mexico. Needless to say, it’s dry here in the semi-desert.

How dry is it? (rimshot) It’s so dry that the weather forecasters measure precipitation in hundredths of an inch. So dry that wildfires burn tens of thousands of acres every year: A few months ago a car blew a tire, struck sparks on the pavement and started a brushfire that burned for a week. So dry that we water our gardens with drip irrigation systems that dribble water on individual plants. And everybody carries lip moisturizer and a bottle of water.

Precipitation is a routine fact of life in most places but is practically an obsession here. Every TV weather report has the latest drought statistics. Disputes over water rights have kept lawyers employed for a couple of centuries. Folks worry about the chile pepper harvest in the summer and snowfall on the ski slopes in the winter. We worry about our water bills, too.

So nobody complains when it rains. Except during Balloon Fiesta. The fiesta every October is the biggest event of its type in the world. Hundreds of hot-air balloons take to the skies in a spectacular mass ascension at dawn. The week-long event is our biggest tourist draw with 100,000 visitors who pump millions into the local economy. Albuquerque is ideal for ballooning because the wind pattern is just right and the weather is nearly always perfect.

Balloon landed next to my house

Not this year. After a relatively dry summer monsoon season (when we get most of our rain) the heavens opened during Balloon Fiesta and it rained for days. There was still plenty of ballooning – one actually landed in my neighbor’s yard – but some of the major events were rained out.

Most places would consider this an unmitigated bummer, but the rainout was greeted with mixed feelings in Albuquerque. The local newscasts followed every solemn report of event cancellation and dampened tourists with a barely suppressed smile and the comment: “but we REALLY needed the rain.”

A couple of my relatives visiting from Chicago bought VIP tickets to the fiesta, stayed at a classy hotel and left without seeing a single balloon. I commiserated with them and apologized profusely for my city’s weather. But at the same time I was thinking: “My lawn really looks great!”

Posted in Idle Ruminations, Life in New Mexico | Comments Off on Don’t rain on my fiesta

Antitrust and déjà vu

The feds filed an antitrust suit to block AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile. The Department of Justice claims the merger will limit consumer choice and raise prices for cell phone service. My local state regulatory commissioner welcomed the suit because it will keep AT&T from “monopolizing” cell service.

Here we go again. I worked for the Bell System when the feds brought the last antitrust suit against AT&T in the 1970s, ostensibly for the same reasons. Except it wasn’t really about consumers: Start-up competitors wanted a piece of the lucrative business market in data communications and large businesses wanted more choice in telephone equipment.

Suddenly it was open season on AT&T. Dozens of start-up companies entered the long-distance business and immediately filed their own antitrust suits. Even though consumers were highly satisfied with their own phone service, consumer organizations joined the hue and cry because, well, AT&T was just too damned big.

That antitrust suit was settled when AT&T spun off its two-dozen local phone companies in 1984. I tracked public opinion as Illinois Bell’s survey research guy and noticed a sudden shift a couple of months before the divestiture took effect. Consumers who had overwhelmingly favored breaking up AT&T had an epiphany (and a cow) when they realized how the change would affect them: You mean I have to have different phone companies for local and long distance service? I have to buy my own phone? What a dumb idea! Why didn’t someone tell us about this? They were even more disappointed when the overall cost of residential phone service did not come down and the cheap phones from Best Buy kept breaking.

After the breakup federal and state regulators created “competition” by forcing AT&T and the Baby Bells to sell service at a discount to wholesalers who would resell the service to consumers, essentially carving up the market. Long distance companies like MCI and Worldcom (remember Worldcom?) built their own networks, but anyone with a lawyer and a pulse could start a company to resell phone service with minimal investment. Dozens of government-anointed “competitors” went into the telephone business, failed to attract customers and died like corporate fruit flies. The lawyers did okay, though.

It was technology and the marketplace, not government regulation, that ultimately brought genuine competition to telecommunications. Today I can get telephone service from a wireline phone company, a cable TV company or any of the six cell phone providers in my city. The Internet has made long distance service, once the cash cow of telecommunications, virtually free and wireline service is disappearing. Consumers have a dizzying array of choices and there’s an app for anything you can dream of communicating.

All of this innovation and competition makes it hard for the feds to find monopolies from which to protect the public, so they have to settle for taking down market leaders instead. Hence the antitrust suit to block AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile even though the battle cry of “monopoly” rings a little hollow. It’s more like suing General Motors to protect Studebaker.

If increasing competition and consumer choice were the objective, the government could easily free up more radio spectrum for telecommunications entrepreneurs. Instead, the feds are taming the unruly telecommunications marketplace by picking winners and losers for us. In this case the winners are Verizon and Sprint, which clearly have the best lobbyists. The designated loser is AT&T, which unwisely retained its monopoly-tainted moniker when it was acquired by SBC and should have spent more on lobbyists.

In another solution looking for a problem, the Federal Communications Commission is proposing to regulate the Internet. So it’s déjà vu all over again. The silver lining is that whenever the government tries to regulate technology, technology invariably wins. The lawyers do okay, too.

Posted in Commentary | Comments Off on Antitrust and déjà vu

Middle-class warfare

Another election campaign is starting, and that means politicians will be telling us that they are standing up for the middle class (and that the other politicians are not). Knowing what class you’re in is important these days because class warfare has become a standard feature of political campaigns. The middle class clearly is the place to be unless you’re Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.

Problem is, the definition of the middle class keeps changing. When I studied sociology in college the middle class was defined specifically as people who had acquired education and specialized skills and worked as professionals, small business owners and skilled tradespeople. Sociologists conducted elaborate studies to further stratify the middle class into upper-middle, lower-middle and the ever-popular middle-middle. Still, everyone agreed that Ward and June Cleaver were middle class and Ralph Kramden was not.

Those tidy class distinctions have eroded. Auto assembly-line workers began identifying themselves as middle class once they could afford Winnebagos. Now the middle class has been hijacked by the politicians.

During the 2008 election the middle class suddenly expanded to practically the entire population from just above the poverty line to the six-figure-salaried. It was a little like Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.

That definition is slipping, however. The government workers who disrupted Wisconsin claimed that they are the middle class, which implies that the ordinary taxpayers who voted Republican are not. Then there’s the 50 percent of the population that pays no federal income tax: Are they middle class? And how do we categorize the Tea Party people and the illegal immigrants? It’s all very confusing.

It gets worse. The traditional middle-class definition includes doctors, business owners and lawyers, some of whom earn more than $250,000 a year. Are these folks still in the middle class, or are they now on the other side of the class divide along with those millionaires and billionaires who ought to pay higher taxes?

The 2012 election campaign is just beginning, and new and exciting definitions of the middle class are bound to emerge. It’s enough to drive a sociologist to drink.

Posted in Commentary | 2 Comments