Redacted

As some of you may know, I have recently been "Redacted from the Payroll" (i.e. laid-off). As the economy is in the tank, I am trying to mentally prepare myself for what might be a significant period of unemployment. I have come up with a set of rules to help me not go insane (and piss off the wife and drive everyone crazy). I'm looking for more advice from other people who have been through this to make it go as smoothly as possible.

So far, here are the rules:

1. No Sleeping all day! I may not get up at 7AM, but I will be up by 9.
2. Shower EVERY DAY!
3. Shave at least 3 times a week.
4. Work out every work day (M-F). I'm hoping this will burn off all the excess energy and annoyingness.
5. Get dressed every day. That means outside clothes... not just PJs.
   
6. Treat job searching like a job. Work on it every day.

Since most people in corporate America get laid off at least once in their career, I'm hoping for more advice from you as to how to best deal with the situation.

Thanks!

Facebook Test Post

I have added an application to my facebook page to update my profile with blogs... This is a test post for that...

Sentencing

Yesterday on the news was the story of Rob Blagojevich, the disgraced governor of Illinois who has been arrested for trying to sell Barack Obama's senate seat. If he is convicted, he could serve as much as 50 years. It seems doubtful that he will serve that much, but why should we lock him up at all?!?

The regular knee-jerk reaction to anybody committing a crime is to "lock 'em up." That has become our definition of punishment. While going to prison is DEFINITELY punishment, it does not seem appropriate to all crimes. In addition, putting everyone in prison has caused the US to have the largest prison population in the world, with 700,000 more people in prison than China (a country with a population 4X greater than the US). According to the federal government, it costs approximately $22,650 per inmate per year. With a total prison population (in 2006) of 2,258,983, that gives us a total cost of approximately $51,165,964,950 PER YEAR!!! (That's over 51 BILLION DOLLARS!!!)

I'm not saying that we should let everyone roam free, but I do think there are a few changes we can make...

1) Mandatory Sentencing. The US Government Sentencing Commission recommends policies to congress on mandatory sentences for certain crimes. Most of these sentences are related to drug charges as part of the War on Drugs. These guidelines often tie judges hands in giving lighter sentences due to mitigating factors. I think it would make far more sense to allow judges to do their jobs and sentence criminal based on the facts of that individual case (using precedent as a guide) instead of blanket rules handed down from congress.

2) Drugs. This is closely related to mandatory sentencing. Why does it makes sense for a guy with a small amount of drugs (a user) to serve prison time? How does putting a whole bunch of druggies together help the situation? It seems that you're just getting drug dealers and users together to network. When they get out, they now have more, easier ways to get drugs. Why not make the punishment fines for very small amounts (recreational users), and counseling for heavier users?

3) White Collar Crimes. Getting back to Blagojevich. This is a guy who wanted to abuse his power for financial gain. It seems a better punishment for this crime would be to fine him and not allow him to hold public office or work in public service, either for a period of time or for life. Instead of this costing tax-payers thousands and thousands of dollars, the government would get money from him and he would lose what he most valued. We need to start looking at more creative punishments that better fit the crime.

All in all, the point I'm trying to make here is this: Let's find a way to punish people in a way that costs the government (and therefore the taxpayer) less money and punishes people in more appropriate ways.

Planetarium Comment

Last night at the presidential debate, John McCain said something that really bothered me. It wasn't the "that guy" comment or anything else they've been talking about on CNN all day. This was the comment:

He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

Here is a picture of the "overhead projector" he was talking about:

When McCain said $3M for an overhead projector, I bet you thought of this:

Clearly that would have been a huge waste of money, but since we're talking about replacing a 40 year old planetarium projection system, I think it's an amazing way to spend that money.

Both candidates have spent an enormous amount of time talking about how important it is that the US lead the way on finding new ways to harness and capture renewable energy sources.  The only way we're going to be able to do that is with scientists and engineers.  A big part of getting kids to get into math and science fields is by getting them excited by those fields when they're young -- through field trips with school.  A planetarium can be a wonderful way to do that.  $3M is a very reasonable investment to get hundreds of thousands of Chicago kids interested in science.

Here is a comment (PDF) directly from the Adler Plantarium.

Second Amedment

I'm thinking of starting a series of blog entries on hot-button issues and how one (or both) sides get the argument wrong. So often with passionate issues, the arguments become completely ridiculous when there are far more rational, although more complicated, arguments to be made. I'm going to start with gun control.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Most people who are pro-gun (for the lack of a better term), ignore the first clause. It is hard for me to understand how owning a gun for hunting or home protection constitutes a militia and keeps America a free country. The army may be an "Army of One", but you are not a militia of one. I do not accept the argument that freedom includes or requires gun ownership. If that is your argument, why isn't the right to bear heroin or kiddy-porn or napalm necessary to maintain a free country?

There is a much better argument that can be made for gun ownership. I maintain that the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with personal gun ownership, and therefore the constitution makes no case one way or the other concerning guns. When you take the constitutional argument out of it, this can now be left up to states to decide what is best for its citizens. I think using the Constitution as part of your argument is a cop-out. If you believe that you should be allowed to own a gun for home protection or hunting (or home decor), come up with a rational argument for it that doesn't include a document written over 300 years ago that was making reference to being organized against an invading British army. (I don't think Tony Blair or Gordon Brown are going to launch an offensive any time soon)

Without the constitutional crutch, the argument for guns does become a bit more difficult. For example, for hunting, a state could set up rules that allowed only regulated, licensed business to rent out guns for a day or week. This would allow people to hunt but make it impossible for them to have guns in their homes. For home protection, one would have to show statistics for how often guns are successfully used to protect a person or property and compare that to the risks of gun ownership.

What am I missing in these arguments?

Wordle

My Site's Wordle:



Awesome Site: Wordle

Deaths in America

With the recent Salmonella scare in the US, I've been thinking about how scared people get about the different ways they can die. Information seems like the best way to get over some of those fears (and perhaps create some rational ones). People get so worried about eating a tomato, but then go eat a greasy burger. Luckily for us, the US government tracks death rates for all sorts of things. The table below are US death rates (not worldwide).

The percentage in the chart is percentage of total deaths in the US per year. Clearly the numbers will not add up to the total, as I've only included a few of the causes of death for people in the US.

Discuss



References:

1. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm
2. http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml
3. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstats.html
4. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab
5. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm
6. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm
7. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
8. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids
9. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
10. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no5/01-0290.htm
11. http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm

Hybrid Purchase Analyzer

I created the following spreadsheet to help people calculate whether getting a new car makes financial sense as it relates to gas savings. The sheet has 2 functions:

1. Based on the value of your current car (resale value, trade-in value, etc.) it will determine how long it will take you to make up the different in value in gas savings
2. It will tell you how long it will take you to pay off the extra cost of a hybrid system (usually about $5,000). It will use the difference in mileage from your current car and the new car to determine your savings.
   

How to use it:

• Fill in all the fields under "Enter Information Here" ONLY. Do not do anything with the "Calculations" field. Your answers will be calculated there.
• The answers that you "care about" will be the last two rows.
• If you have any questions, please leave them as comments.
  

Prices

I've been wondering a lot lately about how airfare and gas prices relate to the increase in other goods over time. My hypothesis was that gas prices are increasing far faster than other goods, and airline ticket prices are increasing much, much slower. The federal government is nice enough to have a whole bunch of websites where you can get this sort of information. With a bit of number crunching and Excel formatting, I created the chart below.

This data came from the following sources:

1. US Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/data/
2. US Department of Transportation - Research and Innovative Technology Administration - http://www.rita.dot.gov/
3. US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration - http://www.eia.doe.gov/

I would be more than happy to share the raw data with anyone who wants it.

Click on the image above to enlarge the chart.

Response from American Airlines

June 12, 2008

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate hearing your perspective about the change to our checked baggage policy.

First, allow me to clarify that the $15 fee for one checked bag applies to tickets purchased on or after June 15, 2008. Assessing a fee for checked baggage was a difficult decision but reflects the reality of our business. We are taking direct steps to ensure the long-term success of our company in the face of unprecedented fuel prices and these fees help us to offset the rising costs associated with the transportation of baggage. We hope to have our customers' understanding.

There are some exceptions to the policy. To view the specifics, please go to AA.com and select "All News" from the Home Page and look for "View Updated Checked Bag Policies."

Sincerely,

Kay Farmer
Customer Relations
American Airlines