Toll Road Offers New Jersey a Fiscal Test Drive - New York Times
Some pros and cons around leasing toll roads to private operators.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
'A Glorious Mess' - WSJ.com
'A Glorious Mess' - WSJ.com
In an otherwise reasonably good editorial, the WSJ's editors wrote a hideous sentence:
Without looking back, what was the thing being modified by "but not by much" - was it the "shutting down or slowing down" of the economy? Oh, well, then nothing to be worried about - the economy might take a little hit, maybe it'll be slowed, "but not by much." Sigh of relief.
Uh, oh. That's counter-intuitive. The WSJ wouldn't make that point. Look back... oh, it's Dingel, who is either not overstating his case at all, or perhaps overstating it, "but not by much."
With bad editing and bad sentence construction, the WSJ manages to take a crucial point, and suck all the energy out of it.
Word to the wise: put your modifiers near their modify-ees, keep your points clear, and remember that the end of the sentence is the position of emphasis.
In an otherwise reasonably good editorial, the WSJ's editors wrote a hideous sentence:
Mr. Dingell was perhaps overstating his case when he said it had "the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth," but not by much.Quick review: the position of emphasis in a sentence is at the end. This sentence ends with, and emphasizes, "but not by much."
Without looking back, what was the thing being modified by "but not by much" - was it the "shutting down or slowing down" of the economy? Oh, well, then nothing to be worried about - the economy might take a little hit, maybe it'll be slowed, "but not by much." Sigh of relief.
Uh, oh. That's counter-intuitive. The WSJ wouldn't make that point. Look back... oh, it's Dingel, who is either not overstating his case at all, or perhaps overstating it, "but not by much."
With bad editing and bad sentence construction, the WSJ manages to take a crucial point, and suck all the energy out of it.
Word to the wise: put your modifiers near their modify-ees, keep your points clear, and remember that the end of the sentence is the position of emphasis.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Gotta brag - I bagged a drunk driver
I feel good enough about this to brag - on my drive home tonight, I noticed a driver ahead of me driving erratically. I was worried enough to call the police - the driver could be drunk, or suffering a seizure, or need insulin... or just be distracted. And the police are well trained to handle any of those - I'm not.
So, I called in, and our highly professional Hillsboro police responded quickly and pulled him over, and took my statement. Afterwards one officer said the driver definitely seemed intoxicated.
Score one for the good guys.
So, I called in, and our highly professional Hillsboro police responded quickly and pulled him over, and took my statement. Afterwards one officer said the driver definitely seemed intoxicated.
Score one for the good guys.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The GTD Cult
I finally tried out the material in David Allen's 2001 cult classic book, "Getting Things Done" (widely known as "GTD").
I'd had plenty of infected cult members try to turn me before - I always resisted.
What finally did me in - what allowed me to listen with an open ear - was a 2007 scholarly paper by Francis Heylighen and Clément Vidal, "Getting Things Done: The Science behind Stress-Free Productivity".
Turns out that Allen's ideas and methods mesh very well with the science of cognition and research in knowledge-worker productivity. Indeed, Allen's GTD seems to naturally guide the user into a state of "Flow" - the optimal balance of challenge vs. skill where we feel highly productive and "in the zone".
As Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh & Nakamura describe it, "Flow is a subjective state that people report when they are completely involved in something to the point of forgetting time, fatigue, and everything else but the activity itself. It is what we feel when we read a wellcrafted novel or play a good game of squash, or take part in a stimulating conversation. The defining feature of flow is intense experiential involvement in moment-to-moment activity. Attention is fully invested in the task at hand, and the person functions at his or her fullest capacity [emphasis added]."
The preconditions for getting into a state of Flow are
There's more to it, of course - I encourage you to read the paper. I still haven't read Allen's book, however, I did order a copy yesterday. Actually, five copies.
I'd had plenty of infected cult members try to turn me before - I always resisted.
What finally did me in - what allowed me to listen with an open ear - was a 2007 scholarly paper by Francis Heylighen and Clément Vidal, "Getting Things Done: The Science behind Stress-Free Productivity".
Turns out that Allen's ideas and methods mesh very well with the science of cognition and research in knowledge-worker productivity. Indeed, Allen's GTD seems to naturally guide the user into a state of "Flow" - the optimal balance of challenge vs. skill where we feel highly productive and "in the zone".
As Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh & Nakamura describe it, "Flow is a subjective state that people report when they are completely involved in something to the point of forgetting time, fatigue, and everything else but the activity itself. It is what we feel when we read a wellcrafted novel or play a good game of squash, or take part in a stimulating conversation. The defining feature of flow is intense experiential involvement in moment-to-moment activity. Attention is fully invested in the task at hand, and the person functions at his or her fullest capacity [emphasis added]."
The preconditions for getting into a state of Flow are
- A sense of control
- Clear goals
- Match between skill and challenge
- Feedback on progress
There's more to it, of course - I encourage you to read the paper. I still haven't read Allen's book, however, I did order a copy yesterday. Actually, five copies.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
On Forced Union Dues and Political Speech
I attended this year's annual Dorchester convention and on Sunday I spoke on this resolution:
Looking now at my notes, I believe I said:
We must be cautious when adopting any measure under the guise of freedom, when the undeniable effect of that measure is to provide us [Republicans] with a political advantage.
If we were proposing here that union members be muzzled - be prevented from participating in politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
If we were proposing here that union members be prohibited from spending their own money on politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
If we were proposing here that union members be prevented from associating freely with each other for political purposes - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
This resolution does none of these things.
We must remember the plight of the union member today who is forced against her will to subsidize public political speech with which she disagrees. Her right of dissent - the sacred right of every minority, to be free from the tyranny of the majority - her right to be free is currently crushed by the self interest of the union bosses. Every worker has both the right of free speech and the right to refrain from paying for speech with which she disagrees.
This measure may benefit Republicans incidentally. It benefits union members profoundly. This measure advances the cause of freedom. I urge you to vote "yes" on this measure.
The measure passed by a 20-to-1 ratio.
RESOLVED: Oregon law should prohibit persons or entities from using money for political purposes if collected with government resources.This was generally taken to mean that union members could not be forced to pay dues for political activity with which they disagreed.
Looking now at my notes, I believe I said:
We must be cautious when adopting any measure under the guise of freedom, when the undeniable effect of that measure is to provide us [Republicans] with a political advantage.
If we were proposing here that union members be muzzled - be prevented from participating in politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
If we were proposing here that union members be prohibited from spending their own money on politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
If we were proposing here that union members be prevented from associating freely with each other for political purposes - then that would be a reduction of freedom.
This resolution does none of these things.
We must remember the plight of the union member today who is forced against her will to subsidize public political speech with which she disagrees. Her right of dissent - the sacred right of every minority, to be free from the tyranny of the majority - her right to be free is currently crushed by the self interest of the union bosses. Every worker has both the right of free speech and the right to refrain from paying for speech with which she disagrees.
This measure may benefit Republicans incidentally. It benefits union members profoundly. This measure advances the cause of freedom. I urge you to vote "yes" on this measure.
The measure passed by a 20-to-1 ratio.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Professional Sales Call
I gave this advice to a client and afterwards realized it was good enough to blog about. She's a professional who goes on site to provide a free estimate. It's part of her sales process, and it's a good idea. The question is, how do you make your sales call a high-impact one that wins you the business?
First, you have to be offering value - lots of it. Way more value than you're charging. A good ratio is 5:1, though 20:1 would be better. That means you should offer $500 worth of benefit for each $100 you charge, and $2,000 of benefit would be better.
Second, your client has to more than see that value - she has to feel it in her bones. That benefit has to be more than merely intellectual or hypothetical, it has to be so real she can taste it, feel it, see herself enjoying it daily.
Third, your client has to believe that you can deliver it. By the end of the visit - or by the end of the next day (see below) she should have complete confidence in you and your ability to deliver exactly what she's now envisioning and hungering for.
So, how do you do all that in a site visit? Here's my formula, and the reason for each step.
Step 1 - Get the Appointment
Only go on the site visit after you have established that the prospective client is:
Step 2 - Arrive Prepared
When you arrive, you want your every action and word to convey that you are a professional in whom the client can safely place her trust. That means you have everything you need - business cards, samples, order forms, testimonial letters, etc. etc. Create a checklist of everything you will need to take on the call and prepare it the night before. Each time you find yourself wishing you'd brought something, add it to the list and bring it next time.
From the moment you arrive, you are creating the image that you are fully capable of delivering the value that you'll be discussing. That means (based on my coaching of prior clients):
Step 3 - Follow your Script
For a professional services call, start by understanding the need, and the pain behind the need.
Envision yourself as being a really good doctor with a lot of time. For a one hour meeting, use your time like this:
The emotional resonance you want to create during the entire interview process is a sense by the client that you know what you are doing, that the interview is progressing in a specific direction, and that they are taking part in a well defined process.
Step 4 - Deliver the Proposal 24 Hours Later
I'm a big believer in waiting 24 hours before providing a proposal. It gives you time to really work on it to make sure it fits, and it gives the client time to build a sense of anticipation. (Providing a detailed proposal too quickly can make the client feel that you're offering something rote or canned or off-the-shelf. This can damage her belief that you've crafted something to specifically address her needs.)
When delivering the proposal, either by phone or in person, walk the client through the cause-and-effect chain. Suppose the client interview uncovered a need for a benefit Y and a desire to stop feeling a painful emotion Z. You could say: "When we deliver X to you, within five days you will start to see benefit Y, and the next time you close your books you will feel the absence of Z - indeed, you'll feel its opposite." Make explicit use of the interview work you did.
If appropriate, remind the client of your warranty or money-back guarantee - which I believe all professionals should offer.
First, you have to be offering value - lots of it. Way more value than you're charging. A good ratio is 5:1, though 20:1 would be better. That means you should offer $500 worth of benefit for each $100 you charge, and $2,000 of benefit would be better.
Second, your client has to more than see that value - she has to feel it in her bones. That benefit has to be more than merely intellectual or hypothetical, it has to be so real she can taste it, feel it, see herself enjoying it daily.
Third, your client has to believe that you can deliver it. By the end of the visit - or by the end of the next day (see below) she should have complete confidence in you and your ability to deliver exactly what she's now envisioning and hungering for.
So, how do you do all that in a site visit? Here's my formula, and the reason for each step.
Step 1 - Get the Appointment
Only go on the site visit after you have established that the prospective client is:
- Able to buy - has the money
- Empowered to buy - is the decision maker
- Wants to buy - has a legitimate need you can meet
Step 2 - Arrive Prepared
When you arrive, you want your every action and word to convey that you are a professional in whom the client can safely place her trust. That means you have everything you need - business cards, samples, order forms, testimonial letters, etc. etc. Create a checklist of everything you will need to take on the call and prepare it the night before. Each time you find yourself wishing you'd brought something, add it to the list and bring it next time.
From the moment you arrive, you are creating the image that you are fully capable of delivering the value that you'll be discussing. That means (based on my coaching of prior clients):
- No silliness
- No self-deprecating humor
- No nervous humor
- Nothing that insults you, the client, or third parties - no negatives or criticisms of any kind
- Only say and do things that a consummate professional would say and do
- Strive not to be liked, but to be respected
Step 3 - Follow your Script
For a professional services call, start by understanding the need, and the pain behind the need.
Envision yourself as being a really good doctor with a lot of time. For a one hour meeting, use your time like this:
- 2 minutes - small talk and bonding
- 8 minutes - recap of what she said prior to the meeting, and what you want to cover. "I would like to make the best use of your time by asking you some questions and understanding your situation."
- 10 minutes - investigate the need and the pain that will be alleviated by solving that need - use a written questionnaire or other tool, and make notes. Don't try to memorize or wing it. The more thorough you are here, the more you come across as an expert.
- 10 minutes - develop a thorough understanding of the need and the pain, and how the client's world would be different in the presence of a solution.
- 5 minutes - ask the client to relate a recent experience where the solution might have been useful. Your goal here is to get her (in mild form) to re-live the emotions of that experience. This step is crucial. You can say "Tell me about a time recently when you wished this were solved."
- 1 minute - ask "If you were to have the opportunity to purchase a product (or service) that would fix this problem, would it be worth your while to buy it?" This may seem uncomfortable. It is critical. If the answer is no, you're not going to get a sale. When a client says "yes" she has passed a crucial mental milestone in preparing herself to buy a fix for her problem.
- 14 minutes - relate specific stories of past clients where you have solved this exact problem for others. Only use examples that apply directly to her needs. This both builds your credibility as someone who has been successful with others, and builds her belief that her own situation can improve - she can identify with the people in your stories.
- 1 minute - close with a request to work on a proposal and submit it the next day.
The emotional resonance you want to create during the entire interview process is a sense by the client that you know what you are doing, that the interview is progressing in a specific direction, and that they are taking part in a well defined process.
Step 4 - Deliver the Proposal 24 Hours Later
I'm a big believer in waiting 24 hours before providing a proposal. It gives you time to really work on it to make sure it fits, and it gives the client time to build a sense of anticipation. (Providing a detailed proposal too quickly can make the client feel that you're offering something rote or canned or off-the-shelf. This can damage her belief that you've crafted something to specifically address her needs.)
When delivering the proposal, either by phone or in person, walk the client through the cause-and-effect chain. Suppose the client interview uncovered a need for a benefit Y and a desire to stop feeling a painful emotion Z. You could say: "When we deliver X to you, within five days you will start to see benefit Y, and the next time you close your books you will feel the absence of Z - indeed, you'll feel its opposite." Make explicit use of the interview work you did.
If appropriate, remind the client of your warranty or money-back guarantee - which I believe all professionals should offer.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Latest Publication
Finally, the publisher released this book, to which I contributed half of Chapter 6 (or rather, Dr. N. VanDerHeyden and I co-authored all of Chapter 6):
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/713754/description#description
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/713754/description#description
Monday, January 21, 2008
Why shouldn't Jose Padilla sue John Yoo? - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine
Why shouldn't Jose Padilla sue John Yoo? - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine: The author, admittedly a friend of the litigants, can't understand (or pretends to be unable to) why it's wrong to criminalize policy differences.
Here's the short version from a less credulous perspective:
1. Lawyer named John Yoo working for DoJ is asked - as part of his job - to give a legal opinion. His bosses want to know how rigorously they can interrogate suspected terrorists without going over the line into torture, which is illegal under US and international law.
2. Said lawyer follows his bosses' instructions and gives his opinion, in the form of the "Torture Memo". The result might be good, bad or ugly - folks disagree on that - but it seems impossible to hold that he didn't (a) follow his bosses' instructions and (b) do his job.
3. These same bosses take his work, combine it with other considerations including political ones, and pick a course of action for the armed services and other parts of the executive branch.
4. Jose Padilla gets arrested, gets treated as an "enemy combatant" and eventually gets treated as a criminal defendant.
5. Jose Padilla gets convicted - in a regular criminal court, by a jury - of engaging in a conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, etc.
6. Activist lawyers at Yale decide to sue the lawyer from items #1-2 above, personally, for doing his job, using the Bivens precedent.
Here is where I think the Democrat/Liberal approach is tremendously dangerous.
Bivens is for getting relief when an executive branch agency violates your Fourth Amendment rights (and presumably other rights). Whether it's a rogue agent, or his boss issues wrongful and unlawful orders, or whatever, if you have your rights violated in certain ways you can ask to have the wrong-doers held accountable.
So, who should be sued? Everybody in item #3 above? The people who put Padilla in the military brig? The contractor who built the brig? The maker of the car used to transport him? The secretary who filed the lawyer's memo, made copies and faxed them?
If the Left really wants to make the specific treatment outlined by John Yoo illegal, they control Congress - they can PASS A LAW making it illegal. But they can't or won't. So instead they want to intimidate people who really are doing exactly the job they were hired to do, for the crime of not thinking like a Leftist.
Slate's writer, Emily Bazelon, commits a serious sin of omission, claiming that Yoo isn't facing much risk: "It's also worth noting, in this context, that Yoo isn't facing financial ruin or even risk: Following Padilla's wishes, the suit asks for damages of exactly $1. And DoJ has to offer to provide and pay for Yoo's defense."
Bazelon fails to mention that, if Yoo loses, he has to pay the $1, PLUS the other side's legal expenses, which DoJ will NOT cover. Why would they? If Yoo is guilty, then by definition he was acting outside his official capacity (even though common sense says he was). That will be millions of dollars. Oh, but "Yoo isn't facing financial ruin or even risk" - right.
The real lesson here is that the Left will go to any lengths - even destroy the inner workings of government and create new Thought Crimes - even criminalize legitimate policy differences - to win a political struggle.
The Yale lawyers in question should have their case thrown out with prejudice and have to pay Yoo's and DoJ's expenses.
Here's the short version from a less credulous perspective:
1. Lawyer named John Yoo working for DoJ is asked - as part of his job - to give a legal opinion. His bosses want to know how rigorously they can interrogate suspected terrorists without going over the line into torture, which is illegal under US and international law.
2. Said lawyer follows his bosses' instructions and gives his opinion, in the form of the "Torture Memo". The result might be good, bad or ugly - folks disagree on that - but it seems impossible to hold that he didn't (a) follow his bosses' instructions and (b) do his job.
3. These same bosses take his work, combine it with other considerations including political ones, and pick a course of action for the armed services and other parts of the executive branch.
4. Jose Padilla gets arrested, gets treated as an "enemy combatant" and eventually gets treated as a criminal defendant.
5. Jose Padilla gets convicted - in a regular criminal court, by a jury - of engaging in a conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, etc.
6. Activist lawyers at Yale decide to sue the lawyer from items #1-2 above, personally, for doing his job, using the Bivens precedent.
Here is where I think the Democrat/Liberal approach is tremendously dangerous.
Bivens is for getting relief when an executive branch agency violates your Fourth Amendment rights (and presumably other rights). Whether it's a rogue agent, or his boss issues wrongful and unlawful orders, or whatever, if you have your rights violated in certain ways you can ask to have the wrong-doers held accountable.
So, who should be sued? Everybody in item #3 above? The people who put Padilla in the military brig? The contractor who built the brig? The maker of the car used to transport him? The secretary who filed the lawyer's memo, made copies and faxed them?
If the Left really wants to make the specific treatment outlined by John Yoo illegal, they control Congress - they can PASS A LAW making it illegal. But they can't or won't. So instead they want to intimidate people who really are doing exactly the job they were hired to do, for the crime of not thinking like a Leftist.
Slate's writer, Emily Bazelon, commits a serious sin of omission, claiming that Yoo isn't facing much risk: "It's also worth noting, in this context, that Yoo isn't facing financial ruin or even risk: Following Padilla's wishes, the suit asks for damages of exactly $1. And DoJ has to offer to provide and pay for Yoo's defense."
Bazelon fails to mention that, if Yoo loses, he has to pay the $1, PLUS the other side's legal expenses, which DoJ will NOT cover. Why would they? If Yoo is guilty, then by definition he was acting outside his official capacity (even though common sense says he was). That will be millions of dollars. Oh, but "Yoo isn't facing financial ruin or even risk" - right.
The real lesson here is that the Left will go to any lengths - even destroy the inner workings of government and create new Thought Crimes - even criminalize legitimate policy differences - to win a political struggle.
The Yale lawyers in question should have their case thrown out with prejudice and have to pay Yoo's and DoJ's expenses.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
DHMC | Center for Shared Decision Making
DHMC | Center for Shared [Medical] Decision Making
Sponsored in part by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, this site makes me want a similar service in my home town. This is geared towards empowering the patient and family with information AND with guidance for structured decision-making. Wow.
Sponsored in part by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, this site makes me want a similar service in my home town. This is geared towards empowering the patient and family with information AND with guidance for structured decision-making. Wow.
Cherry Garcia and the End of Socialized Medicine by Peter W. Huber, City Journal Autumn 2007
Cherry Garcia and the End of Socialized Medicine by Peter W. Huber, City Journal Autumn 2007
A long and winding essay that covers in detail the history of some of medicine's old breakthroughs, and predicts how the new ones - such as chemicals and molecules tuned to specific conditions, including genetic ones - will provide pressure against socialized medicine.
Not sure if I buy the prediction -- the history alone is fascinating and well worth the read.
A long and winding essay that covers in detail the history of some of medicine's old breakthroughs, and predicts how the new ones - such as chemicals and molecules tuned to specific conditions, including genetic ones - will provide pressure against socialized medicine.
Not sure if I buy the prediction -- the history alone is fascinating and well worth the read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
