Archive:


Demand-Side Economics

Here’s an item I saw in the Washington Post over the weekend, buried in their “In the Loop” section way in the back, that should be of interest to the conspiracy-minded among you:

The GOP Home Shopping Network: That most lamentable duct tape suggestion last week by a Homeland Security official — which drove countless panicked citizens out to buy the product — has been widely derided as useless and pretty crazy…. But maybe not so crazy. Turns out that nearly half — 46 percent to be precise — of the duct tape sold in this country is manufactured by a company in Avon, Ohio. And the founder of that company, that would be Jack Kahl, gave how much to the Republican National Committee and other GOP committees in the 2000 election cycle? Would that be more than $100,000?

Well, as it turns out, even in the 2000 cycle a $100,000 contribution was pretty small change (and it got even worse in 2002, as you’d expect). It doesn’t even get you into the top 100 individual contributors! It is a significant chunk of change, though; for example, it’s twice as much as disgraced Enron President Jeffrey Skilling contributed in the same cycle. It’s heartening to see the Administration is so concerned about the welfare of even the least rich rich people in the country. President Bush truly knows how to look out for the little guy.


False Dichotomies

Glenn Fleishman wrote an insightful piece recently about how the major media cover blogging. It’s very good overall, but it does have one problem that jumped out at me:

Blogs are all about individuals and the millions of separate opinions. In representing blogs to a non-blogging audience, reporters seem drawn to sweep them into a single heap… Why? Either because you can’t become an expert on blogging in the couple of hours a reporter has to write a story, or because a given reporters spends a lot of time in their single blog niche that they become obsessed with and write about blogs as if that niche is all there is.

I think there’s a simpler explanation for this tendency — it’s how journos cover everything else these days. They bend over backwards to boil down every story into a simple conflict with two sides. In this case, they know one of the sides is Real Journalism, so the other side is Blogs. Never mind that there’s no universal “blog” any more than there is a universal “Web site”, or “newspaper”, and so on — “blog” is just another medium, within which there are publications all across the spectrum. The story’s gotta be about two sides in conflict, though, so together go all the blogs.

Don’t believe me? Do a critical reading of your local paper sometime — or, even better, your local TV news. Watch how the stories are presented and you’ll see what I mean — whether it’s business (“Microsoft vs. Justice Department”), international affairs (“Bush vs. Hussein”), or any other topic, they do their darndest to strip away inconvenient complexity, even if the final result is a story that describes the truth only in abstract. This kind of lazy journalism is one reason why the fourth estate is in such bad shape today. It’s no surprise to me to see it turn up on this topic too.


Where Leaders Fail, Part One: More Faster

Probably the most common mistake I’ve seen leaders make under pressure is a dysfunction I call “More Faster” syndrome. To understand what I mean by this, picture a man on a treadmill. He’s running his poor little heart out, but he never seems to get anywhere. All that work and he’s not making any progress! He’s gotta do something to change the view or he’s going to go nuts.

Now, from the outside looking in, it’s clear what he needs to do — get off the treadmill. As long as he’s on the treadmill, the view’s never gonna change; it’s the nature of the beast. However, when you’re on the treadmill, it’s easy to lose sight of that common-sense answer. After all, you’re moving your legs, right? And moving your legs is a way to get from one place to another, right? So why isn’t he getting to someplace new? He must not be moving his legs enough! If only he could run more, or run faster, eventually he’d have to get somewhere! So he turns the speed on the treadmill up another notch. Then, ten minutes later, he gets frustrated all over again. He’s still not getting anywhere! Must have to run even more, or even faster! So he turns up the treadmill another notch…

Eventually what happens? He falls over dead of a heart attack, and he’s not an inch closer to his goal than he was when he started. That’s the peril of “More Faster” thinking.

“More Faster” thinking is easy to fall into because it fits human nature so well. We’re pattern-seeking creatures; we look in all things for patterns of behavior that produce winning outcomes, and once we find one, we’re very wary of giving it up. After all, it worked before, right? So the natural tendency when it stops working is to redouble our efforts and push harder in the same direction.

The problem is, sometimes external circumstances change, and when that happens our old patterns can become useless, or even counterproductive. When that happens, an effective leader has to be smart enough to recognize that fact early and change her strategy to fit the new circumstances. Like I said above, for most of us that’s a very hard thing to do. We usually need to take a good knock on the head or two before we even consider giving up a way of thinking that worked for us in the past. It’s the rare leader indeed who has the kind of mental alacrity to continually test her presumptions against the facts — and, if they don’t match, discard the presumptions instead of ignoring the facts.

Taken to extremes, “More Faster” can have terrible consequences. Pretty much the entire Vietnam War is an example of More Faster run amok. It became clear early on to anyone who cared to pay attention that the South Vietnamese government was so corrupt and despised by its people that it was doomed to fail eventually, no matter how long it was propped up by foreigners. It was also clear that our armed forces, as they were then organized, just weren’t up to the task of fighting a guerrilla war against foes in civilian clothes who could blend right in with the civilian population.

So, when things like that happen, what do you do? Early on, we had options. We could have pulled out of Vietnam in 1965 or ’66 without too much loss of face on the international stage; or, we could have committed to actually making life better for the South Vietnamese people by stopping our support for their corrupt rulers and organizing free elections — under U.N. auspices, say. (If there had been a vote on whether North and South Vietnam should reunify, odds are majorities on both sides would have voted for union, but that would have given us a convenient excuse to cut our losses and leave Vietnam to the Vietnamese without our other allies thinking we’d leave them in the lurch.)

Faced with military setbacks and the hatred of the populace for the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem, though, four U.S. Presidents (Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon) fell right into the More Faster trap. Diem’s hated because he’s too repressive? Fine — let’s let some generals blow Diem’s brains out; they will know how to put down popular unrest. (Yeah — with even more repression.) South Vietnamese army can’t win a battle with the Vietcong? Put a few American boys in the line, they’ll show ’em how to fight. (Still losing? Clearly your definition of “few” is too low.) At each junction, America — rather than realizing how the world had changed, how this wasn’t World War Two and couldn’t be won just by sheer weight of firepower — just kept doing more of the same, and doing it faster and faster, hoping each time the speed got ratcheted up that this would be the time it finally got somewhere. The end result was tens of thousands of dead Americans, Lord only knows how many dead Vietnamese, unconstitutional bombing in Cambodia, and riots in American streets. It took that much negative feedback to convince us to get off the treadmill.

What does this mean for us today? It means, keep an eye out on the circumstances that surround you every day. Make sure they are what you think they are. Challenge your assumptions — and keep people around you who aren’t afraid to challenge your assumptions, too. (They’ll be much better at it than you could ever be yourself, because they’re not on the treadmill in the first place.) Don’t be afraid to strike out in new directions early; don’t wait for your heart to seize up. Most of all, remember that Fewer Smarter beats More Faster every time.


Introduction

I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of leaders in my life. Some have been outstanding; others abysmal. The nature of leadership is something that has fascinated me for as long as I can remember, so I paid close attention to all of them. In this category of posts, “Lefkowitz’s Lessons for Leaders”, I’m going to try to distill what I’ve learned from them into some best practices (oops, sorry to lapse into consultant-speak) that anyone who seeks a position of leadership — or has one forced upon them — can use to avoid making the same mistakes I’ve seen made over and over again.

Ready? Then here we go, with the first thread in this topic — “Where Leaders Fail”.


Not With a Bang…

Well, it looks like pioneering online magazine Salon.com is lurching toward its end — apparently they can’t even make their office rent anymore.

This is sad, but expected. Salon has always had some of the best writing on the Web, but they were early victims of dot-com hubris, paying out the wazoo for fancy downtown San Francisco office space and doing everything in-house rather than focusing on their core competency. They even went public at the height of the madness, back in 1999. How many magazines do you know of that are public companies in and of themselves? They might be owned by public companies, but they’re hardly ever (to my knowledge) stand-alone public ventures. But hey, all the cool kids were going public, how could Salon say no?

They’ve limped along for a couple of years now by adding ads, subscription services, and so forth, but it looks like the writing’s on the (unpaid-for) wall.


Lindows Goes Portable

Well, well, well — after making a splashy entry into the Media Center PC market, Lindows is now going after the sub-notebook market as well with its $799 Lindows Mobile PC. You read that right, $799. Admittedly it’s not a smoking PC by any stretch of the imagination, but its specs are competent enough (especially for Linux), and in case you didn’t hear me it’s $799 — $200 cheaper than the cheapest Apple iBook, and with twice the memory and at half the weight. (Neither the Lindows Mobile system or the iBook have built-in wireless networking, though, so you’ll have to add in $100 extra or so for that.)

What is the deal with Lindows? I have yet to see a single person with Lindows on their PC, and yet they are aggressively expanding into new markets. Where are the bucks coming from? Still, it’s good to see an affordable Linux notebook (heck, it’s not that much more expensive than a Pocket PC) pushing the boundaries of where people can run open software.


Dynamic Magnetic Poetry Generator

Jeez, Mark Pilgrim is a smart guy…

He’s come up with a nifty script that can take any site on the Web and slice ‘n dice it into fun-to-play-with magnetic poetry tiles. This is a neat combination of cross-browser dynamic HTML (which is hard enough to do well by itself, Lord knows) and smart text processing.



Kucinich “Ready to Run”

Looks like Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich is prepping to run for President. That’s great news — Kucinich is a strong, progressive, articulate Democratic voice. It’s encouraging to see him making a move towards the national stage; the rest of the Democratic field is so anemic that any signs of life from the party are very welcome indeed. (Plus — you gotta like somebody whose official House Web site has a “Polka, Bowling and Kielbasa” section.)


They Should Name An Ice Cream Treat After Me

‘Nuff said.


Consequences

When you’re planning to launch a major war, you need to be sure your best minds are working on all the little things you’ll need to ensure success — or at least to deal with the fallout.

Regarding that latter option — good to see DARPA is on the case


The Antidote for Terror is Knowledge

There’s been a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) being spread in the media over the last few days about another potential terrorist attack. If you live in New York or Washington, you know what I’m talking about — the evening news has been screaming for people to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, to the point where some leading members of the Congressional intelligence committees have come forward to say that there’s no immediate crisis that they know of.

In the midst of all this, it’s useful to know exactly what would happen in the event of a terrorist NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) attack. So, I highly recommend that you read the wonderful essay by retired Sergeant First Class Red Thomas entitled “A Soldier’s Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks“. It’s a much-needed dose of sanity in the midst of media hysteria, laying out exactly what you should do in case of each type of attack, and what the risks really are. Before you go stand in line at Home Depot to buy another mile of duct tape, give it a read — you’ll be glad you did.



Technical Difficulties

If you’ve tried to send me an email between Sunday and today, your message may have bounced. This is because of some technical problems I’ve had in migrating the management of the jasonlefkowitz.net domain from Network Solutions to Go Daddy Software. The issues seem to be resolved now, so if you got a bounce please re-send. Thanks!


D’oh

Now that the British government has released its classified dossier on Saddam Hussein, we’ll surely find out why it’s so critical we go after him before we finish off bin Laden!

Channel 4 News: Downing Street has been forced to admit it made a mistake with an intelligence dossier released on Monday… A spokesman confessed that it should have credited the authors of the articles it used in the document, particularly Ibrahim Al Marashi – he’s the graduate student whose thesis was copied — grammatical errors and all… The revelation that great chunks of this dossier were simply lifted from a Californian’s post graduate thesis won’t do much to build up confidence in the government at a time when it desparately needs to build up trust.

That certainly answers all MY questions!


Blasphemy!

Hey, look! Someone at Random House had the bright idea to hold a contest to pick some random moron to write another sequel to “The Godfather”.

Ain’t it great when the accountants figure out how to turn a masterpiece into a “franchise”? Bleh.


AdAware 6 Released

The leading program to protect your PC from spyware, adware, and other nasties, AdAware, has just been updated to version 6.0. If your PC runs Windows, and you’re connected to the Internet, you should consider AdAware a mandatory download.


Dangerous When Cornered

Glad to see that our sound, well-thought-out foreign policy hasn’t had any unforeseen consequences:

N. Korea warns of pre-emptive strike

Oh, wait. Never mind.


Wildgrape NewsDesk

If you’re a Windows user looking for a terrific news aggregator, you can’t go wrong with Wildgrape NewsDesk. It’s got more features than you’ll ever use, and the developer, David Peckham, is incredibly responsive — I sent him an e-mail reporting a bug, and he turned around a fix so fast it made my head spin. I’ve been beta-testing new versions for him for a few weeks now, and every other day he improves the product in some terrific way. If it doesn’t work the way you want it to, all you have to do is drop him a line and bang, there’s a new version that fits like a glove. I love supporting hardworking programmers who clearly love their work, and Dave is definitely one of those.

Anyway, go download the thing and give it a whirl. (It’s a .NET application, so you’ll need the .NET Framework — but most of the interesting Windows apps are moving to .NET these days, so you should probably have it even if you don’t like NewsDesk.) It’s a great program that’ll change the way you read the Web!


Block By Block

John Robb (COO of Userland Software, and a former Air Force pilot) is having some interesting musings about the upcoming conflict with Iraq (assuming there won’t be one seems somewhat naive at this point). He’s theorizing about what Saddam Hussein might have learned from his last clash with the U.S. back in 1991. Back then, he took us on the same way he took on Iran and the Kurds — with massed field forces in open terrain. This kind of strategy only works if your enemy doesn’t have air superiority, though, and we certainly did; so Saddam’s strategy failed famously, with the Air Force practically wiping the Iraqi Army off the map (massed forces in open terrain are pretty easy to hit from the air, as you can probably imagine!).

So, is a 2003 replay of that war going to inevitably end the same way? Possibly not, if Saddam learned any lessons. Read Robb’s blog for more details — it’s definitely thought-provoking.


Rocket’s Red Glare

You almost certainly by now have heard about Saturday’s catastrophic failure on board the Space Shuttle Columbia. The national conversation about this has already moved from the initial shock and grief into the deeper question of what this means for the Shuttle program specifically and U.S. manned space flight in particular.

Here’s my two cents: it’s time to put the Shuttle away for good.

I haven’t always felt this way. As a kid I was captivated by manned space flight. I even managed to win a national essay contest on the subject, and get sent to Space Camp in Montgomery, Alabama — a real thrill for any pre-teen space geek, I can tell you! And as someone who hails from Dayton, Ohio — the Birthplace of Aviation — I have a strong emotional connection to the idea of flight as a liberating experience, and something humans should pursue just because they can.

However, over the years, I’ve come to feel that the Shuttle isn’t just a poor way to pursue that dream; it’s the antithesis of that dream. It’s a bureaucratic nightmare whose longevity has risked the lives of hundreds of brave scientists and aviators, and stifled innovation in space flight, for no definable purpose. It is, in short, a travesty.

Don’t believe me? Consider how the Shuttle was originally sold to the American public: as a simple, affordable “space truck” that could reduce the cost of getting people and cargo into space, while simultaneously increasing safety and reliability. Now look at the reality of what we’ve gotten for our investment — a ship that is both more expensive than using disposable rockets, and less reliable.

Want proof? Read these:

The Shuttle is an engineering marvel. So was the Spruce Goose — but you don’t see anybody demanding that the government keep that contraption flying.

Even with the Shuttle’s perpetual maintenance problems and incredibly inflated operating costs (know anyone who can defend $1 billion per shot as “affordable”?), though, in my mind it boils down to one thing: the objective. I don’t mind asking people to risk their lives, if it’s to do something so amazing, so groundbreaking, that the risk is worth it. The perfect example of this would be the trips to the Moon — those were a turning point in human history, something the entire human race can look on with pride and awe.

In contrast, what is the objective of the Shuttle program? Nobody knows! A variety of rationales have been trotted out over the years, with each being discarded as reality proved them impractical. The Shuttle was supposed to be able to bring damaged satellites back to Earth for repair — until it turned out that nobody wanted to do that (it’s cheaper just to loft a replacement on a disposable rocket). It was supposed to provide opportunities for groundbreaking research — but its voyages are typically too few and far between for real science to be done. It was supposed to enable us to build a space station to act as a permananent human home in space — but the station that we ended up with could just as easily be serviced by old-style capsules (as the Russians have done quite successfully with their aging Soyuz craft).

In short, the Shuttle is a fantastic piece of engineering with no reason to exist. Nobody can articulate what it does better than conventional rockets — and yet we have continued to ask brave people to risk their lives on it. For what? For junk science, P.R. stunts, and so on? For this we put the lives of our best and bravest at risk?

I’m not saying that we should abandon manned space flight — far from it. I’d rather see a much more ambitious manned program. What I’m saying is that we have to get beyond the false dichotomy that NASA has peddled to the public for twenty years — that manned space flight equals the Shuttle, and losing the Shuttle means abandoning the dream of putting humans in space. There are alternatives — just not alternatives that NASA wants to explore. The Shuttle program survives today because of bureaucratic inertia and an inability to look past billions in sunk costs. Until these problems are remedied, I have a feeling that our best men and women will still be going aloft on the Shuttle for a long time — and more of them, unfortunately, will not be coming back..


404: Reinforcements Not Found

Apparently the military is facing a shortage of a critical defense resource: bandwidth. It seems that, even though forces in the field have access to orders of magnitude more wired and wireless bandwidth than they did ten years ago, the brass’ desire for whiz-bang features like streaming video from Predator drones is causing other requests to be “crowded out”. For example:

According to The Wall Street Journal, bandwidth constraints kept the military from flying more than two of the Predator unmanned spy planes at a time in Afghanistan — out of a fleet of a half-dozen.

So let me get this straight — you can have two drones in the air with nifty streaming video, or three times as many without — and they’re choosing the streaming video? If I was a grunt in Afghanistan, that would make me feel great! Sorry boys, no air support for you; General Brasstack wants to watch some other battle from his La-Z-Boy. Unbelievable. (Thanks to TPM for the pointer.)


On Principle

How far would you go to stand on principle? Would you sacrifice an hour’s pay? A day’s? A week’s?

Would you actually turn down a job opportunity, if you were unemployed, if the job was counter to your principles? (Be honest now!)

Well, Shelley Powers did just that — and after being unemployed for a while, too. Gutsy move on her part. I wish I could say I was 100% certain I’d do the same thing, were I in her position. I suppose that’s one of those things you can’t know for sure until fate puts you there.


The Great Depression

Is anybody else out there as tired of the Great IT Depression as I am?

For those of you outside the computer field, this may feel like a recession. To those of us in the tech biz, I’ll be frank — it’s not a recession, it’s a depression. A real, honest-to-god, holy-schnikies depression like the one you read about in American History back in 8th grade.

Nobody’s spending. Nobody’s hiring. Nobody’s innovating. Everywhere you look people are trimming back, holding in, putting off. The big companies — IBM, Microsoft, Oracle? They’re too busy scrapping it out for what Fortune 500 bucks are available to do any real forward thinking. The little companies? Folks, the little companies are dying. This is a BIG DEAL because it’s little, entrepreneurial companies that have provided America with the impetus that’s driven our economy for 20 years. Even some companies that are Big Companies today — say, HP — started out as little companies, way back when. Where will the next HP come from? Who will innovate? Who will lead?

It’s times like these, when things are tight and danger seems to loom around every corner, that demand innovation most. What seems like the safe choice — pulling back, digging in, hanging on — is, in many cases, the wrong choice. Hanging on to a share of a dying business is a strategy guaranteed to fail. But since it’s familiar, it seems safe — safer than the alternative, the leap of faith — so people do it, and ride headfirst down the death spiral.

So what do you do when nobody is willing to take that leap of faith? When an entire industry has its confidence shaken so much that any risk is too much? Because that’s where we are, folks. We are in the hole without a ladder. And it’s starting to feel like it’s not dirt at the bottom of that hole, but quicksand.

Where will the kick-start come from? Not from the government, that’s for sure. The White House is too busy hunting down the dividend tax to notice that most Americans don’t receive more than $50/year in dividends. Hell, most Americans don’t receive anything in dividends! Why not do something that will get money circulating again — something like a one-year payroll tax holiday (thanks to Robert Reich for the idea, btw)? Why not? Who knows? And don’t expect help from Congress either — they’re too busy cheering their guts out for war to notice the sorry state we’re in.

So who’s going to lead this business into the light? I wish I knew. Somewhere out there, in some garage or dorm room, there’s someone hacking away on an idea so good that nobody will be able to resist it — so good that it will get things moving again. In the 70s, it was Woz and his homebrew Apple computer; in the 90s, it was Tim Berners-Lee and his newfangled World Wide Web doohickey. Will we have to wait until 2010 or beyond for the Next Big Thing to bail us out? I sure hope not. But right now — at the center of the Tech Depression, in the belly of the beast — it’s just too hard to say.


Think Outside the Box

If you were in the mood to, you could waste hours reading I S O M E T R I C

Not that I’ve wasted hours on it myself… I’m just sayin’ 😉