THE BRYCE IS RIGHT!

THE POLITICIAN IN ME

2012-01-27T09:02:00.000-05:00

I've never been good at politics and I believe it is due to the nature of my job which is to tell people what is wrong with their systems and management. I'm paid to be brutally frank with companies which is not exactly an endearing trait. My job is to tell them the whole truth, not just what they want to hear. I'm polite and professional in how I present the facts, but I am certainly not a politician. I cannot afford to be. No doubt I would flop if I were to run for public office, even if it was for nothing but dog catcher. I would likely say something matter-of-factly and thereby step on the toes of someone in the process, regardless of how right I was.

As this is a major election year, we'll be asked to vote for president, senators, congressmen, governors, assemblymen, mayors, commissioners, etc. Frankly, I don't trust any of them, regardless of their political party, as I believe such people have sold their soul to the devil in order to be elected. This is the problem with government today, nobody trusts the politicians. They say one thing, then do something else. We simply do not know what to believe regarding these people, nor do we know what they'll do until they've been elected into office which is obviously too late. To me, this is indicative of how preposterous our electoral process is and why we need to enact some serious campaign reform, maybe even a whole hysterectomy.

Another reason I would make a lousy politician is because I know how to say "No." You're a great guy if you say "Yes," but a real schmuck if you say "No." People only want to hear "Yes" regardless of the issue, which has been one of our great problems over the years whereby politicians promise voters the world without any idea of how to pay for it. I've made more enemies as a result of saying "No" than anything else I may have said. Recognizing the many problems we have with the national debt, budget, and deficit, I would actually like to hear "No" more often than "Yes" for awhile.

When you have enemies, you have to develop some rather thick skin as they will try to undermine your every move, more out of spitefulness than anything else. Fortunately, I have never been concerned with being in a popularity contest; I would rather be at peace with my convictions than popular. You may not like what I have to say about an issue, but you always know where I stand. I also try to be objective, honest, and play fair; three characteristics which dooms me as a politician. Then again, maybe we need more people who are less inclined to bend the rules and more concerned with getting the job done.

Thank God I was never infected with the political bug. I like being able to look at myself in the mirror without fear of blushing.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

THE OBAMA BLAME GAME

2012-01-24T07:06:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

Have you ever seen a guy in an office who couldn't complete a project even if his life depended on it, regardless of the amount of time afforded him? You know the type, an arm chair quarterback who is quick to take credit when the opportunity presents itself and blames others when things go awry. Such a person's management style is perhaps best described as reactive as opposed to proactive. The truth is, everybody knows he is in over his head and grows tired of his excuses. Such is Barrack Obama who is simply floundering as president. To listen to his side of the story, he would have us believe he had nothing to do with the problems of the economy, the national debt, unemployment, the growing powder keg in the Middle East, etc. Not only does he consider himself blameless, but goes so far as to portray himself as the victim of the work of others.

Obama began his term blaming George W. Bush for all the problems of the world, a clever strategy which helped get him elected. Interestingly though, he is still blaming Bush after three years in office. The most popular catchphrase associated with his first term is, of course, "It is Bush's fault." You'll notice he still uses the present tense, not "WAS", but "IS." Bush became the scapegoat for everything that ocurred not only during his term of office, but even for events associated with the Obama administration, which included blaming Bush for the Solyndra scandal. Huh?

As the president begins to posture for his reelection, the reference to Bush is slowly being minimized and replaced by blaming the Republican Congress which is vilified as the cause of the national debt, the economy, unemployment, his low popularity ratings, not to mention the delays to his various vacations. As the head of his party, he has somehow lost sight of the fact that it takes two to tango; instead of finding ways to overcoming impasses, as all of his predecessors had to do, he is content to draw a line in the sand and dare the Congress to step across it.

The president has also blamed a lot of other people along the way:

* He blamed the rich for making people poor. (Huh?)

* He blamed automation for unemployment. (Huh?)

* He even blamed the 2011 Texas Wildfires on Global Warming. (Huh?)

* And he doubtless blames Israel for the problems in the Middle East.

Interestingly, all of his blames are designed for political gain. If you say them with enough repetition and conviction, people gullibly begin to believe them and are able to recite them chapter and verse. It's what is commonly known as drinking the O-Kool Aid. Regardless of the data opposing him, his supporters fervently blame others for the president's weaknesses.

Mr. Obama may be a fine speaker but he has yet to prove his leadership capabilities which is basically the difference between a talker and a doer. His lack of experience as an administrator has become glaringly obvious. In management terms, he is a prime example of the Peter Principle whereby someone has risen above his level of competency.

Just remember, his mantra going into the elections will be, "Deny everything, blame everyone else." Heck, an incompetent manager couldn't say it better.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

THE MYTH OF THE PAPERLESS WORLD

2012-01-22T11:02:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

For a society bent on becoming paperless I find it rather amusing that sales at corporate giant International Paper Company actually increased from $21.9B in 2006 to $25.1B in 2010. It doesn't sound like the demand for paper is diminishing, does it? In reality, printing is being offset from one party to another. To illustrate, the many community and civic newsletters which used to clog our mail boxes have been replaced by PDF files which are commonly e-mailed or downloaded from web sites. People print them in part or in full as opposed to the publisher, thereby transferring publication costs to the consumer.

Financial institutions were quick to jump on the bandwagon. Most, if not all banks in this country have abandoned printing and mailing monthly statements thereby forcing the consumer to print them instead. Reluctantly, they'll still mail you statements if you must have them, but they desperately want to get out of the printing business. The government has followed suit. Whereas taxpayers used to get their IRS booklets and forms through the mail, now the consumer is expected to download and print it themselves. No wonder the United States Postal Service is going broke, there is nothing to mail anymore.

Our company has maintained a post office box for a number of years now. In the past we could count on receiving at least 100 pounds of junk mail annually, but this has dropped off substantially. Now we barely get a post card. Instead, our e-mail queues are overloaded with spam despite the blockers we have in place. If we find an ad for something we are interested in, we'll dutifully print it (not the retailer).

Perhaps the two biggest areas of e-paper is in travel reservations and retail sales. For example, airline tickets in the past were printed and mailed to you. Now, the consumer is expected to print them instead. The same amount of paper is produced, only you are paying for it. Retail sales are no different; the consumer must print a receipt if he is so inclined, not the vendor.

When you walk into an office supply store, one of the biggest items commanding your attention are the skids of stock paper available to you. Somebody must be buying all this paper, and most likely it is the consumer as opposed to businesses who have it delivered directly to their offices. Aside from paper sales, the sale of printers, cartridges, and paper shredders are also doing well, thereby indicating a robust print industry is still alive and well.

The transition of printing costs directly impacts your cost of living. Sure, paper is relatively cheap, but the cost of printers and ink cartridges add up over a year's time. Going paperless may reduce the costs of the organization producing the documents, but it certainly adds to the cost of the consumer, such is the price of progress I guess. No wonder sales at International Paper is increasing unabated. Maybe the folks at Dunder-Miflin are on to something after all (from NBC's "The Office").

So, is the world really going paperless? Ask International Paper.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

WHY TIM TEBOW BOTHERS PEOPLE

2012-01-19T08:44:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

This season, Tim Tebow of the Denver Broncos electrified the National Football League (NFL) more than any other player in the sport, not because of his athletic prowess, but because of his spirituality. He is somewhat of an enigma to sports analysts. Despite the claims of his critics he lacks the proper skills to lead an NFL team to victory, he somehow found a way to win and propel the Broncos into the playoffs. "Whoda-thunk-it!"

Tebow is from Florida where interstate sports rivalries are legendary, particularly between Miami, FSU, and the University of Florida (UF) which is where he went to school. While at UF, he somehow managed to bedevil the other Florida teams and in the process earned a Heisman Trophy and help win a couple of National Championships. He didn't do it with swagger either but as a team leader who was known to be rather pious in his religious beliefs. His personage and track record resulted in the scorn and envy of his opponents. Frankly, he seemed "too good to be true" and became the man you loved to hate if you were not on his side. Such anger has carried forward with him to the NFL where he has more than his share of detractors, some even going so far as to call him an "Anti-Christ" for his praying on the sidelines.

I can think of a lot of reasons for hating an opponent, but praying shouldn't be one of them. Some resent him because he appears to be more spiritually connected to his Lord than others, a characteristic that seems to give him an edge. Others openly mock his spirituality. Frankly, I don't have a problem with it, nor do a lot of football fans who can relate to his beliefs. More than anything, I think Tebow's praying on the sidelines is considered a violation of political correctness. Christianity has been in retreat in this country over the last few decades. Thanks to a long line of litigation, we are now overtly conscious of the separation of church and state. The PC police, as embodied by the media and government, have worked overtime to shun religion, even going so far as to poke fun at anyone who openly proclaims their allegiance to Jesus Christ. Heck, we don't even say "Merry Christmas" anymore out of fear of antagonizing someone.

So, along comes Tim Tebow, a well recognized athlete who openly embraces his Christian faith. Such religious athletes who gain notoriety, not just for their athletic abilities but their spirituality, are few and far between. Tebow is a modern day Eric Liddell, the "Flying Scotsman," a devout Christian Olympian who in 1924 refused to run in a heat on a Sunday (the Christian Sabbath) and thereby withdrew from a 100-metres race, his best event (as depicted in the 1981 film "Chariots of Fire"). Although some were upset Liddell refused to run, many more applauded his adherance to his religious beliefs.

Unlike Liddell, Tebow plays on Sundays but he competes with the same religious ferver that the Flying Scotsman enjoyed. Some people are offended when Tebow quietly prays on the sidelines by himself, not out of resentment for Christianity but because political correctness tells us not to accept such behavior and demean the person instead. The media and football world has to be careful though, many Christian athletes and fans are rallying around Tebow and are beginning to emulate his style of praying, now called "Tebowing."

Tebow begs the question, where do we find our strength to compete? Some find it in conviction of character and experience, others find it in vicious competition where you must win at all costs, even if it means cheating. For people like Tebow and Liddell, it is in their Christian beliefs which promotes morality. Maybe therein rests the problem, that people are not willing to accept fair gamesmanship and honest competition anymore. Fortunately, there are some people who believe in such archaic concepts. If Tebow can find strength on the sidelines by quietly praying to the Lord, I will not fault him or hold him in contempt. I may actually admire him instead.

"Those who honor me I will honor." - 1 Samuel 2:30

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

JACKIE MASON IS RIGHT

2012-01-17T09:04:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

I have had the pleasure of seeing many different comedians over the years, including luminaries such as Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, Smothers Brothers, Rodney Dangerfield, David Brenner, and George Carlin. One name that has been on my list to see for some time now is Jackie Mason. I remember watching him on the Ed Sullivan show years ago, but I never had the opportunity to see him in person until he recently came to perform in Clearwater, Florida. Frankly, I thought he had retired years ago as I assumed he was getting on in years. He may not be a spring chicken anymore but Jackie Mason is still very much alive and well. I saw no sign of fatigue and his voice and delivery were still solid.

I realize a lot of Mason's jokes were part of his standard repertoire, but I was somewhat surprised when he turned to politics, particularly when he turned right. In most cases, when comedians weave political humor into their act, they try to keep it balanced, for every Democrat joke, there is normally a Republican joke and vice-versa. If anything, comedians tend to malign conservatives and promote the liberal agenda instead. I was surprised when I found Mason to be just the opposite. Instead of jokes about George W. Bush and the GOP, we were treated to a flurry of jokes poking fun at notable Democrats such as President Obama, the Clintons, Al Sharpton, and others. After telling Democratic jokes for awhile, the audience naturally waited in anticipation for Mason to take a swing at the Republicans. It never materialized and he bore in deeper on the left. I could tell some people in the audience were becoming squeamish by the bashing of Democrats, but Mason wouldn't relent. Although his remarks were made in jest, you sensed he was actually preaching to the audience.

To make his points, Mason would often use simple analogies which anyone could relate to. For example, to contrast the difference between the extensive experience of John McCain and candidate Obama's lack thereof in the 2008 election, he asked the audience what kind of dentist they would use to pull a tooth, someone with experience or someone who presumed to have good judgement, "Maybe that tooth should come out, maybe not." He also questioned the credentials of Hillary Clinton for which her highest accomplishment thus far was as wife of the president; in this instance, Mason rhetorically asked if an airline pilot became ill, should they ask his wife to fly the plane?

Mason fearlessly talked about race relations, a touchy subject many people avoid like the plague, and turned it into a comical subject. He also has little patience for political correctness and was unafraid to poke fun at it, and perhaps that is his genius, to cut through the baloney and question the taboos of the day. As for me, I appreciated his comments on capitalism, that the individual has the right to try to succeed in any endeavor of his choosing, but he must be mindful that he also has the right to fail. I couldn't have said this better myself.

It may have taken me many years to see Jackie Mason in person, but better late than never. I appreciated his unapologetic style of humor. He had a lot to say and made his points with finesse. Hopefully, the audience took to heart what he was telling them. I know I did.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

METHODOLOGIES & THE DANCE OF THE FAIRIES

2012-01-15T10:25:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

Over the years I have had numerous friends and family ask me what exactly our company did; it seemed rather mysterious to them and perhaps still does. Flippantly I tell people we are in the "methodology business" which is the truth but a bit unsettling to people as most only have a vague idea what this means. In a nutshell, a methodology represents a series of steps in a project specifying Who is to perform What, When, Where, Why, and How (aka, "5W+H"), from start to finish. Perhaps the best way to think of a methodology is as a roadmap or an assembly line where a product is developed over a series of work stations. The operators at each station perform specific tasks on the product until it is ready to progress to the next work station and, ultimately, completion. Our company's particular forte is in the areas of standard and reusable methodologies for Systems Design, Data Base Design, and Business Planning. Obviously, there are many other methodologies for different types of work effort, such as architectural, manufacturing, engineering, accounting, and other industries. Whether you are constructing a building, manufacturing an automobile, or designing a bridge, there are certain stages of work that must be completed in a specific sequence. In project management terms, a methodology is commonly referred to as a work breakdown structure (WBS) with precedent relationships denoting the sequence of steps in a project.

Typically, a methodology consists of a series of phases of work which can be subdivided into activities and tasks. As one phase is completed, the project progresses to one or more other phases thereby allowing parallelism. Not all projects are executed sequentially, some may follow parallel paths where work is performed concurrently. Regardless of their construction, methodologies should be documented in order to provide guidance in their execution and to provide a convenient means to verify the methodology is being adhered to. To this end, the International Standards Organization (ISO) devised the ISO 9000 series of standards back in the 1980's which was intended for a company to document all of its methodologies which, in theory, is intended to improve quality. Through the documentation, people can verify the various project steps were executed properly. Although this is certainly helpful, it cannot substantiate how well a product was built, only that it was built in accordance to a methodology. Even if the methodology is superbly documented, a flaw in the actual construction of the methodology itself will prove fatal to any project using it. This little oversight is the Achilles Heel of the ISO standards.

Not all methodologies are created equal. Most are written as an inordinate series of books and worksheets. Regardless of how well they are written, if workers become more obsessed with completing forms and checklists, they tend to lose sight of the product they are building. We refer to this phenomenon as "The Dance of the Fairies," whereby developers are more concerned with following paperwork than in producing a quality product. Whenever you follow a methodology blindly you tend to overlook the work product you are trying to produce.

In devising any methodology, I ask customers to think of the work product to be produced and base the construction of the methodology on it. For example, if we are to build a major product, like an automobile, I instruct them to break the product into separate assemblies of work, e.g., body, drive train, engine, etc. By doing so, it is easy to define what phases may be executed sequentially or in parallel. In other words, the methodology maps the product structure, not just some random series of activities. When defining any step in the methodology, be it a phase, activity or task, it is important to define the deliverable associated with each step. By this I mean defining a tangible result which can be reviewed for acceptance; it has either been done or it hasn't which is one of the earmarks of an ISO standard. Defining steps without a tangible result is pure folly. Further, for each deliverable, acceptance criteria should be provided to give reviewers a basis for performing a proper examination. Without an acceptance criteria the reviewer has no way of knowing how well the deliverable was built (only that it has or has not been done).

To me personally, a methodology is a state of mind, not an extensive library of documentation. Instead, it is what all good craftsmen know about in terms of building any product; that there is a right way and a wrong way for building something. Such craftsmen understand there is a calculated risk for overlooking or cheating a step in the methodology, risks that jeopardize the quality of the product. They also understand a documented methodology is helpful for providing insight in how to build something, but it is not a guarantee you will produce superior results. Quality must be built into the product during design, during the methodology, not inspected in afterwards, and this cannot be done by blindly following "The Dance of the Fairies."

No matter how I try to explain it though, I find the concept of methodology is still somewhat nebulous to most people which is why I normally describe myself as a "management consultant" or someone involved with the I.T. industry. I still get blank looks but it seems to sink in better than "methodologist." Perhaps this is why I envy farmers, bankers, butchers; at least people have an idea what they do for a living.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

THE SWEETENING OF AMERICA

2012-01-12T10:18:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

I find as I grow older I tend to gravitate towards simpler things. Take coffee for instance, I've always found pleasure in a simple cup of black coffee. I honestly believe I can distinguish a good cup of coffee from a bad one simply by drinking it black. Adding sugar, cream, and any other additive only masks the flavor. Then again, the bitter taste of the coffee bean is what a lot of people try to avoid, preferring instead a variety of sweeteners transforming it into more of a ice cream sundae as opposed to a hot cup of coffee in the traditional sense. Now coffee comes in a myriad of flavors including vanilla, caramel, cinnamon, and peppermint. Its whipped with cream, sprinkled with chocolate, and chilled with ice. Perhaps the best way to describe coffee's transformation is from the "the rocket fuel of business" to Bosco.

Coffee is not alone in this regard. I recently visited a local liquor store to buy libations for the holidays. I don't normally drink vodka but I was surprised by the variety of flavors now available including lemon, lime, apple, marmalade, raspberry, apple strudel, and dozens of other flavors (What, no kumquat?). I also noticed various liqueurs now come in an assortment of flavors as opposed to just one, especially the coffee flavored ones. I took most of this in stride as I typically don't imbibe such drinks. However, as a whiskey aficionado, I was stunned to see apple and cinnamon flavored whiskeys creeping onto the shelves. Only then did I realize whiskey was also beginning to undergo a sweetness transformation.

I suppose this movement to sweeter alcoholic beverages was to be expected as the kids who savored sweetened fruit drinks and power ades years ago have grown up and cannot tolerate some of the bitter flavors of adult beverages. Nor will this be a passing fancy as young Americans have been conditioned to crave soft and sweetened drinks. Take iced tea for instance, whereas older people tend to enjoy unsweetened tea, younger people cannot palate it without some sort of sugary substance. Also consider Americans fascination with sweetened coffee drinks is directly rooted in chocolate. It kind of makes you wonder if we are really enjoying the flavor of such drinks or are we simply hooked on chocolate and sugar. I suspect the latter.

As for me, I'm a single malt scotch man who appreciates the simplicity of a good glass of whiskey, particularly when coupled with a fine cigar. I do not need to sweeten it up, just quietly sip and enjoy it at the end of a busy day. I enjoy its full bodied flavor with a touch of smokiness from its casks. Like I've always said, it's the little things in life that make it enjoyable, such as a black cup of coffee, unsweetened iced tea, and a glass of single malt scotch. The day I am given a glass of tutti frutti whiskey is probably the same day I'll stop drinking it.

I do not need to put in additives to enjoy such beverages, just simply to appreciate them for what they are and how our forefathers designed them. Like I said, keep it simple and enjoy the ride.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

OBAMA'S TRACK RECORD - BY THE NUMBERS

2012-01-10T07:46:00.004-05:00

Last year I described a general strategy for defeating the president in the next election (see "How to Defeat Obama in 2012"). Key to this was forcing the president to run on his record which can hardly be considered stellar. As the campaign unfolds, Republican contenders have somehow forgotten this and are content to snipe at each other instead. In the meantime, the president revels in the GOP squabbling as he remains out of the limelight and has even gone so far as to tout his record as president. I do not believe the president has anything to brag about though and his record has to be brought back into perspective. To do so, I researched the data from several key areas and compared the president's record thus far to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who Obama openly vilified during his campaign as the cause of the country's woes. Keep in mind, the data contained herein contains Mr. Bush's full eight year term of office, while Mr. Obama's reflects no more than two or three years of service.

Unemployment

Bush (8 years): 3.8% low to 7.3% high
Obama (3 years): 7.8% low to 10.1% high (currently annual average is 8.9%)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

"Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein) — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way."
- Stephen Gandel, TIME Magazine, July 14, 2009

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Bush (8 years): $9.9T to $14.3T
Obama (3 years): $13.9T to $14.5T (as of 2010)
Source: Measuring Worth

"Like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning."
- President Barack Obama, February 3, 2010

Government Revenues (including taxes)

Bush (8 years): $3.6T to $4.7T
Obama (3 years): $3.6T to $4.8T ($5.25T projected for 2012)
Source: USGovernmentRevenue.com

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."
- candidate Barack Obama, November 2007

Spending

Bush (8 years): $3.24T to $5.34T
Obama (3 years): $5.94T to $6.05T ($6.22T projected for 2012)
Source: USGovernmentSpending.com

"Now, what that would require would be some shared sacrifice and a balanced approach that says we're going to make significant cuts in domestic spending. And I have already said I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower."
- President Barack Obama, July 15th, 2011

Federal Deficit

Bush (8 years): $-236.2B to $458.5B
Obama (3 years): $1.4T to $1.2T ($1.1T projected for 2012)
Source: USGovernmentSpending.com

"When we continue to spend as if deficits don’t matter, that means our kids and our grandkids may windup saddled with debt that they’ll never be able to repay."
- President Barack Obama, July 22nd, 2010

Federal Debt

Bush (8 years): rose from $5.6T to $9.9T
Obama (3 years): rose from $11.8T to $15.1T ($16.65T projected for 2012)
Source: USGovernmentRevenue.com

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies... Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."
- Senator Barack Obama, March 20th, 2006

Federal Government size (employees)

Bush (8 years): 4.1M to 4.2M
Obama (3 years): 4.4M (data available through 2010 only)
Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to "shrink the overall size of government programs."
- The Family Foundation, June 2011

When you factor in the enormous potential economic impact of Obamacare, assuming it survives the Supreme Court, the failed stimulus packages and bailouts, the additional bureaucracy of his czars and other questionable appointments, etc., you have to wonder what the president has to crow about.

Not surprising, the media seems to be more than willing to divert the public's attention from the president's record to the foibles of the GOP candidates. I realize Americans have short attention spans, but surely they cannot believe things are any better today than three short years ago when he took the reins.

"YES WE CAN!" - Obama's 2008 campaign slogan. Did they? The American voters will decide on November 6th.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

REWARDING INCOMPETENCE

2012-01-08T18:56:00.000-05:00

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)

Throughout the corporate world we have seen examples of the Peter Principle in practice, whereby people rise above their level of competency; people who make a mockery of their job and discredit their company and themselves in the process. Perhaps they were promoted because nobody else wanted the job or perhaps they were simply selected based on seniority; maybe they politicked for the job and were rewarded not for what they had accomplished but their ability to kiss the backside of someone else in authority, aka "cronyism". Regardless, they have risen above their ability to effectively perform the job they were assigned. In many cases, the job in question is just a pit stop in the road to the top, but more often than not, they covet the position they have acquired and either perform it with an iron fist or just let the work go to pieces (or both). This naturally raises the ire of subordinates and others more qualified to perform the work. It also becomes rather obvious to customers and vendors who have to deal with the person. Naturally, they scratch their head in bewilderment as to why this person was selected for promotion.

We also see this phenomenon in nonprofit organizations where people are seeking social stature as opposed to performing anything of merit, be it a homeowner association, a sports club, a professional trade society, a civic organization or whatever. Those who tend to covet titles in such groups normally suffer from low self-esteem as they never accomplished anything of substance in their professional lives and now crave recognition. Even in the most rudimentary 501(c) organization, they fail to grasp it is a legal entity in the eyes of the state which must conform to certain legalities. Failure to execute specific rules and regulations can easily lead to lawsuits and disaster.

To the individual, promotion is a confirmation of his abilities. If he is a poor performer, his advancement sends a dangerous message that his work meets with the approval of others. Naturally, the person will not change and continue in his faulty ways. If his progression is arrested though, he will question why. Hopefully, he will receive some coaching along the way before this happens which is one reason why I'm a big proponent of Employee Performance Evaluations (click for a free COPY). Such reviews are just as pertinent in a nonprofit organization as they are in the corporate world. Without such reviews or coaching, and the person is rejected, he is blindsided and his ego is shattered.

To assure the right people are selected for key posts, political machines are often devised thereby compromising the harmony of an organization. You either play ball with the good old boys in charge or forget about progressing through the organization. Sadly, you find this in both the corporate and nonprofit world. It's distasteful and ultimately impedes the organization's effectiveness. Whenever the wrong person is put into a position of authority, the systems of the organization falter, productivity slips, the moral values of the business are put into question, and harmony is disrupted. Basically, it's a "lose-lose" situation that can be difficult to rectify.

Aside from the political aspect, I am at a loss as to why people believe they should be elevated, particularly if they have not demonstrated they possess the skills or fortitude necessary to successfully perform the work. Perhaps it is a sense of entitlement, that it's "their turn" to be promoted. Such a mindset is invalid and should be rebuked as nobody is entitled to a position based on "turns"; it's ludicrous. People should be selected for promotion based strictly on qualifications and availability. In situations where people are selected out of desperation, it should be made clear to them that retaining their job and any possible advancement in the future depends on their ability to successfully execute their job and prepare for the next. The lack of counseling and instruction in this regard does them a disservice. Likewise, the failure to heed the advice does the organization a disservice.

Nonprofit organizations are particularly susceptible to promoting people through the ranks without merit. Such organizations today are struggling for members and consequently beg people to take positions out of desperation. The group, therefore, shouldn't be surprised when such people accomplish nothing. Instead of pleading with people to take a volunteer job, perhaps it is time to merge with another like-minded organization, change your approach to membership, curtail what you are trying to accomplish, or call it a day.

Part of the problem is the myth that everybody must win, that nobody loses, which is something we have been fostering in our youth over the last few decades. This is just plain fallacious. Just about every aspect of life involves instances of winners and losers with the lesson being: if you want something, you must earn it. Only then will you value it as opposed to having it dropped in your lap without lifting a finger.

So, why do we reward incompetence? Maybe it's because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings; maybe we want to throw someone a bone as a political gesture; maybe it's someone's "turn"; or maybe we simply do not have anyone else to do the job right now. Regardless, the person has received it for all the wrong reasons. Hopefully, they will rise to the occasion and do a competent job. Unfortunately, most do not and damage the organization, not to mention earning the ire and resentment of others. Remember this: for every person who takes a job they have no intention of performing, somebody else must compensate and perform the duty.

Rewarding incompetence is one of the most common management snafus that has cursed companies of all sizes and shapes for years. Longevity of a problem doesn't make it right, it just means people do not want to deal with it, hoping instead it will go away on its own which, of course, never does. The message must be made clear to all involved, promotions must be earned. In desperate situations where people are forced into positions they are not qualified, they must be coached properly, but if they fail to assume their duties and responsibilities, or even try to put forth an honest effort, it must be made vividly clear their journey upward in the corporate hierarchy will come to a screeching halt. Advancing does a disservice to the company, the people, and the individual. It is just plain bad business.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OATH

2011-12-22T10:56:00.000-05:00

If you have been following my columns, you know I consider citizenship to be an important responsibility which shouldn't be taken for granted. I make an effort to stay abreast of current events and what is going on in our government. I have voted in every national election since I was eligible to do so in 1972. This is why I become rather disturbed when people do not vote, nor care about what is going on in their country, particularly young people who I consider a generation of naive sheep in the offing. It's a sad state of affairs when immigrants know more about what is going on in this country than native born citizens.

In the 2008 presidential elections, only 56.8% of the American populace voted, which is a pitiful figure when you compare it to other democracies like Australia, India, and the Scandinavian countries. Surprisingly, this was the highest voting percentage in the United States since 1968 (60.8%). The highest in recent history was in 1960 (63.1%) for the Kennedy/Nixon election.

Since 1778, immigrants coming to this country have had to pass a test and take an oath swearing their allegiance to the United States. The current oath is as follows:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Not surprisingly, immigrants coming through this program tend to appreciate this country and are more loyal than native born Americans. Another cause for this could be because there is less emphasis on teaching American government and history in the schools than in years past. In other words, the importance of being a citizen has not been impressed upon them.

So, as a proposal, how about administering a modified version of the immigration oath to all native born Americans on January 1st? Parents could give it to their children, thereby turning it into a family tradition; civic organizations and local governments could administer it in public group settings, or perhaps some other venue. Maybe even the media could get involved and administer it over the airwaves or Internet. It should be administered in some solemn way with a right hand raised and the left hand placed on either a copy of the U.S. Constitution or perhaps a holy book such as a Bible, Torah, or Koran.

All that is necessary is to simply modify the first sentence of the Immigration Oath; to wit:

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OATH

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Ideally, this should be followed by voter registration for those who haven't done so.

This oath is certainly not the same as the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, this is instead a reaffirmation of our commitment to our country and would help promote citizenship and voting. Maybe this is something that should be given routinely as opposed to just one time; to remind people of their allegiance to this country. I cannot help but believe this simple gesture would have nothing but beneficial effects.

I can dream can't I?

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

WHAT IF THE SOUTH HAD WON THE WAR?

2011-12-20T11:23:00.000-05:00

For a moment, let's imagine the South had won the Civil War; that Pickett's Charge had been successful in breaking the Union Lines at Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg; that Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had crushed and crippled Union forces. He would have then be freed to sweep down through Philadelphia, Baltimore, to capture the Capitol in Washington, DC. Once defeated, the North would have reluctantly been forced to recognize the Confederate States of America (CSA) as a legitimate and sovereign state. In all likelihood, Lincoln would have been captured and released to serve out his term mending a defeated nation. Basically, his political career would have been over. After a short occupation, Lee would have probably ordered all troops home, both North and South, and the two countries would have had to learn to live together in peace, just like we do with our neighbors to the north, Canada.

Such a scenario presents some intriguing prospects regarding history, not only in North America, but globally as well. Over time, both the USA and CSA would have recovered economically, and both would continue to operate with the same laws and customs as before the war. I doubt another conflict would erupt as both sides were exhausted by the debacle and finally learned the perils of embarking on another such venture. Following the war, slavery would still be accepted in the South, but abolished in the North. The civil rights movement of the 1960's may have occurred in the north, but certainly not in the South. Whether a black person today would still be a slave in the south is doubtful as slavery is generally frowned upon by the world community. Keep in mind though, it was the Union's victory that greatly influenced world opinion regarding slavery. Had the Union lost however, segregation would most likely still be with us and countries like South Africa would still be practicing apartheid.

As two separate countries it is unlikely we would have had as much influence in world affairs as we have experienced. Both countries would be strong, but the division would keep us from becoming a super power to challenge countries like the Soviet Union. Both countries would have likely served on the same side during the two world wars, but would have been much weaker than a unified nation. In all likelihood, Great Britain would remain the dominant super power of the free world as the Americas would be divided, and the rest of Europe in shambles following WW2. Without the United States as a super-power, Communism would have likely flourished and spread to more countries and the Russians would have undoubtedly won the space race.

The energy resources of the middle East would have inevitably fallen under Soviet rule which would threaten the free world and cause the two Americas to increase production. The only benefit to having the Soviets controlling the Middle East, particularly under Stalin, would be the suppression of Muslim radicals and peace would reign. As the dominance of the Soviet Union grew, the two Americas would likely have withdrawn and become more isolationist in nature.

So where does this leave us; what would North America be like today? More importantly, what would we be like as a people? What are the cultural implications assuming the two countries survived to this day? First, as part of the its terms for peace, the CSA would have insisted that runaway slaves would have to be returned to the South. This means there probably wouldn't be a massive migration of blacks to the North, that they would have been stuck in the South. An uprising for freedom may arise over time, but this
would be harshly suppressed much to the dismay of the people in the North. The point is, the demographics of the populace would be significantly different than what we know today.

Regardless of the movement of the masses, I cannot help but believe the north would become a bastion of liberalism as it would primarily be driven by New Englanders. The South would consider itself more conservative than its counterpart in the North and would be less likely to bend traditions and change social rules. Both sides would suffer during the Great Depression of the 20th century. Inevitably, Franklin Roosevelt would emerge in the North and be more likely to pass sweeping social legislation. Without a conservative coalition to challenge him, it is likely he would have implemented changes to the Constitution, such as his court-packing plan to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings to his liking. In other words, a greater social agenda would likely emerge in the North, much greater than his "New Deal" legislation. The South would not be so willing to implement such changes. Nonetheless, the two countries would wallow in depression until entering World War II which would finally ignite industry in both countries.

Following WW2, Roosevelt's social agenda would be carried forward in the north resulting in a massive and intrusive government. In contrast, the South would be less likely to follow the policies of their neighbors to the north. Government would be smaller and less invasive in the lives of its citizens and businesses. Whereas the North would likely mock their "country bumpkins" in the South as being backwards, the CSA would industrialize and develop their natural resources. So much so, it would eventually supersede the output of the North.

Whereas a lot of the freedoms as specified in the Constitution would be challenged in the North, the South, with its own separate Constitution, will be more inclined to defend it. Consequently, patriotism, citizenship, and religion would more likely flourish in the South as opposed to the North.

The biggest difference between the two countries would inevitably be ideology; Liberals gravitating to the North, and Conservatives to the South. The two countries would both be strong in their own way, but nowhere near as powerful as a unified nation. Then again, knowing the politics of today, maybe this would have been a better scenario than what we all experiencing today where the government is gridlocked over ideological differences.

It is not clear to me what our standard of living would be like. I'm sure both countries would have prospered following victory in WW2, but maybe not to the degree we experienced in the 1950's and 1960's. If the South successfully industrialized, which seems clear they would, they may very well have had a higher standard of living than the North. The division between the two countries would have impacted technological developments. Keep in mind, we experienced a tremendous technological revolution as a result of the space race, but if the Soviet Union had won the race, they would probably be in the driver's seat as opposed to North America.

If Pickett had broken the Union's lines at Cemetery Ridge, life would be substantially different than we know it today. Between our differences in culture, technology, and ideology, our standard of living and position in the world community would be noticeably different.

One thing is for certain: had Lee taken the field in Gettysburg, Lincoln and Kennedy would likely have not been assassinated, and there probably wouldn't be a Panama Canal.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

IS PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY A DRUG?

2011-12-18T12:32:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, I have discussed the adverse effects of technology on numerous occasions. Specifically, I am talking about such things as mobile phones, video games, tablets and personal computers, those devices we embrace in the daily affairs of our lives. I have argued there is no documented proof it improves productivity (at least not with the U.S. Department of Labor), and that it affects our socialization skills particularly in the area on interpersonal relations. Such technology may allow us to express our creativity faster, to quickly access information, to communicate with anyone on the planet and share such things as notes and photos, but there is nothing to substantiate it enhances our ability to think. If anything, it diminishes the use of the brain. For example, many people can no longer perform basic math without the assistance of an automated calculator; We cannot communicate except by constant text messaging; We no longer believe we can compose letters or essays without a word processor, etc. It should come as no small wonder to watch an average office come to a complete standstill when the power is cutoff. Studies have also shown that extensive use of such devices actually lowers IQ. As Hicks points out in his book, "The Digital Pandemic," technology has the ability to alter our minds; that it can assume the same robotic mannerisms as the technology we use. This means we are subliminally adjusting our lifestyles to adapt to technology.

We tend to think of drugs as chemicals or substances that are either used for medication or as a stimulant or depressant affecting the central nervous system, thereby causing changes in behavior. Under this paradigm, drugs are absorbed into the bloodstream orally, injected or smoked. In contrast, personal technology is absorbed through our senses particularly sight, sound and touch which, in turn, stimulates and arouses the brain, and provides a convenient venue for escapism. If used in moderation, there is little problem, but when used on a prolonged basis it leads to addiction and can alter moods, perceptions, and thinking patterns which leads to both positive and negative side affects. One obvious positive side effect would be a sense of accomplishment as in winning a game or successfully completing a task. The negative effect though comes from extended use whereby people become dependant on their technology to perform a variety of mental functions, such as math and writing. Further, we become impatient for results; as we grow accustomed to instant information, instant cash, instant photos, instant food, instant everything, and as a result, we become less tolerant of any form of delay which increases stress levels and leads to anger.

I contend our extended use of technology leads to an increase in violent behavior. This is a proposition that is hard to prove as it is difficult to locate reliable data tying technology to violent behavior. Also, such things as road rage, sports rage, work rage, bullying, anger management, animal cruelty are relatively new phenomenons and weren't very prevalent just a few short decades ago. Consequently, finding reliable data over an extended period of time is very limited. The closest thing I could find was data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (its "Arrest Data Analysis Tool") which revealed an increase in assault, sexual abuse, and threatening communications over the last ten years (the period when the use of personal technology soared). However, there is no direct connection to technology being the cause. Because there is no hard data, my premise will remain a theory until sufficient data can be assembled tying the two together.

In terms of addiction, technology exhibits the same type of powers as chemical dependency or, at the very least, gambling which also does not require drugs in the usual sense. Actually, the parallel between technology and gambling addiction is quite remarkable, and can be just as devastating. One interesting report that attests to the power of technology addiction is "The World Unplugged," a global media study led by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA), University of Maryland. As part of their conclusions, the report comments on how students in the study handled the lack of media (meaning electronic devices):

"Going without media during 'The World Unplugged' study made students more cognizant of the presence of media – both media’s benefits and their limitations. And perhaps what students became most cognizant of was their absolute inability to direct their lives without media.

The depths of the 'addiction' that students reported prompted some to confess that they had learned that they needed to curb their media habits. Most students doubted they would have much success, but they acknowledged that their reliance on media was to some degree self-imposed AND actually inhibited their ability to manage their lives as fully as they hoped – to make proactive rather than reactive choices about work and play."

Like anything, if used in moderation, technology holds no ill-effects. However, we have turned it into an 24/7 extension of our lives and can no longer imagine living without these devices. Because it offers instant gratification, it has become a new form of pacifier which we scream for when it is taken away from us.

The "pushers" of this new drug, of course, are the entertainment and electronic industries who keep refining their technology and content, making it even more inticing with each new release. They truly understand the addictiveness of this drug and how to use it for their benefit, as do politicians.

Let me leave you with one last thought; Life doesn't emulate art, it emulates technology. Think about it, are we becoming more robotic in our thinking? Is our imagination and creativity limited by our technology? Can we live 24 hours without such products? The subjects in "The World Unplugged" study had trouble living without them and exhibited genuine signs of withdrawal, and if you are honest with yourself, you're hooked too. So, is technology an extension of us, or have we become an extension of our own technology? Either answer is unsettling.

It may not be a chemical or powder, but make no mistake, personal technology is just as addictive and can alter the human spirit like any other drug.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

TAKE HIM AWAY FOR REGROOVING

2011-12-15T08:22:00.000-05:00

I am an avid fan of the Firesign Theatre, a comedy troop which came to light in the late 1960's. Their humor was considered rather avant-garde even for this turbulent period in our history. You couldn't find them on television or in the movies, and rarely would their comedy be broadcast over the radio waves. Instead, it was primarily distributed in vinyl form (good old 33rpm records) and appealed primarily to college students who treated it like an underground movement. Today, their comedy has attained cult status, not just for its humor but as a great parody of the times and their prophetic vision of the future. Their first album, "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone like Him" (1968) includes a satirical tale of the future based on the values of the psychedelic sixties. In particular, there is one track involving two police officers of the future traveling together in their patrol car. As part of their duties, they have to check to see if all of the citizens are "groovy." If a citizen looks suspicious, the police would stop them, ask them some pointed questions to determine their grooviness, what drugs they were carrying, as well as to check their clothing and body paint. If the citizen wasn't compliant, he/she would be "taken away for regrooving" which meant a massive reorientation to bring them up to date with the times. In the story, the people become so overtly groovy that underground study cells begin to emerge whereby students began to read books and discuss major issues of the day, all to the horror of their parents and teachers.

Lately I have begun to feel like one of the older pedestrians in the story, as I am sure I no longer appear to be "groovy" and in need of a major update. For example, I no longer know all of the names of today's musical artists and motion picture stars. I still say "actors" and "actresses" as opposed to just "actors"; "pictures" as opposed to "movies"; and "Ethyl" and "Hi-Test" as opposed to "Premium" gasoline. Although I grew up in the digital age, I still appreciate analog technology which makes me think I'm in desperate need of some "regrooving."

Not long ago I gave a couple of talks at the local High School. I deliberately chose to wear a suit and tie that day as opposed to a casual look. With rare exception, the students looked shabby and grungy, not to mention undisciplined. Please keep in mind the students come from some rather affluent families in the area. While I was speaking, I got the uneasy feeling the students were there more for me to teach them as opposed to them being there to learn. In other words, the teaching experience was unidirectional in nature, from me to them. I don't consider this a healthy educational environment as the student has to at least be willing to put forth effort to learn.

Although I think I made some progress with several students and the teachers present, I got the uneasy feeling the students considered me to be a dinosaur and definitely not "groovy." Normally when someone feels like time is passing them by, you make an effort to bring your skills and perspectives up-to-date, an attitude readjustment if you will. I'm not sure I can do this anymore and let me explain why. I don't have a problem with technology and fashion passing me by, but to properly "regroove" myself, it will be necessary to reappraise and adjust my moral values, and herein lies the problem. I still believe in such things as common courtesy, such as holding a door open for people, to say "please" and "thank you," and to volunteer my time to help others. I like to tuck my shirt into my pants and would be mortified if my underwear was exposed. I still appreciate the genius of classical music, the taste of a good glass of scotch and a fine cigar, and I still believe in such antiquated concepts as honor and respect, discipline, citizenship, patriotism, and doing unto others as I would have others do unto me, etc.

To properly upgrade I must alter my sense of right and wrong and, frankly, this is something I cannot bring myself to do. Maybe as creatures of habit we get too comfortable with our daily routine, but I do not think this is the case as I can (and have) changed habits many times over the years. No, this is more about my perception of right and wrong as ingrained in me, and something quite difficult to change, if not impossible. To change a person in this manner means to change his very essence as a human being. It would be like asking an honest person to wrong, cheat and defraud others, which is something he cannot do with a clear conscious.

In order to change my values requires me to admit everything I had done previously was incorrect, that I had lived a big lie, and a disservice to everyone I had come in contact with over the years. That is a bitter pill to swallow no matter who you are. No, instead I do not believe I'll allow myself to be "taken away for regrooving" and suffer the consequences, if there be any. Instead I'll have to start one of those underground study cells and hope for the best.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

A NEW MASON-DIXON LINE

2011-12-13T09:42:00.001-05:00

Although originally plotted in the 1760's to settle a border dispute, the Mason-Dixon Line was better known
as the boundary between the slave states of the South and the anti-slave states in the North. As such, it became symbolic of the cultural differences which led to the American Civil War (or as we prefer to call it in the South as "The War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America"). Nonetheless, our current political differences are so pronounced, I wonder if it's time to plot a new type of Mason-Dixon Line to divide the country over ideological lines, Liberal versus Conservative. After all, the division in this country is only going to get worse, not better, regardless of what happens in the 2012 election.

I pulled out a map of the United States and pondered a way to divvy up the country equitably. The challenge was to fairly share the natural resources, particularly energy, access to shipping, and minimize the disruption of people moving to a new state. To do so, I considered the general political inclination of the people in the states. I began with a separation of Northern and Southern states by drawing a line from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River using the old Missouri Compromise Line (parallel 36'30" north). I then went beyond Missouri before turning north to include Iowa and Minnesota. It would be too easy to say the remainder of the country was Conservative, not to mention unfair, as the states along the Pacific coast are all rather Liberal. Plus let's throw in Hawaii, but certainly not Alaska. This resulted in the following map:

Here, the Red color denotes the new Liberal-USA (L-USA) and the Blue denotes the Conservative-USA (C-USA). With the exception of Iowa and Virginia, all of the Red states using this demarcation are generally considered liberal in nature (sorry Iowa and Virginia, but fair is fair). Fittingly, Washington, DC will remain in the L-USA while the C-USA creates a new capitol, probably somewhere in Colorado to be centrally located. Both countries would have abundant energy resources, agriculture, technology, transportation, shipping, not to mention their own military. Hopefully, the two separate countries will find ways to work together, particularly in the area of commerce. Nonetheless, they will both begin on an even footing.

This would be an interesting experiment. Obviously, the big difference would be how the two countries would operate. The C-USA would undoubtedly embrace capitalism and a smaller federal government. Citizens would be emboldened to be more entrepreneurial in nature, thereby encouraging innovation, invention, and freedom of expression. The GDP would naturally grow substantially as a result. In contrast, the L-USA would become a socialist state with a massive government enforcing a long litany of laws, rules and regulations dictating what citizens are permitted to do, thereby creating a Nanny State. The tax structure will be such that the citizens will be working more for the government than themselves. While the L-USA will specialize in the entertainment industry, the C-USA will enjoy a press that doesn't try to manipulate the masses. Whereas the C-USA will dine on red meat, fruits and vegetables, the L-USA will ration generous portions of tofu and bean sprouts to its citizens. Patriotism, morality, and citizenship will doubtless flourish in the C-USA, while organized religion and the pledge to the flag will be outlawed in the L-USA where criminals will be asked to perform community service as opposed to time in prison.

The two countries will respect each other's sovereign borders, but as the C-USA grows in financial strength and world influence, the L-USA will become concerned with their citizens escaping to seek political asylum in the C-USA. Inevitably, a massive wall will be constructed by the L-USA to prohibit such escapes much like what divided Berlin years ago. In the event the two countries regrettably go to war, the C-USA would undoubtedly triumph as they would have more financial resources at their disposal, the will to win, and their citizens would be better armed (the L-USA would have abolished guns from the outset).

The symbology of the two countries will have to change. Although both countries will be reluctant to depart from the stars and stripes as their flag, the L-USA will show their field of stars on the left, and the C-USA will display theirs on the right. As to the national bird, the C-USA will follow tradition and adopt the Bald Eagle, while the L-USA will adopt Benjamin Franklin's suggestion, the Turkey.

Devising such a scenario is not as far fetched as you might think. The country is currently gridlocked awaiting the outcome of the 2012 election. Something needs to change. Only two things can possibly happen: either the country will remain gridlocked in its current form, or one party will take control forcing
the other underground. Neither option is acceptable to our future. Only a physical geographical split along ideological lines will satisfy the citizenship. We may not like it, but at some point we're going to be forced to admit we cannot live together anymore. Am I advocating the overthrow of the country? Absolutely not. I'm just looking into the future and I don't like what I see.

One last thing, don't be surprised if the Pacific coast spins off to form a separate country of its own which we would color white to maintain our red, white and blue patriotic theme. The only exception might be California who may want to abandon the United States altogether and represent their native Mars.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

THE NEVER ENDING NIGERIAN SCAM

2011-12-11T11:13:00.000-05:00

I have been receiving messages from the Nigerian scam artists for over 25 years, first by snail mail, next by fax, then by e-mail naturally. Their con in the early days sought to capitalize on simple greed whereby they would promise their victim millions of dollars if they could deposit money in their bank account. To do so, the victim would have to reveal details regarding his/her bank account. Once exposed, the Nigerians would fleece the account of all of its money. I cannot imagine a single man, woman, or child who hasn't been approached by these scam artists over the years who, by the way, are considered national heroes in their home country. This has been going on for so long, I do not have any pity for the suckers swindled by them.

Regardless of how many times I block Nigerian users sending such messages, a new one gets through now and then. Normally I just delete them but recently I started to read them as I wanted to see what the latest wrinkle was in their ploy. Interestingly, they have added some new twists to the banking scheme. Instead of just appealing on a person's greed, they now try to play on people's emotions. Regardless, they are all rather entertaining to read when you understand their motive; here is a sampling of unretouched pleas (I particularly like the grammar and spelling):

"Dearest Beloved Friend,
I know that this letter may be a very big surprise to you, I came across your email contact from my personal search and I believe that you will be honest to fulfill my final wish before i will die. My name is Mr. Ehab Elbalawi, I am a dying man who has decided to donate what I have to charity through you.You may be wondering why I choose you.But someone has to be chosen i am a dying man with cancer, I have a charitable offer of $6.5million Dollars.please get back to me for full Details......
Your Dying Friend,
Mr. Ehab Elbalawi"

Dear Ehab, so drop dead already.

"My name is Mrs. Anna Moyes; I am a US citizen, 51 Years Old. My residential address 645 Leland Drive Deltona FL 32725 , United States, I am one of those people that took part in receiving Inheritance funds and Lottery funds from African banks and European banks even from many lottery organizers few years ago and they refused to pay me, I had paid different fees while in the USA trying to get my funds from those banks and lottery organizers but all to no avail.

So, I decided to travel to WASHINGTON D.C USA with all my compensation documents, and I was directed by the F.B.I Director to contact a man called Dr. Fred Owen, A British citizen and a member of the UNITED NATIONS & IMF COMPENSATION AWARD COMMITTEE currently staying in ACCRA - GHANA.

Contact Person: Dr. Fred Owen.
Address: Diplomatic Lodge, United Nation Accra Ghana.
Email:drfredowen@yahoo.cn
Telephone: +233549970284.

Contact him now and send him (1) Your full names, (2) Your contact Address, (3) Your mobile phone numbers and (3) Any of your photo ID bearing your picture etc, you really have to stop dealing with those people that are contacting you and telling you that your fund is with them because it is not in any way with them, they are only taking advantage of you and they will dry you up until you have nothing left with you.

Thank You and Be Blessed.
Mrs. Anna Moyes.
3648 W. Scenic Hwy 30-A,
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
United States of America."

Dear Mrs. Moyes, first I find it interesting that you have two conflicting residential addresses in the United States, one of which I plotted is in the middle of Tyndall AFB in Florida (the Santa Rosa Beach location). I trust you are sleeping well on the practice range as the Air Force makes their bombing runs. I agree we have to stop dealing with deadbeat people such as yourself who are trying to swindle people out of their money. Please give my kindest regards to Dr. Owen of the Akan Tribe. Someday you will have to have him tell you about the "Spider Story" which celebrates the deceit of people. Oh yea, please join Mr. Elbalwi and drop dead.

"ATTENTION; My Dear:

I have contacted my secretary to confirm if you have received the compensation draft cheque of (US$10.500.000) which I issued in your name, but he told me that he could not send it to you because of the courier charges. Now I have called my bank to cancel any payment regards to the draft cheque and then authorized them to transfer the payment into ATM CARD in your name which they did.

As of now be informed that all charges has been paid and the ATM CARD is going to be in your name, but to reactivate the ATM Card you have to forward your current informations as requested below to the bank and the only money you will pay to the bank is US$295 for the ATM Card Reactification fee, then they will send you the ATM CARD for your immediate use.

Here are the informations you have to forward to the bank:

1. YOUR FULL NAMES:______
2. Postal ADDRESS:_______
3. PHONE NUMBER:_________
4. CELL NUMBERS:_______
5. EMAIL ADDRESS:________
6. SEX:_____
7. AGE:_____
8. OCCUPATION:________
9. NATIONALITY:________

CONTACT PERSON: Mr. Ben Peter
Director, ATM Foreign Operation Dept.
INTERCONTINENTAL Bank Lagos, Nigeria
Email: (mr.ben_peter@yahoo.cn

Get back to me once you received the ATM CARD ok.

Thanks and God bless you.
Mrs. Ruth King L."

Dear Mrs. King L. - regarding your generous offer regarding a new ATM CARD. As tempting an offer as it may be, I'll have to say No. Besides, what am I going to do with another US$10.500.000.? Thanks and God bless me.

There are several other variations, but I think you get the idea. Obviously, if the deal seems too good to be true, it is. These people will sink to any level to scam you out of your money. If you have the slightest suspicion something on the Internet might be fraudulent, in all likelihood it is. Unfortunately, there is not much you can do as the scammers are seldom caught. Nevertheless, for some information on reporting Internet fraud, see:

USA.gov Internet Fraud
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Internet_Fraud.shtml

ComsumerFraudReporting.org
http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

CELEBRITY PERFUMES

2011-12-08T08:26:00.003-05:00

Shopping in drug stores has been a favorite pastime of mine since I was quite young. You never know what treasures or oddities you might run into simply by digging around, usually at bargain prices. I think my fascination began with an old Ben Franklin five and dime store my family frequented back in Connecticut, representing a veritable treasure trove of goodies for a youngster to discover at discounted prices. Today's drug stores are the natural successors to Ben Franklins and I still find myself snooping around looking for the odd product here and there. Recently, I found myself in the women's perfume aisle. I was, of course, familiar with the big brand names but I was surprised to discover a display of perfumes as touted by female celebrities of the day including Beyoncé, Faith Hill, and many more. This surprised me as I did not know their talents extended to the development of fragrances, or "parfumes" as they call it to denote an air of sophistication (try saying this with a southern twang and it sounds less than impressive).

I'm not sure who started the celebrity branding of perfumes, but I cannot help but believe Elizabeth Taylor was an early contributor with her "White Diamonds", "Passion", and "Passion for Men." Her notoriety as both a major Hollywood star and sex symbol made her an effective pitchman for her products, most of which were reasonably priced to attract consumers who couldn't afford the expensive perfumes. Since Taylor, there have been many other celebrities follow in her footsteps. To illustrate, in the local drug store I found the following:

Singer and actress Beyoncé offers "Heat," "Pulse," and "Heat-Rush." I found her advertising interesting, "I want women to feel sexy, strong, empowered and I want them to feel like they can conquer anything. When they walk into a room, I want them to feel like they can leave a lasting impression on everyone they walk past." Presumably, she wants people to exude confidence as a result of using her fragrances, perhaps even cockiness.

Actress Halle Berry features her "Reveal" perfume which is described as "Some mysterious. Some open. Some earthy. Some glamorous. In the spotlight. In twilight. In candlelight. Always seductive. Always natural." I guess this last description was a pitch for people who think "green." They forgot to add, "Sometimes a good buy. Always on sale."

Country singer Faith Hill's "Truth" perfume is, "An invigorating fresh new scent for a fresh new you. Embracing a tantalizing blend of exotic botanicals, you can enjoy this refreshingly light fragrance alongside our debut fragrance." Frankly, this message sounded to me like a commercial for "Tide" laundry detergent.

Canadian singer Celine Dione offers a line of perfumes named, "Sensational," "Brilliance," and "Signature." She describes it as, "I want my fragrance to bring joy and inspire us all to seize the day and live life to its fullest." At first, I wasn't sure if she was describing a perfume or a Tony Robbins motivational speech.

As I was to discover afterwards there were several other celebrity perfumes including those offered by Jennifer Lopez, Kate Moss, Sarah Jessica Parker, and many other talents I'm too old to recognize. Interestingly, all were manufactured by Coty, Inc. This leads me to believe the celebrities are only allowing the company to use their names to move product as opposed to them actively involved in the development of the perfume, and if the price is right, Why not? These may be fine singers and actresses, but you don't seriously believe they were suddenly imbued with scientific knowledge to create an irresistible fragrance do you? Surely singer Susan Boyle or Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi are smart enough to create an alluring fragrance, but I do not see anyone clamoring for their scents. Maybe we should wait for the Hillary collection?

As we should all know, people do not buy these products as advertised, regardless of the verbosity of BS used. They buy them because it is a vain attempt to capture the essence of their favorite star, that maybe someone will confuse them for Halle Berry or Celine Dione. Sure. Wouldn't it be amusing to discover the celebrities do not actually wear their own perfumes, that they wouldn't be caught dead wearing that "cheap crap"? Well, in the end, it doesn't matter. It's all about image, it's about perceptions, it's about money.

As long as we have celebrity fan clubs and a tabloid media, there will always be a market for celebrity perfumes.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

2011-12-05T09:06:00.000-05:00

When the Herman Cain sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, he was riding high as the leading GOP presidential candidate. Was this a coincidence? Hardly. The matter was dropped only after his popularity declined and he flatly denied the allegations. Perhaps this had something to do with the credibility of his accusers, perhaps he threatened to open a case of whoop-ass litigation thereby frightening them away, or perhaps the backers of the accusers felt they achieved their goal of discrediting Cain as evidenced by his decline in the polls. Whatever the reason, Cain survived but with a tarnished image.

Shortly thereafter a sex scandal erupted at Penn State University involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Although an independent investigation of events has only just begun, the scandal has already ruined the reputation of not only college president Graham Spanier, but legendary football coach Joe Paterno, a man who was nearing retirement at the end of the season. Up until now, Paterno's credentials were impeccable. So much so, the Big 10 had his name engraved on their Football Championship Trophy, but due to the controversy it was permanently removed. Now, the legendary coach's name is Mud regardless of whether or not he played a significant role in the scandal.

That's just the point, in both instances, the people in the spotlight were considered guilty in the court of public opinion, a court which is tightly controlled by the mainstream media who is more interested in ratings than in the truth. Unlike many other countries, our system of jurisprudence is based on the supposition the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (usually by a jury of one's peers). Unfortunately, this is no longer the case as the media spins the story and inflames the situation to suit their ratings. This obviously complicates finding an unbiased jury for such high profile cases.

In the Cain case, it is still unknown as to who and how the story was leaked to the press which led to a tempest of controversy. Many suspect it was politically motivated which, if true, means the media will use such tactics again even if it means manufacturing a fabricated story. And as we enter the final bell lap of the 2012 presidential elections, you can count on it. The press is less concerned about the position a candidate holds on an issue as much as they are with raking up muck on the person.

Something to understand about our legal system in this country, anyone can initiate a lawsuit against anyone at anytime, right or wrong. As such, do not naively believe the accuser is always correct. Many times, lawsuits are brought on as a scam in the hopes the defendant will settle out of court. Think I'm kidding? Ask any large company about frivolous lawsuits, such as IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, McDonald's, etc., where you take a number and get in line to take the Goliath down. The only thing worse is the mainstream media who is indifferent to a person's guilt or innocence.

If Cain and Paterno are indeed found guilty of improprieties in a court of law, Yes, they should be made to suffer the consequences. However, if they are found innocent, I hope the media has the decency to apologize and help rebuild their reputation with the same fanfare they helped to besmirch it, and the Big 10 engraves Paterno's name back onto the championship trophy. Then again, who am I kidding? Regrettably, we live in a country where you are guilty until proven innocent, particularly in the court of public opinion. Those that control public opinion can influence the outcome of a lot of things, including presidential elections.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

HOW TECHNOLOGY AFFECTS OUR YOUTH

2011-12-04T10:29:00.000-05:00

Recently I was invited to speak at our local high school as part of their "Great American Teach-in," a program held here in Florida whereby guests are asked to speak to the students on a variety of subjects. One of my business related articles caught the attention of a local teacher and I was subsequently asked by the Business/IT Department to come in to make some remarks regarding business and technology. My talk was entitled "Our Changing Times" which discussed how technology affects us as human-beings. It was my argument that technology has an adverse effect on our mental acuity and productivity in this country. I conducted two consecutive classes of approximately 50 high school juniors each. Both sessions were interesting.

I began with a very brief description of my company and our methodologies for system design, data base design, enterprise engineering, and project management. Basically, I wanted to establish myself as a credible businessman who had extensive experience in the business and I.T. world. I then reviewed the cultural and technical changes I witnessed over the last 40 years. I even brought in some old mainframe magnetic tapes, printer wheels, and plastic templates used for flowcharting.

I then discussed how technology affects us as human beings. It is my contention that technology has conditioned us to be intolerant of inefficiencies and limitations thereby causing us to think faster, virtually, and to multitask. Think about it; we don’t like to wait in traffic, we want information at our fingertips, we expect to be able to listen to any song or watch any movie whenever we’re in the mood, we want to get in and out of hospitals, we want instant food, instant pictures, instant credit, instant money, instant everything. We drive faster and talk faster because we have been conditioned to do so.

To illustrate the point, I quoted some references; first, Dr. Mack R. Hicks, author of "The Digital Pandemic," who demonstrated how technology alters the minds of impressionable youth. So much so, they begin to exhibit the same robotic mannerisms of the technology they use which is not conducive for grooming socialization skills. Hicks basically argued that technology is a genuine threat to the human spirit.

I next referenced the work of Dr. Glenn Wilson, a psychiatrist at King's College London University, who in 2005 was hired by Hewlett Packard to research the effect of technology in the workplace. During his study he found that workers distracted by phone calls, e-mails and text messages suffer a greater loss of IQ than if they'd smoked marijuana. The IQ of those juggling messages and work fell by an average of 10 points - equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the four-point fall seen after smoking pot. The drop in IQ was even more significant in men.

These studies surprised the students. To stress the point further, I asked the students how they received their news. Out of 100 students, only 4 read a newspaper, a couple got it from an app on their iPhone and virtually none watched the evening news. Interestingly, a handful said they got their news from Jon Stewart on "Comedy Central." Needless to say, I found it rather disturbing that students were out of touch with the world's ever-changing events and considered Jon Stewart a credible source for unbiased journalism. Whereas adults are generally upset with politicians, the economy, jobs, military conflicts, etc., our young people are rather apathetic. I don't believe parents even talk to them around the dinner table, which I found rather disturbing. Fortunately, this particular group of students will not be old enough to vote in the 2012 election; but if they did, I'm confident they could be easily swayed.

As students in the late 1960's we obviously didn't have all of the elegant technology as is available today, but we all knew what was going on in the world. Everyone read the daily newspaper and weekly news magazines, watched nightly news, listened to radio, and discussed it over lunch or with their parents. We all knew about the War (Viet Nam), the protests, major accidents and catastrophes, elections, the various assassinations, etc. If you didn't stay on top of recent events, you were considered a dullard. Not so today. In fact, I got the uneasy feeling that you are an oddity if you follow the news today.

Wanting to understand their dependence on technology, I asked the High Schoolers if they could live without their smart phones. All except one said they believed they could manage. The one exception wouldn't budge, even when I pushed her to defend her position. In her mind, the phone was her lifeline to her friends and social life. Without it, she was lost.

In the summary section of my presentation I admonished the students to develop a sense of history, not just American history, but history pertaining to their chosen career path. I told them this was needed so they wouldn't commit the same mistakes we made and understand why we made certain decisions over the years. I challenged them to resist the temptation to go on "automatic," to avoid repetition; avoid stagnation; to question the status quo, and simply THINK (an old IBM expression).

I don't know how successful I was at getting my points across. Some students looked as apathetic as a lot of adult programmers I have taught over the years. The teachers seemed to appreciate my presentation and told me so. I also had a few students thank me for the presentation afterward, shook my hand, and asked a few questions. I don't think I batted 1.000 with the kids that day, but if I got them to at least start thinking about things, then I believe I made a hit.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

REUNIONS: THE CLASS OF 1972

2011-12-01T08:21:00.000-05:00

When you bring up the subject of High School reunions, people tend to have mixed emotions on the subject. Some are excited about renewing friendships, others loathe the prospect of seeing someone from a dark chapter of their youth. As for me, I skipped my 10th anniversary as I wanted to distance myself from my past. Frankly, I was busy trying to build a career and didn't consider a reunion very important at the time. Both my wife and I graduated from a small high school in Cincinnati with a total class size of less than 150. When our 20th reunion came around, my wife encouraged me to attend, which we did. Subsequently, we also attended our 30th reunion and now our 40th beckons next year. I have found the experience enjoyable and, believe it or not, I'm looking forward to next year's gala.

In a small high school you tend to know everyone, either as friends, adversaries, or simply slugs attending the same class. I have fond memories of my time there and, like anyone, there are things I would have done differently if I had the opportunity to do it over again, but obviously such is not to be. I have made some lifelong friendships from the experience even though I was first considered an outcast who moved into the area from Chicago just prior to my Freshman year, which was significantly different from a cultural perspective. I initially had trouble adapting to the area but eventually developed friendships and found my way through High School with few scars. Along the way, I met my future wife who, like me, was new to the area and considered an outsider. Out of our class, I believe five couples married their High School sweethearts and remain so to this day, including yours truly.

Fortunately, there is still several classmates living in our hometown who helped organize the reunions over the years. Their patience and persistence in trying to do what is best for the class as a whole is truly admirable. Alas, someone always complains about the arrangements no matter how hard the group tries. The critics are usually those who like to sit on the sideline and complain as opposed to volunteering their time in planning the event. I suspect our 40th reunion will be no different.

At our 20th reunion, I found a lot of people still trying to impress each other. Men were dressed in power suits, women is beautiful dresses. Everyone was quick to show pictures of their children and played a game of one-upmanship by talking about how successful they had become. Some tried to sell themselves too much and I learned to turn a deaf ear in their direction. Most people though were down to earth and although they had aged slightly, they were the same people underneath. The drunks were still drunk; the intellectuals were still in school, the gays of the class had come out of the closet (to the surprise of nobody), and the druggies had found Jesus. Actually, I found the people who had been the quiet wallflowers of the class had blossomed into the most interesting, not to mention possessed a great sense of humor. Best of all was the opportunity to share a few laughs with old pals. As a footballer, I became reacquainted with several teammates and subsequently went on many fly-fishing trips with them.

I think the most astute comment made at our 20th was when one of the reunion organizers playfully observed, "Gee, when did we become our parents?" Although it was said half in jest, it had become a startling reality.

Our 30th reunion was different. People dressed down a bit and were no longer obsessed with trying to impress others. Instead, they appeared to be more comfortable and sociable. Photos were still shown, but mostly of graduations, weddings, and grandchildren. It was here that someone broached me with the subject of retirement, a foreign concept I hadn't considered. For some reason, I have an aversion to the thought of being put into mothballs, but others seem to embrace the concept, even looking forward to it. To each their own I guess.

Perhaps the most interesting person I met at this reunion was a footballer who quit the team following our Junior year in protest of the head coach who was a bit tyrannical and had trouble understanding our class. As it turned out, this was a decision which haunted my friend for a number of years, something he deeply regretted as he possessed a love for the game. This disturbed him so much so, he was embarrassed to attend any of the earlier reunions. We all assured him that we were glad to see him and, as far as we were concerned, he was still a member of the team.

Now another planning committee has been formed for our 40th reunion next year. My role over the years has been to develop and maintain the web site for the class which I try to do faithfully. Between this and the general good will of the classmates, I believe we're better organized and enjoy higher attendance than most High School classes. Regrettably, we have lost eleven classmates over the years, which may not seem like a lot, but it is noticeable in a small class like ours.

More than anything, reunions tell us about ourselves as opposed to others; how we have developed, what kind of person we have become, and if we are at peace with ourselves. Some tend to view it as a sort of scorecard to see if we are better or worse than others in our class, which strangely confirms our sense of success or failure. Some cannot cope knowing this, which is perhaps why they tend to avoid it, either that or they simply couldn't stand anyone in the class. It would be a big mistake to assume that none of us have changed over the years, that we're the same meatballs we were in high school. True, we may understand the essence of our classmates, but it would be wrong to assume time stopped and nobody changed. We've matured, we've made mistakes, we've learned, and we are wiser for it, which is why I enjoy attending the reunions. Frankly, using reunions as a scorecard is the wrong reason for attending. Instead, it should be a celebration of friendships, past and present, to laugh about the past, talk about the future, and enjoy the society of our peers.

So, do I really relish seeing my classmates? Maybe not on a daily or weekly basis, but every decade or so, it is a hoot. Here's to the Class of 1972.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

A GOP OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

2011-11-29T08:45:00.000-05:00

Changing the U.S. Constitution can be a rather tricky proposition. To amend it under normal circumstances requires a proposal to be deliberated and approved by at least two thirds of both chambers of Congress, a procedure familiar to most Americans. Assuming acceptance, it is sent to the various state legislatures where a minimum of 75% must approve of it for passage. However, Article V of the Constitution has a provision whereby a Constitutional Convention (aka, Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention) can be called by at least two-thirds of the states (34) whereby amendments can be drafted by a separate body of delegates, not the Congress, before being sent to the state legislatures for ratification (again, at least 75%). The scope of the convention must be very specific in terms of what it proposes to address. Although this vehicle is at our disposal, the last time such a convention was called was back in 1787 in Philadelphia. That's right, 234 years ago.

Although there have been suggestions of holding a Constitutional Convention over the years, the Congress has interceded and taken action to avoid usurping their authority. We now live in a time though where the approval rating of Congress is at an all time low, and the American public has genuine concerns about such things as curbing the influence of lobbyists, redefining the term limits and benefits of the Congress, campaign reform, and a balanced budget, to mention but a few. Taking such important matters out of the direct hands of the Congress, who the public no longer trusts, would go a long way to overcome the partisan politics in the capitol.

The question becomes, who would push for such a convention? Since the president and the Congress represents the status quo, they lack the political chutzpah to push for such a proposal. In fact, it needs to come from the states themselves, but because of the disparity between them, this too is highly unlikely. Instead, a GOP presidential candidate is the logical choice as there are no Democratic candidates. Whoever is first to propose it will be wildly embraced by the American people as a whole, not just one party, as they realize some significant changes have to be enacted in the manner by which our government operates. Think about it, it's more than just the right thing to do; it's bold, it's imaginative, and it makes the person look very presidential. Let us not forget, George Washington presided over the last Continental Congress.

Understand this, the president serves in no official capacity in enacting constitutional amendments, but the GOP nominee could force such a convention simply by creating a firestorm of public demand. Keep in mind, not only would the Tea Party like to see such a convention, their opposites, the Occupy Wall Streeters, would also be interested in such a concept. Frankly, it's a no lose proposition for the GOP nominee as the Congress and president will certainly not call for it, and the public would embrace it.

I wonder if any of the GOP candidates are smart enough to grab the brass ring. Now, if all of the GOP candidates would get behind such a proposal...Wow!

For more information, here is Article V of the Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/timbryce

EFFECTIVE INTERVIEWING

2011-11-28T08:40:00.000-05:00

"If you are not using the right bait, you'll catch nothing." - Bryce's Law

Key to any Information Technology development project is the ability to effectively interview with end-users, people from business units who are not necessarily graced in the acumen of I.T., yet need solutions to some rather pressing business problems for their departments. Yet interviewing skills seem to be in decline lately, particularly among I.T. personnel. Its really not that difficult, but it requires a certain type of person to perform it adequately; someone who is naturally curious and works well with others, a "people-person."

How you interview someone in business is somewhat different than how Barbara Walters interviews a celebrity on television. Although there are lessons she can teach us, you must remember you are not there for anyone's entertainment. True, you want to be sociable, but you also need to get to the point.

There are essentially three types of situations for interviewing a user during an I.T. development project:

1. To specify information requirements (as to what is needed and why).

2. To review designs for viability and acceptance.

3. For current systems analysis.

In all three situations the interviewer must be one part detective, one part lawyer, and one part translator. The interviewer must be a detective in order to know how to investigate a problem and know what to look for; he must be a lawyer in order to know how to ask the right questions, and; he must be a translator to interpret what the user is saying.

The first thing the developer must know is some background information on the person to be interviewed. The developer must be able to assimilate the user's job and his interests to better serve the user as well as to gain his trust. To do so, pertinent organization charts and job descriptions should be referenced in advance to study the scope of the user's area of responsibility and employee reporting relationships. Further, the developer should understand the user's products or services he is responsible for, along with the customers and vendors he works with. The more the developer knows about the user prior to meeting him, the more credible he will be and the better his chances are for satisfactorily serving the user.

To develop the proper rapport, dress presentably, act professionally, and communicate effectively. Appearances in this regard are very important. Nobody wants to confide their interests in a Huckleberry who doesn't appear to know what he is doing. Dressing and acting professionally expresses respect for the other person, as does a firm handshake. Very important: speak to communicate. This means the developer should communicate in terms the user will understand, not the other way around. Technical jargon should be avoided as this may be misinterpreted by the user and may even alienate him, thereby creating a hostile or uncooperative working relationship. Further, avoid the temptation to use slang, try to be as articulate as possible.

Learn to read the body language of the person you are interviewing. Look for signs of being guarded versus being open and candid. Likewise, consider your own body language so that you invite discussion. You want to convey an image that you are genuinely interested in what the user has to say. For example, don't let your eyes wander around the room during the interview, stay focused on what the other person is saying.

Observe protocol. Remember, when you are visiting the user, you are on someone else's turf. Do not be presumptive, take nothing for granted. Ask permission to tour the user's area, talk to pertinent people, and gather notes. A little professional courtesy can go a long way.

Prior to meeting with the user, prepare a thorough interview outline highlighting the questions or subject areas you will be inquiring about. True, the actual interview will undoubtedly stray from the outline, but it offers you some structure to maximize your use of time. Also, to enhance productivity during an interview, it is a good idea to communicate the purpose of the interview to the user and what your objectives are. This should be done well in advance of the interview to give the user ample time to prepare for the meeting. Ideally, the user should be presented with a copy of the interview outline prior to the meeting.

During the interview, take plenty of notes. Frankly, I am of the old-school whereby I use nothing more than paper and pencil. I still find users who are intimidated by computer laptops and other recording devices. As an aside, some of the best interviewers I have seen over the years knew "shorthand" which simplified taking notes, but I'm afraid this is a language facing extinction. If you wish to use computer technology during the interview, be sure the user doesn't have a problem with it, nor that it will inhibit his dialog with you.

In terms of venue, the interviewer must determine a suitable site to conduct the interview, either in the user's office, your office, or a neutral site. Users tend to be more comfortable in their own offices where it is easier for them to reference paperwork for you. The only problem though is the possibility of interruptions (phone calls or people stopping by). Holding the interview in your office tends to be more threatening and may actually inhibit the person by making him think it is an inquisition. A neutral site near the user's area is better to minimize distractions and allows the user to remain comfortable in his own area of responsibility. For example, I have seen some excellent interviews conducted in sequestered meeting rooms where the interviewer can scribble notes on a blackboard or flip chart. This can be very conducive for clarifying points during the interview, as well as general brain storming sessions.

During the interview, the developer tends to play the role of a lawyer, which means he probably knows the answer
to a question before asking it. A well structured interview, therefore, is used to confirm your suspicions more than anything else. As in the lawyer analogy, avoid "fishing trips" whereby the interview goes down pointless avenues of discussion. Remember, if you are not using the right bait, you'll catch nothing. Stay focused, stay in control and don't let the interview digress into meaningless ramblings.

During the interview, there will be a lot of "give and take" in terms of controlling the direction of the interview. The interviewer should avoid jousting but always remain firmly in control of the meeting. Stay on target and accomplish the objectives as specified on your interview outline.

More than anything, the interviewer is trying to understand the rationale for something. Because of this, it is no small wonder the term "Why?" is the most commonly used expression in his vernacular. When I am specifying user information requirements, I like to approach the question in another manner. For example, I'll say something to the effect, "Assuming I can deliver the information to you in the manner you want, what will you do with it?" In other words, I am looking for the user to describe the business actions and
decisions to be supported by the information, thereby justifying the need for it. This is a nice alternative to constantly asking, "Why?" Another technique is to simply ask the user for examples in order to illustrate his points.

How a manager perceives something may be different than what happens in fact. Consequently, I often find it necessary to interview key secretaries and clerks who are more intimate with the daily flow of business in the work area than the manager might be. Their answers may confirm or conflict with what the manager says. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the interviewer to find and substantiate the truth.

CONCLUSION

In interviewing, it is not so much what you ask as it is how you ask it. As such, both tact and diplomacy are part of the game. The interviewer has to convey a positive image of trustworthiness, professionalism, and organization. Further, he has to be able to ask pointed questions, as well as being approachable to confide in.

Aside from the human dynamics of interviewing, organization is vital for success, if for nothing else than to maximize your use of time (as well as the other person's). Take good notes during the interview, pick through them carefully afterwards, and document them for review by the user for clarity. This review is important. Its like saying, "This is what I understood you to say; is this a correct interpretation?" Clearing up misinterpretations and inconsistencies early in a development project will save considerable time and money later on. As the old adage goes, "The best surprise is no surprise."

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

HOW NOT TO COOK A THANKSGIVING DINNER

2011-11-22T10:42:00.002-05:00

Let's face it, cooking a Thanksgiving dinner can be quite an undertaking. Whether it is a major family function or a gathering of friends, a considerable amount of work is required. First, the house needs to be cleaned (particularly if you are having guests for dinner), not to mention the dishes, pots and pans, glassware and cutlery. Then there is the researching of pertinent recipes in order to establish a menu. This is followed by several trips to the market to shop for everything from appetizers to dessert and everything in-between. On Thanksgiving Day, the kitchen is put into high gear, the likes of which is unlike any other day of the year. There is, of course, never enough counter space or cooking utensils. When dinner time arrives, the meal has to be served at the table, a few thoughtful words are spoken as a prelude to the meal, and everybody "digs in." Afterwards, the kitchen has to be cleaned, and everything needs to be washed. What little is left of the bird is cutup for later consumption or to be given to guests to enjoy later as a snack. Finally, the garbage has to be disposed of, which can be substantial. Other than this, cooking a Thanksgiving dinner is a piece of cake.

Actually, my family doesn't mind doing all of this as everyone has learned to pitch-in and help out. If we manage our time properly, it turns into a pleasurable experience as opposed to an imposing task. However, I realize not everyone shares my enthusiasm and, instead, many people loathe the thought of preparing such a meal. It's not that they don't know how to make the meal, they just don't want to expend the energy, preferring to allow someone else to knock him/herself out. As much as they love the meal, they despise the hassle of putting it all together. So much so, they've worked out several schemes to avoid cooking, namely:

* Prepare a TV dinner - this requires perhaps the least amount of effort, and will only cost you a couple of bucks. It ultimately depends on whether you want to socialize with anyone this time of year. To recluses with a microwave, this is the preferred meal of choice.

* Go to a restaurant or hotel - there are some rather excellent meals available with all of the trimmings you can imagine, for a price. It will certainly cost more than a TV dinner and will require you to dress up a bit, but it may indeed be worth it, particularly since you will not be asked to clean up afterwards.

* Charitable groups may offer a free dinner, particularly churches, schools, soup kitchens, and groups like the Rotary, Lions, Elks, and Masons. The food may not be home cooking, but you are pretty much guaranteed a square meal (and you can't beat the price; free). Sometimes, such groups may ask you to assist in the preparation of the meal or the cleanup, such as "busting suds", dumping garbage or pushing a broom. It ultimately depends on your finances and if you are willing to lift a finger. If your objective is to do nothing, then you might want to ask what is required of you before you accept the meal; either that or sit close to the door so you can make a speedy exit.

* Mooch off a friend, neighbor, or family member - This is perhaps the most common tactic used by people who do not want to cook, by wrangling an invitation into a person's home where you not only enjoy the meal but socialize and consume their libations. If you are not invited, you have to learn how to hint for one, e.g., "What time should I be there?" Very important though, your presence should not be viewed as a burden, which means you have to socialize and volunteer to help out, such as cleaning up. It is also good form to bring something with you, such as a bottle of wine, flowers, or perhaps a side dish (check with your host/hostess first). Whatever you do, master the art of thanking the host/hostess graciously. The point is, if you contribute nothing, it is highly unlikely you will be invited back.

* Hospitals - It is also possible to check yourself into the hospital for the day, at which time you'll be treated to a comfortable bed and a full course of some rather bland food. It all depends if your insurance is paid up, otherwise it can be an expensive proposition.

These are just a few of the ways to avoid cooking during Thanksgiving. I'm sure there are many others, but these are the most common. As for me, I simply resign myself to the task and try to make the best of it. Heck, we even have fun.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

UPGRADING COMPUTERS AND THE HASSLES THEREOF

2011-11-20T11:16:00.000-05:00

My Windows XP computer finally died last week after six years of loyal service. The symptoms began with a fluttering screen which made everything appear to be swimming and caused some rather serious eye strain on my part. I also noticed a strange whirling of my hard drive caused by my swapper file (which is used to handle virtual memory). At first, I thought it was nothing more than the monitor going out, but discovered the video card on my motherboard was dying. In other words, it was time. Wanting to ease its pain, I pulled out my .45 and shot it square between the hard drive thereby ending its misery. Fortunately, I had everything backed up to a portable external drive so I knew I was safe.

Our company is probably better than most in taking care of our equipment, thereby stretching out the longevity of the computer. We still have operational hardware and software that is more than twenty years old, much to the chagrin of the various vendors. No, we do not believe in regularly contributing to their cash flow. In this case though, the hard drive and video card died and it was time to upgrade, like it or not.

The machine was replaced by a new box which quadrupled the amount of memory, and hard drive space, not to mention processor speed. I took it to the office and swapped out the old with the new and booted up the computer. The machine came with Windows 7 Professional pre-installed and the start-up time was surprisingly nominal. After using Windows products for a long time now I had grown accustomed to a lot of "hurry up and wait" time. If you haven't guessed by now, No, I am most definitely not a fan of the operating system as I consider it a necessary evil that suits the masses. I view it more as mass mediocrity as opposed to state of the art. Nonetheless, Bill Gates and company laughs all the way to the bank.

After the computer started, I registered the product on-line and installed an anti-virus product, a lesson I learned the hard way years ago. I then moved my files over from the backup device, downloaded new Internet programs, and organized the desktop. So far, so good. Next, I tried to install some older programs I actively used for a number of years, one of which was Lotus SmartSuite which competes with MS Office. Consequently, I wasn't too surprised when Win7 informed me Lotus could not be installed. Next was a copy of Adobe Pagemaker which was also prohibited from loading. And finally, a DOS based financial package we've used for years. Admittedly, we probably should have upgraded these products over the years, but we didn't as they satisfied our needs. Nonetheless, we had thought Win7 would provide a migration path for such older programs but they do not. We also tried to change the "Compatibility" settings to run these programs under Windows XP which, of course, did not work. Basically, we were stuck. Other than these programs though, everything operated properly under Win7.

My next dilemma came when I tried to print a document on our Lexmark wireless printer which is about three years old. Unfortunately, Win7 wouldn't connect with the machine. I installed the printer driver numerous times before researching the problem on the Internet where I discovered there was an incompatibility issue for this particular printer. I went to a Microsoft web site who claimed to have a correction for the problem. Alas, it was the same drivers I was installing earlier. In other words, if I wanted to keep the computer, it was time to purchase a new printer, and the price of computing kept going up.

All said and done, installation of the new computer took approximately two days of my time which I could have obviously spent more productively elsewhere. I finally came to terms with my new computer and am now using it as part of my daily business life, despite its inadequacies and incompatibilities. I think we're all familiar with Microsoft commercial where users proudly proclaim, "I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea." Frankly, if it truly was the idea of these ignoramuses, they're not particularly bright. I for one am NOT a PC, and Windows 7 was certainly not my idea but, as usual, we're stuck with it.

Having been in the systems business for over three thirty years now, I am probably more adept at upgrading computers than most people. However, the thought occurred to me, if I am having this much trouble, imagine what John Q. Public is experiencing. No wonder everyone is depressed as we are all made to feel inferior by our technology. I only wish the people would Occupy Microsoft as opposed to Wall Street.

As to my older programs I can no longer run on Win7, I have moved them to an old WinXP machine where they keep chugging away. I really resent being extorted to upgrade. As for my office suite of programs, I guess I'm off to Google Docs. Meanwhile my 20 year old OS/2 computers sit quietly in the corner, still running, and no crashing. Yea, it is possible to build a reliable operating system, but don't tell Microsoft.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THOSE DAMN MANGROVE TREES

2011-11-17T11:34:00.000-05:00

If you've visited our office in Palm Harbor, Florida, you know we work in a charming Key West style building on stilts. It was built this way because of our close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and related flooding regulations. It's actually a cozy office offering comfortable quarters for us. There is only one problem with it, nobody can find us from the street. In front of our office, is a small drainage ditch which parallels the highway. It's actually more than your typical ditch as it runs into a nearby estuary connected to the Gulf. This means we can watch the tides go in and out during the day. It also means we have some rather interesting plant life growing in and around the ditch, namely mangroves.

A mangrove is not a particularly attractive tree. In fact, it is a rather unassuming scrub tree of medium-height (about twenty feet) that grows in saline coastal sediment habitats. It's a very evasive jungle-like plant with a tangled root structure. Because of our climate, Florida is one of the few areas in the country supporting the species which causes environmentalists to become sensitive about their protection. Regrettably, mangroves took up residence in our ditch before we moved into our office and grew rather prolifically. So much so, you cannot see the street from our property which is a good thing in one regard (by offering privacy and muffling highway noise), but it also conceals our property, making it difficult for customers and vendors to locate us. In fact our office is only visible from the driveway which means if you blink your eyes as you travel down the road, you will likely miss our office, as many people do. Even the post office, who should in theory know all of the routes to deliver mail, frequently have trouble locating our office. Consequently, we rented a post office box as opposed to depending on mail finding its way to our door.

Obviously, this is cause for concern as we want people to easily see our office from the street, not only to locate us, but also to promote our business. Our first inclination was to cut back the mangroves to a more reasonable height, such as five or six feet. We certainly did not want to eliminate them as they offer us some privacy, we just wanted them cut back a bit to make our office more inviting from the street. We then contacted the county to try and determine what regulations were required for such a job. After spending considerable time traversing the county's bureaucracy, we finally located the gentleman in charge of the mangroves who made it clear, obnoxiously so I might add, the trees were not to be touched for any reason. In fact, he was extremely irritated we would even entertain cutting the mangroves. We tried to patiently explain our dilemma and intentions but to no avail, the county would not allow anyone to touch them except county workers which, as I was led to believe, would be when hell froze over.

We then began to consider alternatives. First, we brushed up our corporate sign in front of our building to make it more eye-catching. Unfortunately, the mangroves blocked it in such a manner as it could only be seen when traveling in one direction on the street, not both ways, and in the blink of an eye. Next, we painted the office an attractive shade of yellow which we figured would attract attention. The idea was good, but the mangroves still camouflaged the building. Finally, we tried some simple stick signs towards the front of our driveway to let people know we were in here. This idea worked at first but was quickly snuffed out by the county who said our signs were not allowed as they were too close to the road. Maybe we should try a loud 50' Las Vegas neon flashing sign. Then again, there probably is a county regulation against that as well.

What is perhaps most frustrating is it appears there is nobody in the county willing to help us find a solution to our problem, but they sure are quick to take our taxes. I don't know who we angered, but the county bureaucrats sure seem bent on burying us.

So, here we sit, hidden behind those damn mangroves. Every now and then we see a car flash by on the street. Just as a reminder, if you're looking for our office, don't dive too fast on Bayshore Boulevard (aka, US Alternate 19). You'll probably miss us.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

HOW FAR APART IS THE TEA PARTY AND OWS?

2011-11-15T08:22:00.000-05:00

Whereas the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is generally regarded as the left wing of American politics, the Tea Party is considered its right wing counterpart. Although the media tries to draw comparisons between the two, both sides rebuff the other. Their tactics and general philosophy may be different, but the two are actually not as far apart as you might think. To illustrate, OWS organizers recently articulated a list of demands they want the government to implement (see "The 99 Percent Declaration"; alternate Site).

Interestingly, their grievances are essentially no different than the Tea Party's; for example:

* Both sides want to implement campaign reform and revision of lobbying laws.

* Both sides want to enact term limits for government officials.

* Both sides want to implement reforms to our current tax system.

* Both sides want to reduce the national debt.

* Both sides want more jobs for Americans, and curb outsourcing.

* Both sides want to reform our immigration policies.

* Both sides want to ease excessive costs resulting from our military policing of the world.

* Both sides want an end to currency manipulation.

* Both sides want to implement banking and securities reforms, not to mention ending the Fed.

* Both sides want to reform public education.

* And believe it or not, both sides are interested in protecting the planet.

The two sides are far apart on some issues though, such as universal health care, forgiving student loans, mortgage foreclosures, and abolishing the electoral college. However, they are actually not as far apart as you might believe.

The difference between the two groups though is HOW these issues should be addressed. The 99% Declaration lists specific remedies for solving these problems which I believe is a fatal flaw in their declaration. Instead, it should simply define what the problems are as they see it. Maybe their solutions are acceptable, and maybe they are not. The point is, there is too much of a temptation in this country to "leap before you look", to try to offer solutions before we understand the problem. That is like prescribing a treatment before having a doctor examine you. As a patient, it is your responsibility to try to articulate your perception of an ailment to a physician; in contrast, it is the doctor's responsibility to interpret your symptoms, diagnose the problem, and prescribe a suitable treatment, and there may very well be several different treatments to solve a particular problem.

Let me give you an example, Article 4 of the Declaration's grievances discusses, Term Limits: "Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime. Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime." That is a solution. The problem is that people are tired of career politicians who make their livelihood from politics and become less responsive to the interests of their constituents. Their solution may be flawed as well, e.g., are terms to be consecutive? Can they go from one chamber of Congress to another? How about simply abolishing their Congressional pensions instead? Why this particular combination and not something like, "no more than twelve years in Congress" (and let them figure out how to spend it).

In other words, I believe the 99% Declaration should contain nothing but a definition of the problems and then hold a separate convention to discuss alternatives and formulate a suitable solution. Instead, the 99% Declaration is another prime example of "Fire, Aim, Ready" that plagues this country.

As someone who has taught planning and has read many feasibility studies over the years, I commend the OWS for their efforts in producing the 99% Declaration, and recommend all concerned parties read it carefully, including the Tea Party. It is a good first draft, but it needs a considerable amount of polish to make it palatable to Americans as a whole. My recommendation to the authors: concentrate on defining the problem as precisely as possible, deliberate on alternatives, select a suitable solution, and then pitch it to the country. Just remember, it's "Ready, Aim, Fire"; any other sequence is counterproductive.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

BEWARE OF THE WHIZ KIDS

2011-11-13T11:32:00.000-05:00

Back in the 1980's a generation of young MBA's were unleashed on the corporate world and turned it on its ear. These "whiz kids" slashed costs wherever possible, particularly in training programs, mentoring, and reduced administrative personnel. Although their tactics did indeed save money in the short run, they created long-term headaches down the road, such as creating morale problems which lead to a disconnect between workers and their employers, which ultimately lead to outsourcing many jobs overseas. Quality in manufactured goods and services also suffered as a result of less training. Whereas employees had previously been empowered to overcome problems under a spirit of teamwork, managers began to closely supervise workers which today is commonly referred to as "micromanagement." The point is, the whiz kids of the day made a name for themselves simply by implementing short term changes which were highly visible on the next quarterly P&L statement. Although they could show short-term benefits rather quickly, their bean counter approach had devastating long-term effects on many businesses which haunted companies for years.

Today, a new generation of whiz kids have emerged in corporate America who are again charged with turning things around in their companies. Basically, management is hoping to groom their next generation of managers by allowing these "phenoms" to shake things up. Whoever is successful moves up the corporate ladder in much the same way as Donald Trump's "The Apprentice." Realizing they have only a limited time to make a difference, such as six months before they have to move on to their next assignment, they tend to slash costs as opposed to nurturing something new, and God help anyone who gets in their way.

Case in point, I have a friend who for several years has been a supplier to a local division of a Fortune 500 company. Over the years he has developed an excellent relationship with the company who trusts him in terms of securing quality industrial supplies for their manufacturing floor at affordable prices. My friend's company devloped a reputation for going above and beyond the call of duty to serve his client and keep the Fortune 500 division happy. It wasn't cutthroat pricing that sustained the relationship, but competitive pricing coupled with excellent service and prompt delivery. Frankly, this was a classic example of a win-win relationship between two companies where everyone was satisfied until four whiz kids came to town and tried to make a name for themselves.

The company had allotted a sizable sum of money to refurbish the plant. Understandably, my friend's company wanted to bid on a portion of it. A detailed proposal was prepared and submitted by my friend who was told by his inside contacts that his bid looked to be the best. Regrettably, my friend's proposal was rejected by the whiz kids, not because it wasn't competitively priced, not because he couldn't deliver on time, and not because he was quoting inferior materials. Instead, the whiz kids explained to him that his company had won more than its fair share of bids with their company and, consequently, another vendor would be selected. This of course did not sit well with my friend, nor his inside contacts who knew the proposal was the best. Regardless, the whiz kids were bent on getting a lower bid thereby demonstrating their ability to cut costs regardless of whatever feathers they ruffled. After all, they knew they would be transferred somewhere to another division in a few months.

My friend was not going to take this rejection sitting down. Consequently, he arranged a meeting with the whiz kids, their superiors, and his inside contacts. During the course of the meeting, my friend provided a chronology of his company's relationship with the division. He enumerated the many projects his company had worked on, what they had saved the client in terms of money and the services they provided on a gratis basis. The testimonies by his inside contacts added to his credibility. Bottom-line, he gave evidence his company had worked in good faith with the division to save them money and provide quality materials to the satisfaction of all concerned. Management thanked my friend for his presentation and years of service, and informed him they would notify him soon of their decision.

One can only speculate as to what happened next. Suffice it to say, the whiz kids were reprimanded for threatening to disrupt a healthy business relationship, and sent packing to their next assignment. Had it not been for my friend's tenacity, not only would his company had lost considerable business, but the Fortune 500 division would have lost a trusted business partner.

The point is, whiz kids walk a dangerous tightrope. They cannot expect to simply come in and slash and burn existing programs and not expect someone to challenge them. True, large companies need to groom the next generation of managers but I question the wisdom of assigning people to such short term assignments where they may make some crippling decisions by mistake. In my friend's case, he took them to task, but there are a lot of people who would not, hence the problems we experienced in the 1980's. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with the whiz kids phenomenon is that it encourages quick and dirty thinking as opposed to long-range planning.

There is nothing wrong with having some young Mustangs running in the herd, they just need to be watched carefully or they'll start a stampede in the wrong direction.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

EQUALITY OF DRIVING

2011-11-10T09:42:00.000-05:00

Whenever I have somewhere to go with friends or family, I normally volunteer to drive. When people ask me why I do so, I explain it is not simply because I enjoy the act of driving, as much as I somehow appreciate the equality involved. Let me explain. It occurred to me a long time ago that driving is one of the few venues in the world that doesn't recognize a socioeconomic class structure, race or religion. Regardless if you are a multimillionaire driving a Rolls Royce or Lamborghini, a bum driving a jalopy, or anything in-between, driving requires everyone to behave equally. Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief, everyone is on the level and must behave as such in order for this important transportation system to work. And for some reason, knowing I can start each day on the level with everyone else is encouraging to me.

Some people are easily wowed when they see an expensive automobile on the road. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you drive or who you think you are. We're all equal on the road as any member of the Law Enforcement community can attest. They only care the rules are being observed and traffic is flowing unimpeded. Other than that, they are unconcerned with your stature, regardless if you are a politician, celebrity, millionaire, or whatever.

Some see driving as analogous to socialism whereby we must all move along on the roadways equally. Well, not quite. I see it more akin to capitalism where I can drive as ambitiously or lackadaisically as I am inclined to be, not to mention courteous or rude. Nonetheless, I am responsible for my actions. If I decide to drive recklessly, I may incur a moving violation or perhaps worse, such as an accident. In this event, I will have to pay the bill, not the other motorists. To my way of thinking, I see each day as another chapter where I must get from point A to point B in the most efficient means possible. In other words, a capitalistic race to the top.

My grandfather, who moved to this country from England following the first World War, also loved to drive his car everywhere. So much so, he would even drive his car down the block just to post a letter in the mailbox. His car was his pride and joy, and he would go to great lengths to keep it clean and running smoothly. His pride of ownership clearly demonstrated he was a capitalist.

The one bit of satisfaction I get on the highway is when I either outmaneuver the millionaire in the Lamborghini or watch him get a ticket for speeding. Either way, I realize the system works. Yep, I'm a capitalist too.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

COLLEGE LOAN DEBT: DIGGING A DEEPER HOLE

2011-11-08T11:31:00.001-05:00

Most Americans are familiar with the vast debt our country has compiled ($14.8T as of this writing and growing steadily). We are also acutely aware of the burden of mortgages and credit card debt, particularly in this age of high unemployment. As if things weren't bad enough, a new statistic has emerged courtesy of the College Board who reports student loans are about to cross the $1T threshold as students are borrowing twice as much as just a decade ago and the outstanding debt has doubled in the last five years alone. The debt is growing so rapidly that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently calculated this will make Americans owe more on student loans than credit cards, which is a frightening thought (see Northern Voices Online, 10/21/2011).

Not surprising, among the demands made by the young "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is to have their college loans expunged. Such loans are typically sponsored by the federal government and private financial institutions. To expunge them would mean the taxpayers and private financial institutions would get stuck with their bill which would obviously compound an already overbearing debt. Plain and simply, it wouldn't be fair; not fair to those who paid for their education, and not fair for taxpayers to pay a tab which others incurred.

Americans place a lot of emphasis on education but we should be mindful of the fact that attending college is not a right, but a privilege. During the Depression years prior to World War II, there was no more than 1.4M college level students attending approximately 1.7K institutions of higher education. Today, according to the Digest of Education Statistics, over 19.1M students attend 4.4K colleges, a quantum increase. Since the 1960's alone, when colleges experienced an influx of students seeking refuge from the Viet Nam war, enrollment has more than doubled. Back in the Depression, money was scarce and, as such, it was common for all of the members of a family to work, often sacrificing higher education in the process. Back then, a High School diploma was considered a prestigious achievement. Even a Junior High diploma was prized as some people could not afford to rise above this level.

Unless something radical happens to our economy, I suspect enrollment has peaked in this country and will likely begin to diminish sharply. This will inevitably lead to downsizing of faculty and administrative staff and some campus doors will be forced to close. We've already started to see this here in Florida and I suspect we're not any different than the rest of the country in this regard.

So, am I a fan of expunging college loans? Hardly, nor am I a proponent of waiving credit card debt. I can appreciate the dilemma people face in paying off such bills, but a deal is a deal. Where I come from, people who renege on their debt are called "deadbeats," and I fear we are grooming a generation of them, people who do not understand what it means to live within their means. The only benefit I see emerging from this is that people will begin to realize attending college is a privilege, not a right, and a college education will no longer be taken for granted.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

MY FIRST WEDDING

2011-11-07T10:41:00.000-05:00

I conducted my first wedding ceremony recently. As a Notary Public in the State of Florida, you can perform such a service, and we are but one of three states that permit this (the other two are South Carolina and Maine). I became a Notary a couple of years ago as it comes in handy to process legal paperwork, but I had never imagined doing a wedding service. Earlier this year, a young friend approached me about doing a service for a friend of hers. At first I was startled by the request, but then said, "Why not?"

I take the institution of marriage rather seriously and figured I would not treat it as frivolously as some people do. As such, I sat down with the bride-to-be and had a heart-to-heart talk with her about why she wanted to get married. We talked for quite a long time. I discussed my marriage, which has lasted over 30 years so far, and the sacrifices, compromises and challenges involved. We also openly talked about religion, children, finances, commitment, even pets. After a lengthy discussion, she came to understand my point-of-view and I became convinced of her love and commitment to her fiancé who was just being transferred to another state as part of his job. As an aside, I wish someone would have consulted me in this manner prior to my wedding in order to solidify my intentions. Only after we felt comfortable with each other did she ask me if I would perform the ceremony for her. I informed her this would be my first such ceremony, but I would put forth my best effort for her.

Several months passed and the bride kept me updated of schedules. During this time I located a simple wedding oath that complies with Florida regulations. It was hardly lengthy, but quite respectable nonetheless. The whole service would take less than ten minutes to perform which made me a little nervous as I tend to think of traditional weddings in terms of at least an hour to perform, but such was not the case and certainly not what the couple wanted.

We conducted a rehearsal on the day before the wedding at the site, which was a prominent hotel located on Tampa Bay. The practice was held late in the day at approximately the same time it was to be held on the following day. It was here that I met all of the relatives, bridesmaids and groomsmen. The service was to be held on a private beach of limited size (approximately 30" X 60") which, at the time, still had beach chairs on it and two Corn Toss games in the middle of it. I tried to imagine how over 100 people would be seated on the beach, and if they would be playing Corn Toss during the ceremony. The wedding coordinator from the hotel assured me everything would be cleared and setup appropriately for tomorrow's service.

The rehearsal went off without a hitch and under ten minutes, much to the delight of the wedding coordinator and the bride and groom. My only concern was the prospect of the couple tearing up during the service as they warned might happen during the rehearsal (and did). Note to self: bring a pack of tissues tomorrow in case the waterworks get out of hand.

On the day of the wedding, my wife and I arrived an hour early so I could prepare myself and get the necessary paperwork in order. The reception was to be held immediately afterwards next to the hotel pool where staff was busy making last minute preparations. It was a beautiful Florida fall day with a slight sea breeze coming in off the water. Frankly, it was picture perfect, everything was in order, and attendees began to arrive for the ceremony.

As part of the service, the couple had two large bulldogs which were important to the family. One was dressed to represent the groom and sported a top hat, the other represented the bride and wore a light dress. My fear was that the dogs wouldn't behave properly or perhaps have an "accident" in front of the audience, which was a horrible mental image I worried about. Fortunately it was not to be, and the audience found them to be a rather charming addition to the wedding party.

As for me, a lot of people knew this was my first wedding service and kept asking me if I was nervous. Now I'll admit I would like to see the service come and go without any flaws, but having spoken in front of many audiences over the years, I hardly suffered from any stage fright. I just wanted to do my part as dignified as possible. As is common for Florida beach weddings, the wedding was somewhat casual in nature. Although the bride wore a beautiful white dress, the groom wore a comfortable Tommy Bahama outfit, also in white. The groomsmen and bridesmaids were quite casual as well, as were the dogs who behaved admirably. However, as the official in charge of the ceremony I resisted the temptation to go too casual and wore a suit and tie instead, thereby denoting an authoritative figure which I felt was important.

At the designated time, the service began and I took my position at the front of the audience on the beach who were seated in organized chairs in front of me. To my left was the groom and his groomsmen, along with the bulldog wearing a top hat. The bridesmaids then came down separately as is customary and positioned themselves to my right, with the other dog in tow. The bride was then escorted down the aisle by both her mother and father. I could see some slight moisture in her eyes and I reached in my pocket to check for the tissues.

We then began the service and I methodically delivered it speaking slowly but somewhat loudly as the acoustics were less than ideal on the beach. As we came to the portion of the ceremony for the couple to exchange rings and say, "I give you this ring as a token and pledge of our constant faith and abiding love," I could see the waterworks beginning to erupt, first the bride, then the groom. I went to reach for the tissues in my pocket but it was too late. I then quickly issued my pronouncement that the couple was legally wedded and invited the groom to kiss his bride, which surprisingly wasn't too hard for me to sell. The audience sprung to its feet and applauded. The wedding party then withdrew in an orderly procession and I concluded the ceremony.

Interestingly, several people in attendance assumed I was either a minister or holy man. I was receiving handshakes and nods of approval from different people much how I had seen people talk to members of the clergy after a church service. I relished the mistaken identity for a few moments, but then burst their bubble when I lit up a cigar and ordered a scotch from the bar. It was then that I began to overhear people saying, "You mean Notaries can marry people here in Florida?"

Towards the end of the evening, when my wife and I decided to depart, I stopped to talk to the newlyweds one last time. As I gave them their paperwork signed and sealed, I implored them to be good to each other, in good times as well as in bad. I also admonished them, "When a Bryce marries you, you stay married." Being a Notary Public is one thing, taking the institution of marriage seriously is something else. I would like to believe I was successful in my debut.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE "99%" IS ONLY 65%

2011-11-03T08:30:00.000-04:00

The people currently protesting under the banner of "Occupy Wall Street" contend they represent 99% of the people being ruled by the 1% super rich who somehow manipulates the government and the economy. This of course is a gross oversimplification of the class structure in our society. Back in 1897, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. "Pareto's Principle," as it came to be known, or the "80/20 Rule" relates to the ratio of input to output; e.g. 20% of the people are normally responsible for producing 80% of the work, and from an economic perspective, 80% of the wealth is generated by only 20% of the people. This number has remained reliable over the years, which means under a capitalistic society there will always be a 20% group representing entrepreneurs and business leaders. Of the remaining 80%, there will always be approximately 15% who will remain poor. Despite the billions of dollars the country has spent on the war on poverty, this number has varied ever so slightly over the years. This leaves a middle class of approximately 65% of the populace.

Under capitalism a person is allowed to earn and spend money as he/she sees fit, which includes all classes, not just one. The only exception to this is when we pay taxes where the rules are established by the government. In a republic, which is what we have in this country and not a pure democracy, the people elect officials to represent their interests and make such decisions. From this perspective, the only control the people have over taxation is by electing effective representatives. As part of the 53% of the populace who pays taxes (47% do not), I make it a point to exercise my right to vote. Following the capitalist concept of what you spend, you own, it seems to me only true taxpayers should have the right to vote. After all, we're paying for the government aren't we?

The danger in establishing a country of "haves" and "have nots", of course, is that you establish an adversarial relationship which naturally leads to class warfare, a dangerous reality we currently face. Under capitalism, the one reality we must recognize is there will always be the rich (20%), there will always be the poor (15%), and everyone else represents the middle class (65%). As I have written, the problem is not with capitalism, but rather with government policies inhibiting capitalism to correctly function.

I am reminded of this quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln who said in this regard:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

I may not be among the elite, but I do consider myself part of the 65% of the middle class who pays his taxes (you remember, the 53% group). Like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, I'm mad as hell as to what is going on economically in this country. The difference is, my anger is aimed at the government, not Wall Street, and those who are trying to undermine capitalism in this country. Make no mistake, I am an ant, not a grasshopper.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

IN DEFENSE OF CAPITALISM

2011-11-01T08:37:00.000-04:00

As the country grows increasingly frustrated over its worsening economic condition, the public points an accusing finger at the super rich, and capitalism which is often vilified as the principal cause of the problem. Frankly, capitalism is getting a bad rap by its detractors and, unfortunately, there are naive people who gullibly believe it to be guilty of a number of sins. The fact is, capitalism propelled America past the rest of the world by creating a substantial middle class thereby creating an engine to power the world's economy. Unfortunately, capitalism is misunderstood. Some see it as nothing more than focused on profits at all costs. True, the goal of capitalism is to be successful and profits are a measurement of success, but there is more to it than just profits, much more.

First, capitalism coupled with America's interpretation of freedom means the country is the "Land of Opportunity"; that everyone has the freedom to try and improve their position in life by working at any endeavor of their choosing, either as an employee of a company or to start their own business. Either way, capitalism means you have a "right to try", nothing more, nothing less. You may be successful in your efforts or you may fail, and both extremes are essential for capitalism to succeed. Failure is every bit as important as success. Without failure, or at least the threat of it, you will not appreciate the concept of risk and it is unlikely you will change how you conduct business. Risk, therefore, is an essential part of capitalism.

Today, we hear of such things as government sponsored "bailout" and "stimulus" programs which have saved American banks, mortgage lenders, and the automotive industry. Under capitalism, these mega-companies should have been forced to either close their doors, restructure their operations, or find alternative financing. As executives of their businesses, it is their responsibility to steer the ship, nobody else. Having the government preempt failure of these businesses is unnatural and anti-capitalistic, simply because they have eliminated failure from the equation. If these companies had closed their doors, new ones would have doubtless emerged, and much smarter than their predecessors.

As an analogy, I am reminded of the game of Craps as found in casinos. Understand this, in all casino games, the house enjoys a winning percentage. They are certainly not going to offer a game they know will consistently lose money. So the trick is to find the game with the lowest house winning percentage. Me, I'm a Craps shooter. I understand the odds and the risks involved; I will either win or I will lose. If I begin to lose, I will change my strategy and play the game differently, but one thing is for certain, when I'm busted, nobody is going to bail me out, least of all the casino. I am solely responsible for my wins as well as my losses. That is as vivid an analogy to capitalism as I can think of.

The golden rule of any business is to maximize productivity and minimize costs. Failure to do so will naturally result in failure. This brings up an important aspect to capitalism, everyone participating in business is responsible for his/her actions and decisions, and must be held accountable for them. There is no free ride. Accountability is an inherent property of capitalism. If you are successful, you reap the rewards; if you fail though, you lose. This naturally scares people who are afraid of risk. Others thrive on it, particularly those with an entrepreneurial spirit. Regardless if you are successful or a failure, capitalism requires people to be personally responsible for their own actions, and nobody else.

Regardless of the equipment and advanced technology available, we must recognize all work is performed through people. The smart capitalist, therefore, respects the dignity of the human spirit and the importance of each person to lead a worthy and productive life. After all, if companies invest heavily in the tools of their trade, it would make sense they also invest in the people who will be operating the tools. The challenge becomes devising a suitable corporate culture for workers to productively work and thrive in, a culture empowering workers to excel and create superior work products at competitive prices. This means cultivating workers in terms of their training and education, working in accordance to high standards of excellence and moral values, and to compensate them with a fair and competitive wage. Plain and simply, investing in people is good business, as any successful capitalist can attest to.

When a company begins to cut corners and sacrifices workmanship, not just to save money but to increase profit margin instead, then in all likelihood greed is slowly creeping into the organization. True, capitalism is not impervious to greed and corruption, but neither is socialism as greed is a human frailty. As long as management makes smart business decisions and maintains high moral standards, greed can be kept at bay.

In my travels through the corporate world, I have seen capitalism do some great things in just about every field of endeavor imaginable. It produces products and services the public openly embraces, it has built impressive buildings and other structures we take pride in, and it has created the standard of living we are all familiar with today. Capitalism has proven itself as a viable economic engine time and again, and is rapidly being embraced throughout the world, even in Communist states, both former and current.

The only thing that can adversely affect capitalism is when the government intercedes and tampers with the underpinnings of it, such as inhibiting failure or piling on regulations choking it from behaving naturally. By its sheer nature, capitalism is an evolutionary approach to business whereby the strongest survive and the weaker companies disappear. When unleashed, capitalism promotes innovation and invention naturally. When inhibited by government though, capitalism stagnates and businesses face extermination. Government's role should be nothing more than to open doors and check for unscrupulous business practices. Other than that, they should stay out of the way.

No, capitalism is not the problem. It is a proven economic system if it is allowed to behave naturally. So, when casting aspersions as to who is at fault for our current economic woes, the fingers should be pointed at the nations capitol, not Wall Street. We also share a piece of the blame ourselves as we have become apathetic and, in the process, allowed the country to morally deteriorate before our eyes.

I am proud to call myself an unabashed capitalist. The fact that our small business has survived for over forty years, has serviced customers all over the world, and made money in the process without cheating anyone is a testament to capitalism.

"No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism—and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea . . . of its actual nature."
- Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

ARE AWARDS REALLY IMPORTANT?

2011-10-30T16:53:00.000-04:00

I recently snuck away for a little fly fishing in North Carolina with a couple of friends who happen to be illustrators, very respectable ones I might add. One is a personal friend I have known for many years and although we have different professional backgrounds, we inevitably talk about business. The art industry is a highly competitive field, probably because colleges have been churning out a glut of artists, illustrators, and graphic designers over the years. Compounding the problem is the computer which greatly leverages the ability of even the most mediocre talent. Frankly though, companies do not care whether a piece of artwork was created by hand or with computer assistance. They just want a graphic which will enhance an article, a magazine, a book, or whatever. This means the graphics business is not just competitive, but fiercely so.

Within the art world, there is a multitude of awards for excellence at the local, regional, and national levels, even some international awards. All are considered prestigious to a certain degree, some more than others, and artists and illustrators regularly enter their work in hopes of gaining some recognition. In particular, young people crave such awards in the hopes it will boost their career and look good on a resume. As my illustrator friends were quick to point out, such awards may be useful for stroking one's ego, but they certainly do not put food on the table. Consequently, it is not uncommon for winners of such awards to bypass award presentations as they are more focused on their next job.

You typically find more awards in the arts as opposed to the sciences, even though they have their fair share as well. Instead, sciences rely more on certifications denoting a person is properly skilled to perform a certain task. Whereas, awards stroke the ego, certificates offer prima facie evidence of your qualifications. It means you have passed certain tests of workmanship.

As my friends correctly pointed out, your job performance is more important than any award you can win. The applause of your customers is much more important than winning the esteem of your critics and contemporaries. Satisfied customers represent repetitive business and a more consistent cash flow. They also make better references than any award.

If you find yourself being squeezed between working on a billable job and winning an award, don't think twice about it, take the money and run. Your work is much more important than any award.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

LICENSE PLATES

2011-10-27T08:17:00.000-04:00

For many years, automobile license plates came in basically two colors. Each plate listed the state name at the top, the tag number in the middle, and perhaps a state motto on the bottom, such as "Land of Lincoln" (IL), "Constitution State" (CT), "Empire State" (NY), "Sunshine State" (FL), etc. That was it; simple and easy to read. Somewhere along the way though, license plates evolved into sophisticated bumper stickers which allowed their owners to proudly make a statement of some kind to the world. It started with vanity plates where the owner could pay a little extra to arrange the characters on the license plate to their liking. For example, since the "PRIDE" methodology was our main product for many years, we had an Ohio license plate made with the word printed on it. As nice as our plate looked, it was still nothing more than blue letters on white, or white on green (depending on the year we reordered it).

Somewhere in the 1980's someone finally figured out that license plates lacked "pizzazz" and started introducing graphical images on the plates to make them look more appealing, a sort of p.r. tool for the states. In Florida, for example, a light green image of the state was placed in the middle of the plate with two oranges and blossoms over it to denote our famous citrus industry. This graphic has been with us for a long time now and has become an icon of the state. Many other states followed suit and soon a race was on as to who could design the most eye catching state license plate.

Even though vanity plates had been with us for some time, people next wanted to express their allegiance to a specific organization they belong to or a cause worth supporting, and to do so, a wide array of new plates were introduced which people could obtain, for a tidy fee. I suspect Florida is not too different than a lot of states in this regard. Now instead of a single plate, which is still available by default, people can purchase designer based license plates to support such things as the university they graduated from, a favorite professional sports team, branches of the military, a favorite conservation project, or some other special interest. In Florida alone there are 120 different types of designer plates available:

24 - Environmental ("Save the Florida Panther" or "Manatee", etc.)
36 - Universities (FSU, UF, USF, Miami, and many others)
51 - Misc (military and charities)
9 - Professional Sports (Tampa, Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonville)
120 - TOTAL

Soon there will be 121 for the "Veterans of Foreign Wars." For environmental issues or charities, the extra money charged for the plate is donated to the cause, less the state's cut. One of the more avant-garde license plates I've come across in Florida is the John Lennon "Imagine" plate which includes the iconic Lennon self portrait he drew years ago. I wasn't exactly sure what this plate stood for; at first I thought Florida was now allowing people to put their favorite Rock and Roll band on license plates causing me to wonder if they had one for "Black Sabbath." As it turned out, the Lennon plate supported Florida's Food Banks in reference to Lennon's lyrics, "Imagine no greed or hunger..."

It must be difficult for Florida state troopers to stay abreast of valid license plates. Not only must they stay abreast of the 120+ versions of Florida's plates, but they have to keep an eye on all the permeations of northern "snowbird" plates as brought down during the winter months. I do not envy the troopers having to figure out what is a legitimate plate and which is a phony. I think I would be a bit suspicious if I saw the "Black Sabbath" plate.

The only other group affected by this are the state prisoners who are normally charged with manufacturing license plates. One good thing about the variety of tags now available though, it should certainly break up the monotony of having to produce a single plate. After all, we have to keep our prisoners busy, don't we?

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

OUR NATIONAL GOAL: ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

2011-10-25T08:32:00.000-04:00

Back in 1962, President Kennedy challenged the country to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and by doing so he established a national objective for us to aspire to. We met that goal and won the space race. In the process, we created new technologies, industries, jobs, and promoted education in the process. Basically, it reinvigorated the country, bringing us out of the doldrums, and created a boom-time in business. It was a win-win scenario all around, but that was then, this is now. Today, the space program is considered passé and the country is experiencing economic stagnation. Frankly, we don't know where we are going anymore, except possibly in circles.

We should learn a thing or two from Kennedy's challenge and establish a new goal. Perhaps it should be underwater research, fix the national infrastructure, or devise a new rapid transit system. To me, the logical choice would be to establish energy independence as our national priority, thereby freeing us from Middle Eastern entanglements and economic extortion.

Such a national goal would invigorate education, particularly in the areas of geology, engineering, and mathematics. New technologies would inevitably be devised to access and cultivate energy resources. We already know there are huge reserves of untapped oil, gas, and coal in this country which we should capitalize on. Beyond this, there is the prospect of nuclear, wind, solar, and oceanic energies which we should continue to pursue. Whoever masters the energy resources of the world commands their own destiny. Currently though, we are forced to dance to somebody else's fiddle which does not bode well for our economic well-being.

4.3 billion barrels of oil have been discovered in Montana and North Dakota, easily dwarfing oil production in the Middle East. We are also sitting on a huge gas field in Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and Western New York. And let us not forget the other billions of barrels of oil in Alaska and off our shores. Such resources offer a golden opportunity to relieve our economic plight as exemplified by the current oil rush in North Dakota and Montana where jobs are aplenty.

The challenge, of course, is extracting the energy without harming our environment, which is why we need a national challenge to meet our demand without hurting ourselves. Like Kennedy, this requires presidential leadership which, unfortunately, is lacking at this time. The benefits are simply too numerous to overlook. A national energy objective would put the country back to work, promote education, research and development of technology, and free us from foreign entanglements which have plagued us for years.

A single clearly articulated statement of our national resolve could work wonders for us right now. It would give us a sense of direction and hope. There are countries who command gold reserves, diamonds and minerals, etc. Frankly, I'll settle for being the energy merchant of the world. Everybody else will be forced to fall in line behind us.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE 99% COMPLETE SYNDROME

2011-10-23T10:43:00.000-04:00

It is an undocumented fact that the last 1% of anything takes longer than the other 99%. There are plenty of examples to support this argument, perhaps none quite as visible as the progress bars we see on computers. You know, those little bars telling you how you are progressing in the installation of software or the execution of a program. More often than not, such progress bars seem to race through the first 99% like a blazing track star, yet when we get to that last 1% it seems to slow down to a snail's pace.

I have also witnessed this same phenomenon in project management situations. As we were building our office in Florida our contractor proudly proclaimed he was 99% complete and we should prepare ourselves to move in. Interestingly, that last 1% dragged on for days, weeks, and even a few months, thereby delaying inspections and prohibiting our move.

In the Information Technology field, it is difficult to get a realistic picture of how much work remains on a project. Programmers love to announce they are 99% complete in writing their programs, but somehow that last 1% never seems to come to conclusion. Either something was wrong in the design of their software they hadn't anticipated, something had changed, or gremlins had compounded their best efforts. Regardless, the project never ends.

This phenomenon is related to our perspective on work, specifically, "Is the glass half empty or half filled?" Instead of focusing on the work completed, people should be more concerned with the amount of effort remaining. For example, instead of asking about percentages, workers should be constantly evaluating the amount of effort required to complete remaining tasks in hours. Only after this is known should we consider the application of percentages, not before. Unfortunately, that is not the mindset in most project environments. Instead, people tend to consider the amount of work expended against the original estimate, not the remaining effort. This is certainly not a realistic or reliable way of reporting progress. It is pure fantasy.

Surprisingly, there are still quite a few project management packages allowing people to post percentages as opposed to automatically calculating it based on the estimate of hours remaining on project tasks which is simply ludicrous.

So, next time you hear someone claim they are 99% complete with something, it means they still have a long way to go and the person hasn't got a clue when it will be completed, but it's close...maybe. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw the final two minutes of a football game finish within 120 seconds? I've never seen it either.

"The last 1% of a project can take as long as the first 99%." - Bryce's Law

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

TRUE FRIENDS

2011-10-20T10:51:00.000-04:00

Over the years I have been fortunate to have had a handful of people I could genuinely call "True Friends." To me, there is a difference between having "friends" and those considered True Friends. A True Friend is someone who not only shares your interests, but has a personality very compatible with your own. So much so, you are not afraid to share your personal thoughts and problems with him/her and respect their opinion. You laugh together, play together, share troubles together, and sometimes work together. In this respect, a True Friend becomes an extended part of your family. He/she may not be your spouse, but a True Friend will know you almost as well. True Friends serve an important purpose for our soul, to be a sounding board for our triumphs, our failures and frustrations, our sense of right and wrong, our insecurities, and our ambitions. From a self analysis perspective, a True Friend is vital to help satisfy our desire for guidance and approval. Such a sounding board is invaluable to our mental well-being. Family is one thing, True Friends are something else. The fact that a person comes from outside the family circle means they will have a different perspective and will offer you a fresh point-of-view that you will probably not find in your natural family.

Remarkably, there are many people who may have had plenty of friends, but never a True Friend. True Friendship requires trust and respect whereby you trust a person will not betray a confidence and you respect their judgment and opinion. To do so means you must reveal glimpses of your personality and character to your friend until you are convinced they will maintain your best interests and not ridicule or blab your inner thoughts to others. And herein lies the rub; some people are frightened by the mere prospect of ridicule or judgment by others, and thereby refuse to open their kimono to anyone, possibly even their spouses. Their deepest and darkest secrets stay locked up in their consciousness intermixed among many other frivolous insecurities. In other words, there is no release mechanism to relieve stress thereby inviting a variety of personality disorders, such as paranoia, persecution, rationalization, loneliness, etc.

I have known many people who could socialize well, but remained guarded over their personality and consequently had no true friends. While some exhibit narcissistic characteristics, I have met others who appeared rather normal, perhaps because they were supremely confident in their ability to make decisions and pass judgment. I have met others who desperately yearn for someone to talk to, other than their spouses, yet are frightened to confide in another person, regardless of how long they have known them. Such people can certainly be friendly, but they will drift through life never knowing what a True Friend is. Like a marriage, True Friendship requires give and take. In order to know more about another person, you have to give more of yourself. It is certainly not a one-way street.

True Friends do not abandon each other. Even if you physically move great distances away, the friendship remains intact. One of the benefits I have enjoyed with my True Friends is the ability to pick up where we left off. We may not have seen each other for years, but we intuitively know each other. If I telephone them, there is no pretenses, we just carry on from where we left off. We simply know each other too well.

True Friends fill a void we desperately need from a psychological perspective. The death of such a person can be as traumatic as the loss of a family member. A little bit of us dies with that person as our sounding board, our confidant, our inner thoughts are ultimately buried with that person.

You have to pity the people who have never experienced the joy of a True Friend.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE PAVLOVIAN EFFECT IN POLITICS

2011-10-19T08:26:00.000-04:00

Ivan Pavlov was a Russian physiologist who is best remembered for his work on "conditioned reflex" in the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century. His work was primarily concerned with modifying behavior based on repetitive conditioning. His experiments are still well known, particularly with dogs where he observed they began to salivate the moment food was introduced, but he also performed similar experiments on children with similar success. Pavlov's work was well regarded by the young Soviet government, including Lenin who saw the value of his experiments. His behavioral research led to such things as memory implantation and brainwashing.

Pavlov may be long gone but his work is very much a part of our lives today. To illustrate, if you use the expression, "The rich should pay their fair share of taxes," some people instantly assume the rich have been cheating the government, that they are misers (and bad people), and should be coerced to pay more than they currently do as punishment. Trying to persuade people otherwise is futile. They do not think about the statement; instead it is simply an image stamped on their mind that they have been conditioned to act on instantly. "Trickle down economics" is a similar political catch phrase that generates a similar response. People don't know what it really means, whether it is a valid concept or not, but they have been conditioned to believe it is evil.

A similar phenomenon occurs when people accuse the Tea Party of racism. Consequently, the masses develop a conditioned response that all Tea Partiers are racists. The fact there are people of all colors and denominations in the Tea Party is immaterial to those indoctrinated like Pavlov's dog.

A lot of this is fostered by the media who has the ability to transmit selected images and sound bites over and over again until it becomes second nature to their audience. The media is also the self-appointed Political Correctness (PC) police. If a word is deliberately or accidentally misspoken, said out of context or does not conform to the current rules of political correctness, the audience is stunned by the statement and the speaker is savagely assaulted by the PC police. For example, if you use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay", you are instantly labeled a "homophobe" or "hate monger." As an aside, I find it amusing to see a Hollywood movie from the 1930's where people openly admit they had a "gay" time at a party last night (I'll bet they didn't know homosexuals were invited).

The disturbing part of the Pavlovian effect in American politics is that you are guilty until proven innocent, and in most cases it is impossible to clear your name as the public has these preconceived notions indelibly stamped on their psyche. You cannot argue or have logical discourse with such people as their responses have been conditioned by endless media and political spin.

We now live in an age of sound bites and brief images which people are more inclined to grasp than to seek the truth. They're small, they're simple, and easy to digest. If said or shown repetitively via the media, the audience will be conditioned to salivate on queue.

I seriously doubt our forefathers could survive in the 21st century. There is no doubt people like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would be chewed up and spit out by the politics of today. As for someone like Mark Twain or Will Rogers, who spoke candidly about social conditions in our country, they would no doubt be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

WHEN IS IT NECESSARY TO CHANGE?

2011-10-16T11:08:00.000-04:00

Among the nonprofit organizations I belong to, there is one where I serve as secretary of the local branch. Like any nonprofit, there are records to be maintained, dues notices to be issued, reports to be filed with headquarters, minutes to be taken, and different mailings made to the membership. It's not exactly rocket science. When I assumed office, I implemented a data base management system (DBMS) to track membership records and generate reports and mailing labels. I also send as much documentation as possible by e-mail in order to save money on postage and printing costs. All of this has saved us considerable time, effort, and money.

Over the last couple of years I've noticed our headquarters has changed the way they produce the annual dues cards and notices for the local branches. Prior to this, the dues notices were printed on a 80 column high speed printer on special carbon stock that formed an envelope and insert. All that was necessary was to burst the envelopes along the perforation marks, slap a stamp on it, and throw it in the mail. The envelope and enclosed dues notice may not have been graphically dazzling, but it worked quite well for many years. Likewise, dues cards were printed on the same high-speed printer which were also burst and separated along perforation marks. Again, the card wasn't the most elegant from a graphical perspective, but it wasn't bad either.

This all changed recently where the dues notices, cards, and mailing labels are now printed on special stock and are graphically impressive. The problem though is they are cumbersome to separate, fold, and insert in envelopes (which we now have to purchase separately). In other words, what was once a relatively simple task had become more labor intensive, costing more time and money to perform. The big question is, Why? What was headquarters trying to accomplish? To perhaps produce a better looking card that is stored and forgotten in a wallet? To produce a better looking dues notice for the post office? As someone who has been in the systems business for a number of years, I suspect the old approach was considerably cheaper to perform.

The scenario I describe herein happens every day not just in nonprofit organizations, but in corporations around the world. If anything is constant, it is change (Bryce's Law). We live in a perpetual state of change where our systems change, our businesses change, our people change, and our technology changes. Change is natural and can be caused by a variety of reasons, such as government regulations, competition, economics, etc. The point is, you change when it is absolutely necessary to do so, not just because you contrarily feel like doing so. Change for the sake of change is madness. The example I describe is one where change is implemented merely to appear fashionable. There was no other reason as the old approach was working just fine, thank you. The point is, you should change only when it is cost effective to do so. This means it is necessary to demonstratively prove you offer a better solution; saving money or time, or perhaps a totally new avenue aimed at addressing specific business needs. In the case I described, I do not believe the developers did their homework and, because of this, have complicated the lives of many branch secretaries; all because someone wanted to show he was being fashionable with technology, which is perhaps the worst reason for change (yet is quite common). Always remember, there is a heavy price to pay for keeping up with the Jones'.

I can tell you authoritatively, whoever redesigned the dues notices and cards at headquarters was certainly not a systems man. Probably nothing more than a glorified programmer in sheep's clothing.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

BRYCE'S LAWS (continued)

2011-10-16T11:07:00.000-04:00

Many years ago I devised a framed poster for my father, Milt Bryce, which I presented him at Christmas. I entitled it "Bryce's Laws," which was patterned after "Murphy's Laws." In it, I listed the many axioms he had coined over the years pertaining to systems, management, and other technical concepts. The poster delighted not only my father, but our customers as well who quickly snapped up the copies we produced. Since then, "Bryce's Laws," have survived on the Internet at our web site.

Of course, the laws didn't stagnate, we kept adding to them over the years and continue to do so today, and not just by Milt, who passed away in 2005, but by other members of the clan including yours truly.

The following is a set of "Bryce's Laws" aimed at life in general, not just management or technology. I hope you will enjoy them:

If anything in life is constant, it is change.

An elegant solution to the wrong problem solves nothing.

There is only one problem with common sense; it is not very common.

When you are constructing a building, it's a bad idea to start with the roof.

The only good business relationship is where both parties benefit.

The ethics of a business are whatever the top-dog says they are.

"We never have enough time to do things right."
Translation: "We have plenty of time to do things wrong."

A man's trustworthiness is measured by the number of keys he holds.

Most children are raised by amateurs, not professionals.

Never trust a person who doesn't have at least one known vice.

Lawsuits primarily benefit the attorneys and nobody else.

You eat elephants one spoonful at a time.

If the mind really is the finest computer, then there are a lot of people out there who need to be rebooted.

It's hard to keep going forward when logic tells you otherwise.

There is more to building a team than buying new uniforms.

A resume is either an accurate description of a person's capabilities or demonstrates how well someone can write fiction.

Youth is our only true vacation in life, and our most unappreciated.

It's not the time you put in, it's the work product you put out.

The road to truth is rarely without bumps and bends.

Nothing irritates your opponents more than to see you succeed when you are expected to fail.

Do not underestimate the power of the company party.

Progress is arrested when we surrender to the status quo, that we no longer strive to exceed it.

Sometimes intelligence is nothing more than experience in disguise.

The longer you delay admitting a mistake, the more expensive it will be to correct.

All arguments are settled at the cemetery.

There is always a heavy price to pay for keeping up with the Jones'.

In every person's life, you must eat at least one spoonful of dirt.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

MEASURING GOVERNMENT TRANSACTIONS

2011-10-13T11:59:00.001-04:00

I have long been a proponent of flattening the federal government, a beast I consider to be overbearing and out of control. I tend to see it more as an albatross around our necks impeding progress as opposed to expediting and simplifying our lives. I have written on this subject many times in the past, even offering some suggestions on how to flatten it, such as, "Enterprise Engineering the Federal Government," a methodology which compares the logical model of a business to its physical counterpart thereby providing a convenient means to identify overlapping work effort, excessive layers of management, and omissions in delivering work products.

There's another simple benchmark available for scrutinizing government productivity, something actually quite common and easy to use. As my background is in systems, I learned a long time ago one of the key elements in measuring work is in the area of processing transactions. All systems, whether performed manually or with computer assistance involves the processing of transactions. Let me be clear what I mean by this; a transaction is an event between two objects, from one to another, for example, in banking a deposit is a transaction, a withdrawal is a transaction, an inquiry on an account balance is a transaction. A purchase is a transaction; a query is a transaction; printing a document on the computer is a transaction, recording the manufacturing of a widget is a transaction, etc. Everything we do in business and government is based on the processing of transactions, either one at a time (as in an interactive application), or in groups (as in what is referred to as batch processing).

In order to determine the most suitable processing solution, system developers study the amount of time and costs involved with processing a volume of transactions. There may be tradeoffs between the two considerations; whereas a transaction may be processed quickly, it may be costly to do so based on the available manpower and technology at the time. Conversely, slower transaction processing may be less costly. The goal is to find the most cost effective solution, not necessarily what is most technically elegant. To illustrate, payroll is typically produced for groups of employees at one time (batch), as opposed to one employee at a time, primarily because it is more practical and economical to do so.

Let's consider how transaction processing affects the federal government. To do so, I'll use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as an example. According to available data on the Internet, the IRS operates with a budget of approximately $11 billion (with over 106,000 employees). Typically the IRS processes a total of 173 million tax returns (representing transactions). When we divide the number of transactions by the IRS operating budget, we arrive at a figure of approximately $63.58/transaction. The question then becomes, is this reasonable or does it suggest inefficiency? If the latter, we should endeavor to ascertain the reason and correct it. I realize this example is a gross simplification of how to calculate transaction processing, but the reader should be able to see what I'm driving at, that the various departments, agencies, and bureaus of the government can be effectively scrutinized simply by examining how they process transactions, which should be rather easy to do I might add.

It would be interesting to see a study of transaction processing of the entire federal government. Corporations do it, why not government? Some say the government is simply too massive to study. Baloney. That's a defeatist attitude. I contend we cannot afford not to do it. Are we afraid what we might find or that we might not have the stomach for correcting it? If you're too squeamish, give me the knife and I'll be glad to perform the surgery.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

OBAMA v2.0

2011-10-04T08:28:00.000-04:00

Even if you are not a fan of the president's ability to manage and lead the nation, you have to admire his political chutzpah. Even in the face of socioeconomic disaster and sagging numbers in the polls, he has the uncanny ability to make people believe in his convoluted vision of America. Now that the 2012 U.S. elections are just thirteen months away, he has crafted a diabolical strategy whereby he has repackaged his failed ideas into new proposals even when the Republicans admonish him, "The Emperor has no clothes!"

It began last November following the midterm elections when the conservative Republicans swept into the House of Representatives. Suddenly, he divorced himself from the "liberal" moniker and painted himself as a mainstream moderate, thereby making his politics appear more palatable to the masses. As it became apparent the "stimulus" and "bailout" programs lacked effectiveness, even appearing to make the economy worse, he eliminated such words from his vocabulary. Then, during the Debt Ceiling debate this summer, he learned Congress would no longer tolerate his spending spree which even his own "Moment of Truth" Commission told him would have to be cut.

As his popularity plummeted in the polls, the president defied conventional wisdom and threw one last "Hail Mary" pass entitled the "American Jobs Act," which is more of an act of desperation than a legitimate jobs bill. What he hopes to do is paint a new image of himself, "Obama v2.0," representing the voice of reason and the last champion of the downtrodden. Realizing he can no longer win in Congress, he has drawn a line in the sand and is rallying the proletariat to fight the bourgeoisie, a class struggle no matter how you look at it.

The president's version of the American Jobs Act is just a "stimulus" package in sheep's clothing. Time and again he calls upon the rich to pay their "fair share" of taxes. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, millionaires are already paying taxes at a much higher rate than middle-class families (by almost twice the amount, 29.1% to 15%). So what does the president really mean by "fair share"? Does he truly believe the rich are not paying their fair and equitable portion or is he trying to cultivate a naive perception that the rich are greedy and evil? The more I hear him wail for "fair share," the more I believe he is an anti-capitalist bent on redistributing the wealth of the country, aka Socialism. Consider this, even if the rich doubled the amount of taxes they currently pay, it would not come close to solving our debt crisis. More likely though, they would probably pick up their marbles and move it off shore, along with their businesses.

Although he denies it, the president is relying on class warfare to remain in office. He will say and do just about anything to whip his supporters into a frenzy. He will deny that his poll numbers are down, he will choose his words carefully and insist his policies and positions are mainstream; he will do whatever is necessary regardless of the cost. If anyone has the audacity to challenge him, they will be placed on his enemy's list called "AttackWatch" and dealt with accordingly.

Regardless if Obama wins or loses in 2012, he will have fractured the country. The divisiveness of the American people is perhaps more pronounced than what we experienced before the Civil War, and we all know what happened there, right?

Mr. President, regardless of how you elect to conduct your final campaign, don't piss down my back and tell me its raining. I just don't buy it.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

CONFIDENCE IN PRESENTATION

2011-10-03T05:53:00.000-04:00

I had a young friend recently ask me for advice on a critical sales presentation he was getting ready to make. He had prepared a good graphical presentation on the computer, but was still a little squeamish about speaking in front of a group of people. Knowing I had been through this many times in my career, he asked for some advice. My first question to him was, "How well do you know your subject?"

He assured me he was supremely confident in his subject area, that he could answer any and all questions pertaining to it. I then replied that he had nothing to worry about as it is all about confidence. Quite often you hear people admonished to think of their audience without any clothes on. This is done to exert the speaker's confidence and superiority over them. It's not really necessary to think of your audience naked, unless they are all highly attractive people in which condition you will likely be distracted (as opposed to authoritative).

I advised my young friend, to remain confident and stay in control of the presentation. If you know the subject matter better than anyone else, as they should, go into the presentation with a little swagger, look people square in the eye, and almost dare them to ask you a question. A little intimidation can go a long way in demonstrating your confidence. More importantly though, I encourage speakers to interact with their audience. A pointed index finger can engage participation better than just asking, "Are there any questions?"

I frequently use the index finger not only to ask questions, particularly to those people who are half-awake, but to ask them, "Isn't that right?" If there is disagreement, I want to get it out in the open and not let it simmer until later. More importantly, I am trying to get the audience on my side. Jokes and humor are useful for breaking the ice, but I want to recruit support for my argument, and this is primarily done by actively interacting with the audience. The index finger can be very powerful in this regard.

When I get nothing but blank stares after asking a question, I say something like this, "Look it is really quite simple, this means 'Yes' (shake head up-and-down), this means 'No' (shake head left-to-right), and this means 'I haven't got a clue what you are talking about' (shake head diagonally)."

This is a good for breaking the ice and a clever way of warning the audience they will be asked to actively participate in the presentation (and they shouldn't be caught napping).

I also advise speakers to dress for success. A good set of clothes not only is a sign of respect for the audience, it is an expression of your confidence and authority. The speaker should either dress better than his audience, or at least equal to them, but never worse.

I followed up with my young friend afterwards to see how his presentation had gone. He was pleased to inform me that all went well, that he had actively engaged the audience and got them on his side. In fact, he was quite pleased with his performance as well as his boss who was impressed by his swagger. More importantly, they got the sale.

This is why I am a big believer in encouraging more speech classes in school, starting in the elementary grades. Such training overcomes the intimidation of the audience and actually turns the tables. Giving an effective speech is much more than just the spoken word, or a slick graphical presentation, it is also the histrionics of delivering a speech. Just remember, your index finger is more powerful than a lot of people think. It means you are in charge.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

DREAMING MY LIFE AWAY

2011-09-29T08:21:00.000-04:00

I love a good dream. I don't remember ever suffering from nightmares, but I have had some great dreams over the years. I'm not sure why we do it other than it might be the way we kick start the brain into action in the morning. Other than being a pleasant escape from our earthly bounds, I have always looked upon dreams as being rather symbolic. I'm sure psychologists would have a field day analyzing mine.

My most common dream is revisiting the homes and places I lived during my youth. Interestingly, there have been few changes made to the houses and I instinctively know where everything is. Sometimes I meet with old friends and relatives who have passed away a long time ago, as well as those still alive. My favorite of this genre is going back to my old high school for a football game where the current coach asks me to suit up to go play my old position on the line. I'm pleasantly surprised by the request, but eagerly ready myself as I relish the opportunity to play again. I know the kids are younger, faster and stronger than I am now, but I surprisingly hold my own in the game.

Since I was young, I've experienced Déjà vu dreams. I learned if I awoke and could remember the dream, it would never come true, but if I woke up and couldn't remember it, the dream would indeed come true. I would see the Déjà vu played out well after I've had the dream, sometimes weeks later, sometimes months or even years later. Most of my dreams in this capacity are not significant, I just realize I've already experienced the moment. Interestingly, I seem to have had more Déjà vu dreams in my youth, but as I grow older they become fewer and far between. Maybe I'm just running out of ideas.

In my 20's I experienced a recurring dream of frustration whereby I am running around the old cinder track at my high school's athletic field whereby I am running into a powerful force of wind pushing against me. To compensate, I ask my body to run as hard as it can, calling on every muscle to work harder, going to the point of seeing my blood vessels pumping from my body. Yet, with every stride I take, my progress is resisted. Then, all of a sudden, I hear the footsteps of another runner coming from behind me. I turn my head only to see a much smaller man rush by me unimpeded by the wind and sprinting away. I then stop and watch him in disbelief. So vivd was this dream that I would often wake up in a sweat. I experienced this for several years but it seemed to disappear around the time I turned 40. I guess this is why I abhor running any long distance, even to this day.

Perhaps the most exhilarating dreams I've had are those where I fly. I love my flying dreams and I am actually quite good at taking to the air. In most cases, I just extend my arms, hands and body to form a sort of kite. The wind then gently pushes me up into the air and I find that if I move my hands and body ever so slightly I can move in just about any direction I want. As I live in Florida, I love to fly away from my house and up and over to the beaches and out to a nearby island where I meet my family. Once airborne, I want to stay aloft for hours at a time but inevitably return home. I'm told, dreams of flight are indicative of accomplishment. Regardless of the reason, it is a hoot.

Now in my 50's I have developed a new recurring dream and I am not certain what it means or why I have it. Nonetheless, I dream I am an exhausted Doughboy in World War I returning to my trench in France. Although there are small rooms dug into the ground which serve as bunk houses for soldiers, I have elected to dig my own hole and line it with two parallel sheets of corrugated steel which I believe will protect me from the Germans. I've placed a hinge on one of the steel panels, thereby allowing me to drop one of the panels down and enclose myself in a small room safe from the elements and the enemy. I am wearing a full American uniform, complete with the old flat helmets of the period, along with leggings and boots. This seems a bit strange to me as my grandfather had served in the English Army during the war. Concerned for my safety, I pull out my bayonet and stick it in the ground so I can easily grab it in case of emergency. On it, I hang my gas mask so I can get to it quickly in case of attack. I sleep with my Springfield rifle loaded and near me for protection. I feel dirty and my feet are tired, but as I'm exhausted I am just grateful to be able to fall asleep, which I do. Again, I don't know how or why this dream developed, as I see it all in meticulous detail, but it has been a regular part of my nightly repertoire for the last few years. Maybe it's from a former life.

I don't try to analyze my dreams as I just enjoy them as they come along. I have met a lot of people who tell me they do not dream at all. Frankly, they don't know what they're missing.

One last thing; I dream in color.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

CLASS WARFARE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

2011-09-27T11:43:00.000-04:00

Last February, following the takeover of the House of Representatives by the GOP, I wrote an article entitled, "Is the Tea Party Losing Momentum?"

At the time, I made the prediction that, "Over the next two years, as we head into the next presidential election, look for the liberals to apply a full court press against the Tea Party in order to discredit them. Undoubtedly, the Tea Party will be blamed for anything and everything that may go wrong in the country." Although it was correct, I hardly consider it prophetic as we all saw this coming, at least I hope so.

Since then, the Tea Party has been called "terrorists" by Vice President Joe Biden, "SOB's" by Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) compared their policies to those of "Jim Crow," and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) made it clear they "can go straight to hell."

Jason Tomcsi, a spokesman for Rep. Carson made the observation, "The Tea Party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities." This comment alone denotes the real issue at hand, class warfare whereby the Democrats are trying to align minorities and labor unions against big business and upper and middle income Americans. This is a dangerous tightrope they are walking which will undoubtedly divide the country.

I have met and corresponded with many people in the Tea Party since its inception, both locally and nationally. Whereas I have some liberal friends who adamantly believe the Tea Partiers are racist, I have yet to meet such a person. They may be stubbornly committed to the Constitution and are deeply concerned about the direction of the country, but I have not witnessed any racial slurs, publicly or privately. True, they are adamant about their position, but I have only seen respectable behavior. In fact, my contacts in the Tea Party tell me they are very sensitive to this and police themselves accordingly in order to avoid negative publicity.

When I hear comments such as those by the Vice President, Democratic Congressmen, and the head of the Teamsters, I have to wonder what provokes such outbursts. Frankly, I believe it is the rhetoric of desperation, that they resent losing the control they once held. Civility in discourse, as the President pleaded for following the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, seems to work only in a unidirectional manner. However, the fact remains, if anyone but a Democrat uses objectionable language, they will be crucified by the main street media.

As I have written in the past, moderate voters are quickly disappearing as the left is forcing a showdown between the haves and the have-nots, a true referendum on class and social issues. An historic amount of money will be spent on the 2012 elections, easily dwarfing that spent in 2008. To the victor goes the spoils, and the losing party will be forced underground to either lick its wounds or plot havoc (I suspect the latter unfortunately).

The language we will hear from now until November 2012 will not be just clever or whimsical barbs, but rather viscous attacks and slander. It is Class Warfare in every sense of the word; a down and dirty knockdown, drag-out fight over ideology.

As I look back on my earlier Tea Party article, I am struck by another comment I made at the time:

"Ironically, the more the left attacks the Tea Party, the greater the party's influence will grow."

Maybe I am prophetic after all.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

WHAT GOVERNMENT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT BUSINESS

2011-09-25T11:42:00.000-04:00

On September 8th, 2011, President Obama unveiled his "American Jobs Act" to the country in a special joint session of Congress. His intent was to somehow jump-start the economy and put the unemployed back to work. The legislation is now before the Congress for review. I am personally disappointed with the act as I consider it another prime example of how we tend to attack symptoms as opposed to root problems. High unemployment is not the problem, it is only a byproduct of a more deep seated problem, namely lower productivity as evidenced by a paltry Gross Domestic Product of 1.0%. Lawmakers offer little direction primarily because they do not understand how business truly works.

As anyone who has studied production can tell you, there are basically two ways of producing any product, either one at a time or in large quantities. Mass production affords the ability to produce more products at reduced costs. As such, industrial engineers have long known that in situations involving voluminous work products of the same type, an organization needs to observe the five basic elements of mass production as found in just about any industrial text book:

1. Division of Labor – to break the production process into separate tasks performed by workers with different skill sets.

2. Assembly Line – defining the progression and synchronization of work, thereby assuring the workers are performing tasks in the proper sequence (aka, doing the right thing at the right time).

3. Precision Tooling – for mechanical leverage and improved efficiency on the assembly line.

4. Standardization of Parts – for inter changeability and assembly by unskilled and semiskilled workers. Standardization provides the opportunity to share and reuse parts in various products, thereby reducing product costs.

5. Mass Demand – the impetus for mass production and the most critical element. Without it, there is no need for the others.

You will find these five elements in every company who offers repetitious work products, be it an automotive manufacturer, a bank or insurance company, an engineering firm, a restaurant, an I.T. company, and just about any small business you can imagine. The elements are visibly exemplified by such things as assembly lines and formal business methodologies defining "Who" is to perform "What," "When," "Where," "Why," and "How (aka, "5W+H"). It is a universally applicable concept found in big business as well as small. More organizations operate in accordance with these five elements than those who do not. AND THIS IS WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND!

To truly boost our economy, we need to make companies more competitive for the world stage. To do so, it is necessary to maximize all five of these components as they work in a cohesive manner. Of these elements, the president's "American Jobs Act" only addresses the first element, Labor. Here, the government proposes to cut payroll taxes and provide tax breaks for companies to hire people. There is nothing about sharpening the skills of the work force. From a practical point of view, why should companies hire workers who lack suitable skills? Simply to get a tax break? Hardly.

Let's consider how the other elements could be influenced by government if they were so inclined; there should be tax incentives for such things as:

* Modernizing and retooling the production process (thereby maximizing the effect of "assembly lines" and "precision tooling").

* Updating and enhancing worker skills.

* Minimizing waste and reusing resources.

* Attaining levels of quality output.

* Encouraging consumers to buy American products, both domestically and abroad, thereby fueling mass demand. This includes purchasing American parts and raw materials for use in our products.

Regrettably, there is no such thinking in Washington, probably because the lion's share of lawmakers are attorneys and, as such, have no real concept of production, only legal minutia. The "American Jobs Act" and any other similar proposed legislation are naive attempts to stimulate the economy by attacking the five elements of mass production in piecemeal, rather shallowly I might add.

I am still of the belief that reducing regulatory red tape encourages business, but beyond this, a tax incentive program addressing all of the variables of production, not just one, can truly put the economy back on track and thereby put Americans back to work. To do so though requires lawmakers who understand industry which, unfortunately, is currently in short supply in our capitol. We need leaders who can see the big picture, not just the myopic portions they wish to see for political gain.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

ROAD WORK - EXPECT DELAYS

2011-09-22T08:32:00.000-04:00

Over the last year we have been watching a major upgrade to the highway in front of our office. It's not a large project, just an enhancement of a two-lane highway (three-lanes in some parts) spanning approximately five miles. It is being implemented by the state's Department of Transportation (DOT), and not by the county, which I guess we should be grateful for. Nonetheless, the project has been a model of bureaucracy and inefficiency. Planners consulted with local property owners to advise them how their establishments would be affected by new curbing and sidewalks. Some of it will likely hinder business and when the merchants complained, the DOT turned a deaf ear to them. They quickly discovered their voices were not being heard and the DOT took the arrogant attitude of presuming they knew what was best for business, not the merchants.

Following the planning phase, work began on the highway's infrastructure, specifically the sewer system and utility lines. It was at this time when we spotted our first set of orange cones to redirect traffic and protect the workers, a handful at first, which quickly multiplied like rabbits. Next came the installation of the sidewalks which we thought a bit odd as they seemed detached from everything. Again, more orange cones. Interestingly, it seems there are about ten flag men to every true worker; state workers are very safety conscious you know. Of the real workers I don't think I ever saw more than three working at the same time. There were plenty of supervisors and inspectors checking their work, but only a handful of real workers which probably explains why progress is slow.

In most commercial construction projects, workers are 25% effective which means out of an eight hour work day, they only perform a total of two hours of real work. The remainder of the time is spent on interferences and inconsequential activity. Contractors have known this for years and takes this into consideration as part of their scheduling algorithm. Outsiders may consider 25% rather low, but actually it is not too bad. However, I would wager the DOT workers are at just 10%, if that. You may see a flurry of activity for a few minutes, but most of the time is spent setting up, instructing, supervising, inspecting, moving the orange cones, and worrying about the bureaucratic red tape, but comparatively little time is spent on the actual work itself. The difference between government-run construction projects and similar commercial undertakings is that one is obsessed with adhering to rules and political correctness, while the other is more interested in getting the job done.

Now they are just starting the construction of the highway portion itself, which is already two weeks behind schedule despite all of their planning. Massive trucks, equipment, and materials sit idly next to the highway waiting for operators. When the workers do materialize, we only see them up until noon, but they never seem to return from their lunch break, just the orange cones.

So here we have a highway project where merchants are alarmed and confused about how the road will affect their businesses, lots of equipment and materials sitting idly by the side of the road, workers with a paltry 10% effectiveness rate, and enough orange cones that could easily crisscross the state. Is this anyway to run a project? Well, that's how we do things down here in the South. I guess we're more of an Orange Cone city as opposed to Blue Chip.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

NEW "FAIR TAX" COULD CORRECT A LOT OF PROBLEMS

2011-09-20T08:24:00.000-04:00

I prepared my first IRS 1040 income tax form back when I was in my early 20's, and it really hasn't changed too much over the years. Back then, the form looked innocent enough, but the instruction booklet was a bit overwhelming. Nonetheless, I patiently persevered and was able to complete the form, deductions and all. It was quite an experience and I still prepare my own taxes to this day. Over the years I have tried tax preparation software, but frankly I didn't see what it was saving me. Aside from accountants, the 1040 form is a labyrinth of head scratching instructions. If you study the tax tables closely, you can readily see how the more income you take in, the more taxes you have to pay. It's no small wonder why people keep receipts and look for any type of deduction imaginable, regardless how minuscule it is. It is overtly complicated and casts a shadow of doubt as to its fairness. This is compounded by stories we hear whereby 50% of U.S. households pay no federal income tax whatsoever. This is probably why we dread the thought of April 15th, Tax Day.

There have been alternatives proposed over the years, particularly the "Flat Tax" concept where everyone pays a single standard rate regardless of your economic standing. Although the concept is certainly "fair and equitable," there are a lot of people who would find a way to avoid it based on some sort of exemption.

More recently, the concept of a "Fair Tax" has been introduced and is currently being studied by Congress. The first thing you have to understand about the "Fair Tax" is that it represents a complete replacement of the current tax system, meaning there would be no more payroll deductions, no more income taxes, no more deductions from pensions, all loopholes would be closed, no more IRS, thereby no more audits, and April 15th becomes a meaningless date in this country. Sounds great, right? Now here's the catch; instead, revenues will be collected as an additional sales tax (or "consumption tax"), in other words, payable at checkout by EVERYONE (what could be more "fair and equitable"?).

According to FairTax.org, a web site endorsing the proposal, "The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax."

Won't this be hard on the poor? Not really. As FairTax.org explains, "All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services' poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc."

The "Fair Tax" is just that, FAIR, and could finally help us do away with the petty squabbling between classes as it is an equitable solution. The only people who will object to it are the makers of income tax preparation software, tax attorneys and accountants, and the IRS who will have to look for something else to do.

Implementing the "Fair Tax" act as has been reintroduced in Congress ultimately means repealing the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which allows the Congress to levy an income tax. The Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, and I, for one, would like to see it repealed before its 100th anniversary. As an aside, the "Fair Tax" act is referred to as H.R.25 in the House and S.296 in the Senate. Be sure to study this legislation carefully as it affects all of us. For more information on it, please see:

FairTax.org

National Taxpayers Union

To sign a petition in support of the Act, click HERE.

Should this legislation pass, look for a flurry of sales activity on products just before the law goes into effect thereby avoiding the tax. Talk about stimulating the economy. Wow!

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

WHAT IS FAIR?

2011-09-18T19:56:00.000-04:00

Good question. This is something we all demand but I don't think we really know what fair is; to illustrate:

* In this country we have established an extensive system of jurisprudence involving lawyers, judges, juries, appeals, etc. Yet, when a decision is finally reached, we claim it wasn't fair. Case in point, the Casey Anthony jury decision. America felt she literally got away with murder.

* In sports, we trust the officials will be fair in regulating the game, but we become unglued when we find an official tampering with the rules. When I coached Little League baseball, I would resent umpires who called balls and strikes one way for a team and different for the other. I didn't realize the strike zone could change so significantly between innings.

* The news media outlets tout themselves as fair and impartial, but I don't know anyone who honestly believes it.

* In the work place, we hope our bosses and coworkers will treat us fairly in our working relationships, and feel dejected when we find ourselves on the losing end of a political maneuver. All we want is a fair and even playing field to compete on. Rarely do we get it.

* On the highway, we believe everyone should observe the same rules of the road and are aghast when someone flagrantly violates them, while others get stopped for petty moving violations.

* We want people to pay their fair share of taxes, but argue about how this should be accomplished. Some suggest a flat tax, others want regressive taxation whereby the rich must pay for the poor.

* We believe countries should treat each other equitably and are outraged when we find a violation of agreements thereby threatening peace or disrupting economics.

Being "fair" is an obsession with a lot of people, but only if it is in their favor. As much as we harangue about fairness, deep down we really don't want it. Fairness is a human interpretation. It is in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers fair, another will consider just the opposite, even if the law, rule or regulation is documented in writing. It takes an impartial and informed person to determine what is equitable for all of the parties concerned. Unfortunately, it seems people today are easily prejudiced and rely more on gossip and spin as opposed to facts.

Fairness is based on who interprets the rules, usually by the person(s) in power, not by plurality of vote. As the power shifts, our interpretation of fairness shifts. This means our sense of fairness changes over time as perspectives and priorities change. For example, what would be considered "fair" by our nation's founding fathers is certainly not the same as those in government today. In the early days, it was considered "fair" for land owners to be the only people allowed to vote in elections because they were considered responsible citizens, not shiftless rabble. Naturally, this changed over the years so any Tom, Dick, or Mary can vote regardless how "responsible" they were as citizens. Today, elections are won more by media spin than by the true issues of the day. Yet, we believe this is fair.

Our perception of fairness is based on our moralistic makeup which, obviously, varies based on cultural and religious differences. To illustrate, the morals of a Salvation Army Colonel will be substantially different than an atheist gang-banger from the 'hood. I cannot imagine any commonality between the two. This is what happens when you live in a heterogeneous society. Japan, on the other hand is more homogenous in nature and as such, shares moral values which leads to consistent interpretations of what is right and wrong. The point is, as morality declines or becomes splintered through incompatible interpretations, it compounds the problem of realizing consistent fairness. The greater the uniformity in morality, the more likely fairness will be consistently applied.

Fairness is often defined by a plurality of vote, be it polls, legislatures, or a jury. It is their perception only, not necessarily what is fair. We have all seen too many votes that led to erroneous results primarily because those in judgment are not properly informed or lack the ability to offer an unbiased verdict.

As the populace becomes more disjointed, we write legislation based on poll numbers or elections, but this does not necessarily mean it is fair, only that it is the perception of the plurality, which may be right, but also could be wrong.

So, whether you are on a ball field, in a classroom, in the workplace, or wherever, you must recognize that absolute fairness is a myth. It is based on the interpretation and whims of the people who interpret the rules. Even if we were to automate decisions by computer, we must remember such rules are programmed by humans with all of their frailties. In other words, the computer will only render a decision as programmed by the human-being.

If you are upset that something is unfair, get over it. King Solomon died thousands of years ago. You win some, you lose some. Put your best foot forward and hope you'll be treated fairly.

"Forget fair. Our world was not designed to be fair."
- Tom Hopkins
"How to Master the Art of Selling Anything"

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE DIRECT APPROACH

2011-09-15T08:25:00.000-04:00

In front of our office, the state is about to start a highway construction project. Over the years I've learned such projects take an inordinate amount of time to plan and implement in Florida, seemingly forever, but they usually produce a good roadway when it is finished. What takes weeks or months to do up north, seems to take years in the south. As part of the planning process, we had a county bureaucrat visit our office to ask us about our sewer connection. He hemmed and hawed for a long time before he finally got to the point. I found it rather bothersome that he had no problem wasting my time. Maybe he is used to wasting time, I'm not. I just wanted him to get to the point.

While the county administrator was babbling away I thought back to an incident years ago when we lived in Connecticut. At the time, we resided in a small community where most of the fathers commuted to New York by train. Our next door neighbors were a family of the same age and makeup and we became close friends. Bob, the patriarch of the family, was a good father and his kids respected and loved him. He kept an eye on them to make sure they didn't get into any mischief and taught them proper manners. He would also have heart-to-heart talks to encourage them on their walk through life.

There came a day on a weekend when the two families were together socializing at Bob's house, all except his youngest, Andrew, a first grader who was playing in the backyard. Right in the middle of a conversation, Andrew stormed into the house with fire in his eyes, presented himself before his father and demanded to know, "Who pissed on my bike?" The bluntness of the statement caught everyone off guard, particularly Bob who was somewhat embarrassed by the statement. He lectured the youngster patiently, "Andrew, that is not how we should speak, particularly in the presence of company, it is very rude; now say you're sorry."

"I'm sorry," he said reluctantly..., "But who pissed on my bike?"

As it turned out, the family dog had urinated on Andrew's bike which was propped next to a post. This relieved Andrew somewhat as it was a dog and not a human who had fouled his beloved bicycle.

I found it interesting how Andrew did not hem and haw like the county administrator, but got straight to the point. He may have not been politically correct, but he certainly got to the bottom of his problem, just the antithesis of the bureaucrat before me.

As the county administrator yammered on, I raised my hand to stop him and told him to get to the point, which seemed to mildly irritate him. Sensing this, I gave him a stern look and told him I would look into his problem and get back to him. I then excused myself and went back to work.

You know, I was really tempted to say to him, "Who pissed on my bike?" I do not have the temperament to be politically correct and prefer the direct approach instead. It gets results.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

LOSING THE WAR ON POVERTY

2011-09-13T08:44:00.000-04:00

I recently heard a talking head on one of the political talk shows on television make the claim that despite the billions sunk into the "War on Poverty" since the mid-1960's, the national poverty level has essentially remained unchanged. This really caught me off guard as I assumed money can correct a lot of social ills, particularly poverty. Surely the talking head must have been wrong on this one. As I was to find out, he was correct.

As a preface to my analysis, the "War on Poverty" is the unofficial name for legislation introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his "Great Society" series of social reforms patterned after FDR's "New Deal." The premise was in order to secure the welfare of the less fortunate, government needs to grow to accommodate those affected. Elimination of poverty was a key objective of LBJ's and one of the cornerstones of his "Great Society" legislation.

In 1964, an appropriation of $1 billion was granted to start the War on Poverty, followed by another $2 billion over the next two years. By 1980, the country was spending $100 billion on welfare, and by 2009 $400 billion was being spent, and it is projected to rocket past this figure over the next few years. I was able to substantiate this using usgovernmentspending.com, a reliable site with access to government spending data for the last 100 years. See "Government Spending on Welfare" (1960-present).

Finding the number of citizens below the poverty line was a little trickier. Fortunately, I found it at the U.S. Census Bureau's web site in a chart labeled "Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2009." Here, I discovered the national poverty rate has fluctuated between 11% to $15 over the last 46 years (since 1965) and is currently at 14.3%. Whereas there were 35 million people below the poverty line in 1965, today there is close to 45 million people.

In other words, the talking head was correct; whereas the amount of money we have spent on welfare since 1965 has grown in leaps and bounds, the poverty level has remained relatively static. In fact, there are now more people under the poverty line than when LBJ started his war in 1964. This, of course, is a startling revelation as it means, MONEY ALONE CANNOT SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS. In fact, the statistics would indicate it is immaterial. The only people truly benefiting from these programs are government bureaucrats implementing them. It also means we have found a budget area that can and should be trimmed, but this will be fiercely fought by welfare recipients and their Congressional leaders claiming the reduction of welfare is nothing less than "class warfare."

This phenomenon makes you wonder why some people remain below the poverty level. Is it perhaps the social programs are run incompetently? Do those qualified to receive welfare prefer to remain off of the radar? Are they too proud to accept help? Perhaps they are too destitute or complacent to seek assistance. Whatever the reason, the fact remains the "War on Poverty" is a dismal failure and this is one war we should definitely rethink and possibly call our troops home.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

JOB ENTITLEMENTS

2011-09-11T19:15:00.000-04:00

I was recently talking to a young man in a local I.T. company who was lamenting how he was overlooked for a promotion. He had been with the company for a year, thought he was doing a good job, and fully expected to be promoted to a job at a higher pay level. He didn't get it. Somewhat miffed, he was considering jumping ship to look for another job elsewhere. In response, I asked him about the stability of the company and its future potential, which he admitted was good. I then asked what kind of assignments he had worked on over the last year and his success rate. Although he raved about his work effort, he admitted he had been late and over budget on some tasks, but was quick to proclaim, "I work my butt off in there; I put in 45 hours a week." I replied that managers are more interested in results, not necessarily the amount of time going into it. Frankly, 45 hours doesn't impress me and I told him so.

I guess it is not surprising to see an entitlement mentality evolve in the workplace. Young people learn this in school as they progress through grades annually. People now expect routine promotions and bonuses regardless if they earned it or not. They shouldn't. A bonus is just that, a bonus; a little extra for outstanding service. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you do not. However, if the company had a bad year, it may not be able to afford a bonus and, as such, employees should not become dependent on them.

A person is given a job promotion when an opportunity arises and an individual has demonstrated he/she possesses the skills and ability to assume the responsibility. Promotions should not be rewarded by guess or by golly (or by politics for that matter), but for demonstrated ability, a track-record if you will. Even in school, we cannot progress to the next level without adequate grades. This of course means the progress of an employee should be evaluated routinely. Although most major companies have this well defined, there are still a lot of companies who avoid evaluating their employees on a routine basis. I am always surprised when I see companies evaluating employees verbally as opposed to documenting it with a form, thereby making it impossible to accurately remember or track an employee's progress.

We have used an Employee Evaluation Form for a number of years and have always found it to be a useful means for developing a dialog between the employee and his superior. When it is time to evaluate an employee, we ask both the employee and his manager to prepare the form separately then compare the two side-by-side. This naturally results in an interesting discussion particularly when discrepancies occur. Whereas the employee may perceive his abilities one way, his superior may have an entirely different perspective. Bottom-line, the employee evaluation should be used to clear up such inconsistencies, plot both the strengths and weaknesses of the employee, and develop a plan to improve them. If you do not have a good Employee Evaluation Form, just drop me a line and I will e-mail you the one we use.

Without a defined process to evaluate the performance of employees, they will assume all is going well and therefore feel entitled to receive such things as bonuses and promotions. A constructive employee evaluation process improves communications between the employee and the boss, points the employee in the proper direction for improving his skills thereby making him a more productive and valuable worker, and shatters the problem of job entitlements. The employee has either earned the bonus or job promotion, or he hasn't.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

PICK, POP, PEEL, AND PULL

2011-09-08T09:01:00.000-04:00

It's probably not much of a secret that one of the biggest differences between men and women is in the area of grooming and personal hygiene. Women tend to be more fastidious than men in this regard. The male of the species is lucky if he remembers to shave or run a comb through his hair. Whereas men spend no more than 5-10 minutes in the bathroom to get ready in the morning, women can be in there for days. Maybe this has something to do with military training. Nevertheless, women tend to have an eye for imperfections and go to great lengths to correct them. Men couldn't care less and refer to their imperfections as "character."

Whereas men only require a couple of things in the bathroom, such as a toothbrush, razor, comb, shave creme, and bar soap, women tend to surround themselves with an extensive myriad of cotton balls, swabs, tissues, cremes, powders, and gels, not to mention an array of mirrors, brushes, combs, etc. I don't care if a man is 6'5" and his wife is only 5'2", she will require four times more space to work in the bathroom than her husband. It is HER domain, men are only guests.

After women have taken care of themselves, their eye is constantly wandering to monitor their offspring and husband. If the slightest thing is out of place, they are quick to "Pick, Pop, Peel, and Pull" (aka "4P"), meaning pick ears, pop skin blemishes (scabs are a favorite), peel dead skin, and pull out unwanted hairs (such as from their husband's ears). Women cannot help themselves in this regard. To illustrate, on more than one occasion while driving I have spotted motorists where the wife had her finger buried deep in the man's ear. At cocktail parties, I've seen women beckon their husbands to bend down to their level, not to whisper anything of importance, but to pull an unsightly hair from his ear which she spotted out of the corner of her eye.

I also know women who love to peel dead skin resulting from sun burns. I think their mouths begin to water at the very thought of it. The objective is not to flake it off, but pull whole sheets off, kind of like a snake shedding its skin. I tend to believe some women deliberately let their children and husband burn in the sun so they can enjoy peeling the skin later on. Sounds a little twisted doesn't it?

Interestingly, women are inclined to 4P only members of their family, not outsiders, probably because they consider family members to be an extension of themselves and therefore is fair game. What I find amusing about all of this is that although she may feel free to attack others, she is appalled if others attempt to return the favor. Maybe it's because she has already worked herself over in the bathroom and cannot believe anything else could possibly be wrong.

Perhaps the reason women spend an inordinate amount of time on their nails, is not just for appearances but to also keep their tools sharp. Craftsmen are like that you know.

Now before you complain to me this column is somewhat sexist in nature, I am willing to concede there are men out there who are particularly meticulous in terms of their appearance, be it their clothes, nails, hair, and skin. This is what we refer to as "freaks of nature."

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN - PREPARE 3 ENVELOPES

2011-09-06T10:09:00.000-04:00

As I write this article, President Obama has just departed on his summer vacation to Martha's Vineyard. Following Labor Day he is to return to Washington and make a major speech regarding his proposals for mending the economy and putting the country back to work. As of this moment, the scuttlebutt is he may announce some new tax cuts and reforms, construction projects to stimulate jobs, even a new "Jobs Department" in the government. This is all speculative at this time. Nonetheless, we are told it will be bold and fresh new ideas. Although we all certainly hope this is true, we have already been down this road with the president under the guise of "Change we can believe in."

So far, the president has tried stimulus and bailout programs with questionable results; the federal debt is rising unabated, and; his proposals to raise taxes have met with stubborn resistance from the Republicans and the public. Frankly, he seems to be running out of options.

Should he propose a new department or agency to oversee jobs or construction projects, this will not be warmly received as it will be perceived as more government bureaucracy, not less. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there is now close to three million government employees, not including military personnel. I think the president would find Congress and the American public more receptive to "right-sizing" the government, anything less will be perceived as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Should the president reaffirm his intent to raise taxes, this too will be rebuffed. He will likely find the Congress more receptive to discussing tax reform whereby major changes would be welcomed by the American people, something that would be fair and equitable across the board, such as a flat tax or value added tax to replace income tax, and corporate tax structures to encourage companies not to export jobs and money overseas.

He may even challenge the Congressional super committee to go beyond its goal of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, but this is not likely as it will cut programs he desperately wants. Hopefully, he'll surprise us.

What Mr. Obama will propose after Labor Day is anyone's guess; it may very well be a serious gesture to get our economic house in order, or it may be another instance where the economy has been politicized as we approach the 2012 elections.

Somehow this reminds me of the old joke whereby a new manager had been hired by a company to take over an operation. As the new manager was moving into his office he happened to bump into his predecessor who was preparing to leave. The new manager asked if there was any advice the former manager could offer on assuming his duties. The former manager said he had written his advice and placed them in three envelopes in his old desk and marked "1," "2," and "3", and they should only be opened in the event of an emergency. The new manager laughed, shrugged it off, and went about his business.

The manager's reign started off fine but inevitably ran into a problem for which he had no solution. Desperate, he happened to remember the three envelopes and opened Number 1 which offered the following advice: "Blame your predecessor." The manager thought this was a clever way to get himself off the hook and used it to good effect.

Time went by until the manager was faced with another seemingly impossible hurdle. Not knowing what to do, he turned to envelope Number 2 containing a note that read simply: "Reorganize." The manager thought this was a sound idea and set about reorganizing his operation. Organization charts were redrawn, job descriptions modified, and new office furniture and equipment obtained.

The reorganization overcame the manager's problem but he eventually ran into a crisis challenging his abilities as a manager. At a total loss as to what to do, the manager turned in desperation to envelope Number 3 which included a note that read simply, "Prepare three envelopes."

Obama has already opened envelope Number 1. I fear his post-Labor Day speech will be envelope Number 2. If it is, you can be assured he will be opening envelope Number 3 on election day.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

REFLECTIONS ON LABOR DAY

2011-09-01T09:55:00.000-04:00

I always thought Labor Day was an oddball holiday. It became a federal holiday in 1894 and is observed on the first Monday in September. Whereas holidays like Memorial Day and Independence Day recognized fallen veterans and the nation's birth, I was never quite sure what Labor Day stood for other than perhaps another paid holiday for the labor unions. For most of us, it represents the end of summer and the start of a new school year. This has changed in recent times though as schools are now more inclined to start earlier, well before Labor Day.

As our Labor Unions have received considerable attention in the press lately, I decided to research their membership numbers on this occasion. To do so, I researched the annual "Union Members Summary" as produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Friday, January 21, 2011). In it, I discovered union membership is in decline; to quote from the paper:

"In 2010, the union membership rate, the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union, was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers" (representing a loss of three million members).

The report also differentiated union participation in the private and public sectors, to wit:

* "The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent)."

* "Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 37.1 percent."

* "Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent)."

* "In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1 million union workers in the private sector."

Translation: You are more likely to join a union if you work in government as opposed to the commercial sector.

The report also noted, "Texas had about one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite having 1.9 million more wage and salary employees." Please keep in mind, Texas is a "Right To Work" state, New York is not. Also understand Texas has balanced their budget, New York has not. Coincidence?

"Right to Work" laws are implemented in 22 states, mostly in the south and west, and allows anyone to work without mandatory membership in a union (it prohibits "closed shops"). Labor Unions resent such laws as they perceive it as a threat to their survival. As America's economy sputters, unions are now generally regarded as an excessive expense and a deterrent to productivity. This is why collective bargaining agreements with state government unions are being renegotiated, to at least get them in line with the benefits of unions in the private sector. Unions will, of course, fight this tooth and nail, as demonstrated recently in Wisconsin and elsewhere. As we approach the 2012 elections, union coffers will be emptied supporting candidates in any race that could have a bearing on their livelihood. In other words, everywhere. Should they lose, this would be a crippling blow to them and their numbers will dwindle even further. So much so, that maybe in the not too distant future we will celebrate Labor Day as nothing more than the end of summer and the start of a new school year.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE DARK SIDE OF FLASH MOBS

2011-08-30T08:52:00.000-04:00

With the advent of social networking software, young people discovered they could stage group events, mostly for fun or some just plain silly, such as a dance or singing ensemble suddenly bursting into a well choreographed number at a public venue, such as a train station or shopping center. The trick was to get the crowd to quickly assemble, perform its "shtick" and then disappear by mingling back into the crowd. Although the original intent was to have fun, a dark side to flash mobs has emerged.

From the recent overthrow of governments in the Middle East to the recent wildings in Philadelphia, Maryland, and San Francisco, Americans are becoming aware of the power and danger of social networking. In the Middle East, Facebook and Twitter were generally regarded as the communication media of choice to orchestrate massive demonstrations protesting government policies. The application in this country though is different and much more criminal in intent. For example, in Philadelphia and Maryland social networking was recently used to queue crowds to enter and loot stores. The effect was chillingly effective, and would send shivers down the spine of any security officer. In San Francisco, it was used to stage an unlawful demonstration aimed at shutting down the BART rail system, thereby disrupting traffic during rush hour. Such incidents are becoming more commonplace and represent a genuine threat to our well being.

There is little doubt criminal flash mobs will affect our way of life. The best way to thwart such incidents is to block telephone and Internet service which can be done relatively easily. Not only will this disrupt the flash mob though, but other legitimate uses of communication devices as well, perhaps even life sustaining services, such as 911. This is the price we will inevitably have to pay for social media running amok. The use of telephone/Internet blockers will likely face a legal challenge from freedom of speech advocates, but this will probably fail as such freedom doesn't apply in life-threatening situations, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Flash mobs will also be detrimental to downtown areas as stores will be closed early to avoid such wildings. Curfews will likely be imposed to maintain law and order, but such security measures will only hurt downtown merchants, hence another reason to abandon urban areas. In all likelihood we will also witness the end of 24/7 service such as provided by late night convenience stores and gas stations. Those stores with the fortitude to remain open will have to be refitted with new security measures, such as instant lock downs trapping the flash mob until authorities can arrive, and communication blockers. The police will also have to become more adept at social media technology so they can identify and apprehend flash mob ringleaders.

Now don't get me wrong, I like social media and have used it for years. However, I realize there are others who have ulterior motives who wish to use it for criminal or political purposes. For those of you old enough to remember, can you imagine what impact this technology would have had at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago? As wild and as bloody Chicago was, it would have likely been made much worse by this technology. Some people find flash mobs rather humorous and regard it as nothing more than a passing fad. Make no mistake, there is nothing remotely amusing about criminal flash mobs as they are a genuine threat to our way of life. Ask any merchant or security guard who had the displeasure of facing one. Even sadder, such flash mobs ultimately represents a decline in our culture.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

2011-08-28T12:57:00.000-04:00

I think we're all familiar with the Aesop fable regarding "The Ant and the Grasshopper." I first heard it in kindergarten when the teacher tried to impress upon us the need for diligent work. As you will recall, the fable describes a grasshopper who spent the warm summer months singing and playing while the ant toiled in the fields in preparation for the cold winter. When it finally arrives, the grasshopper finds itself dying of hunger and begs the ant for food who is less than sympathetic as he remembered how the grasshopper wasted his time earlier.

Someone recently told me this was a parable describing the differences between capitalism and socialism, with the ant representing a capitalist, and the grasshopper as a socialist, but I'm not sure I buy the argument. After all, even socialists have to work now and then. Some would even suggest the ants are socialists as they are all working harmoniously together. I don't think this is the case in this story as true socialists wouldn't condemn the grasshopper but would cheerfully come to his relief. However, I don't believe this is how the story was conveyed to me.

No, I think this is a simple lesson in capitalism whereby both the ant and the grasshopper were given the opportunity to work, one elected to do so and was successful, the other wasted his time and failed. This then leads us to the lesson of charity. Under socialism, the ant would be compelled to care for the grasshopper which would, inevitably, lead to problems in morale whereby other ants will question why they should work hard if deadbeats like the grasshopper will be taken care of regardless if they work or not. Under capitalism, the ant may come to the relief of the grasshopper if he is inclined to do so, not because it is mandatory. He may find it in his heart to help the grasshopper, then again, maybe not. It depends on his sense of duty to other insects; his religious training if you will.

When you think about all of the entitlements available in this country, such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and now Obamacare, you are either a grasshopper singing and dancing or an ant wondering why you are working so hard. It sure seems the government has shifted the balance away from the ant and more in favor of the grasshopper. Just remember, if the ant ever discovers he is not allowed to keep what he has earned, he may very well give up in frustration and there won't be anybody to take care of either the grasshopper or the recently unemployed ant.

Maybe "The Ant and the Grasshopper" is a parable of capitalism versus socialism after all. Hmm...

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

YOUTH WILL HAVE ITS DAY

2011-08-25T09:37:00.000-04:00

Have you been paying attention to the talent of our youth lately? Normally we hear nothing but the problems of youth, such as bad manners and attitudes, foul mouths, sex and drugs, cheating, stealing and deceit, car wrecks, and a general disregard of any form of authority; true rebels without a cause. This is why it was so refreshing to recently see some talented young people burst onto the entertainment scene, such as "Il Volo," a trio of Italian pop-opera teenage singers, with incredible voices transcending their age. Their operatic mastery is such that you cannot help recognizing them as the legitimate heirs apparent to the The Three Tenors.

In Japan, there was the movie "Swing Girls" which was produced just a few years ago to critical acclaim. In the movie, a group of students, mostly female, form a jazz band specializing in swing music. The young actors actually played the instruments in the film and gave excellent renditions of such big band classics as "In the Mood," "Moonlight Serenade," and "Sing, Sing, Sing."

Then there is Jackie Evancho, an eleven year old phenomenon who has mastered operatic and pop classics. Jackie was brought to national attention by the show, "America's Got Talent." When you watch her perform, you are struck not only by her remarkable voice, but by her poise, and ability to sing Italian, French, and other difficult pieces flawlessly. I recently watched her PBS special where she held her own in a special duet with Barbra Streisand ("Somewhere"), which is no easy task.

There are, of course, many others such as Melissa Venema, the 13 year old Dutch trumpet player who played under Andre Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra. In addition to these young entertainers, there are many new writers and artists who are producing an impressive body of work.

The talent of these young people is so profound, they often bring adults to tears. They are celebrated not just because of their specific talent, but because adults recognize the hard work and discipline required to master their skills, something we tend to believe young people are incapable of doing anymore. When we see it played out in front of us, we become dumbstruck. Adults simply cannot believe young people can achieve such a level of excellence and are, therefore, enraptured by their skills.

Obviously, not everyone can be entertainment "phenoms" like those mentioned, but this doesn't mean adults cannot appreciate other talents of youth, such as in science, mathematics, medicine, mechanics, languages, military service, etc. all of which are important to the world. The difference is that someone discovered the hidden talents of the young artists, cultivated their skills through encouragement, and taught them a sense of work ethic, all of which we tend to overlook or take for granted by parents and school counselors. Whereas children often look for guidance from their elders, they frequently do not get it and are left to wander aimlessly on their own with little ambition. Imagine the tragic loss it would be if the "phenoms" had not received the proper guidance or learned their sense of work ethic. The same is true for any young life, it is a loss of unimaginable proportions. The future of our culture resides within our youth and, as such, it behooves us to invest the proper effort to help each child find his/her way.

In the High School I graduated from years ago, there was geat emphasis on going to college. There was no mention of the military or trade school. As should be obvious, college is not for everyone which is why I feel it is necessary we start studying the interests of our children at an earlier age and help guide them in the proper path, maybe it leads them to college, and then again, maybe it does not. Regardless, waiting until our children are 18 years old to guide them in their walk through life is simply too late.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

THERE'S THAT UGLY WORD AGAIN: DEPRESSION

2011-08-23T09:25:00.000-04:00

The country's latest round of economic gymnastics has brought up an old concept that strikes fear in both politicians and the public: Depression. The Great Depression of the 20th century was triggered by the market crash of 1929 which led to a period of approximately ten years of high unemployment, poverty, low profits, deflation, and lost opportunities for economic growth. Basically, we lost confidence in ourselves and our economic future. FDR's social programs of the "New Deal" did not pull us out of it, only war did, specifically WW2.

The comparisons between then and now are glaring. We are already experiencing a higher unemployment rate than just prior to the Great Depression; our Gross Domestic Product is at a snail's pace; our debt continues to mount, and; nobody has confidence in our government's ability to control the economy. Although we have been asked to accept "Change we can believe in," most Americans recognize we have gone from bad to worse.

The recent debt ceiling debate was politicized and resulted in a superficial fix. Government financial institutions, specifically Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which were at the epicenter of the financial disaster just four years ago, were bailed out and taken over by the federal government, yet their policies and business practices remain essentially unchanged. Although there were several recommendations for regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry, nothing of substance ever came of it. Other stimulus bills and bailout programs did nothing to snap the economy out of its doldrums, and Obamacare is still perceived as an ominous threat to our financial well-being. Meanwhile, the country's credit rating has dropped slightly, housing values still plummet, bankruptcies grow, exports decline, and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has flat lined. Our government officials, thereby, give the distinct impression they are incompetent of managing our economy. Frankly, if they couldn't do it in 1929, why should we believe they can do it now, 82 years later? The reality is, they cannot. Only business can put the country back to work, but if they are inhibited by government policies and regulations, they are less likely to make bold moves.

Some might rationalize the actions in Washington, DC as "business as usual." It's not. This is a battle of ideologies, socialism versus capitalism, which will only be broken by the 2012 elections which historians will record as a referendum of the two incompatible economic systems. The elections will represent a game of chicken where voters will be asked to chose the system they prefer: big government versus smaller, a nanny state versus personal initiative and responsibility, excessive spending versus fiscal responsibility. Perhaps never before in our country's history will the differences be so apparent and the stakes so high. It will be a costly election, both in terms of finances and emotions. Every seat up for election, large or small, will be fiercely contested. Wisconsin and the debt ceiling debate were glimpses into the future. The country will be forced to select one side or the other; a divided federal government, which we currently have, represents gridlock and certainly not an option as should be readily apparent by now.

One thing is for certain, the country is on a collision course politically and economically. Whichever side is the victor in 2012 will incur the wrath and scorn of the loser who will likely not go away quietly. It may even turn violent. Economics has a way of bringing out the worst in people, as anyone who survived the Great Depression can tell you. The only way to avert disaster is to create the proper incentives for business to accelerate production, put people back to work, accelerate the GDP, and curb our government's finances. However, with only fifteen months remaining until the elections, that is probably too tall of an order to fill.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

EMBRACING COMPLEXITY

2011-08-22T05:37:00.000-04:00

For years in my youth, I was the "go to" guy for operating the family's technical equipment, be it tape recorders, record players, or even our Super 8 movie projector. As I grew older, I eventually relinquished my title to my son who is adept at setting up our High Def TV, cable box, DVD/VHS player, cell/smart phones, and other such devices. It was only when I realized we were as dependent on my son, as my family was on me years ago, that I began to ask why.

It is a long accepted theory that younger people tend to embrace and adapt to technology faster than seniors. I am reminded of the story told by comedian Jay Leno where he purchased a remote control for his parents' television set. On a return visit to their home in Boston, Jay couldn't locate the device and asked his father of its whereabouts. The father informed Jay they kept it locked up in a nearby drawer as he considered it a complicated piece of equipment and wanted to be sure it "wouldn't go off accidentally." Despite Jay's attempts to assure him it wasn't a phaser that could burn the house down, the father was unmoved and kept the device safely locked up. Whereas we tend to accept complexity in our youth, we grow abrasive to it as we grow older under the mantra, "simplify, simplify, simplify."

In our youth we are more inclined to accept complexity as we assume it is a natural part of the learning process. As we mature, we learn to handle more responsibilities and assignments much like a juggler takes on additional objects to be thrown into the air. We keep juggling more and more objects until we reach our capacity and discover our limitations. Our arms deftly spin for years and years juggling everything until we grow weary and can no longer embrace any more items. In fact, we start to slow down, prioritize what we are doing, and drop those tasks we no longer consider important thereby simplifying our lives. In the Jay Leno example, the father had grown to accept changing the television channel manually and felt the remote control was simply one more thing to complicate his life. Consequently, he avoided using it, even going to the extent of fabricating an excuse.

In youth we are eager to accept new challenges as we want to prove ourselves ready to assume our place in society. As we master the subjects that interest us, we begin to exercise our skills and express ourselves creatively. Typically, our window of peak creativity is no more than ten years. To illustrate, both the Beatles and the Beach Boys, two of the most successful Rock and Roll bands of all time, were at their zenith of their careers for no more than ten years, as is true for most bands. The members of the bands ranged in age from their late teens to late twenties. In their thirties, they slowed down and were never able to duplicate the creative output of their earlier years. This phenomenon is not only true in the arts, but in the sciences as well. Our tempo slows, we prioritize our efforts, and we begin to focus on fewer things. Whereas we were eager beavers in our youth, we become more cognizant of our limitations and more selective in our challenges.

One reason young people are gravitating towards the Information Technology field is because of their ability to embrace complexity. For example, the average computer program consists of approximately 100 components (such as data elements, records, files, modules, etc.), each requires a series of design decisions based on type (e.g., a data element's length, precision, scale, label, validation rules, etc.). In total, there are approximately 2,000 such decisions to be made and controlled, which is quite a challenge for anyone to track. Whereas younger programmers are more inclined to simply write and compile the software iteratively until it is clean, their older counterparts are more likely to carefully plan and document the software to avoid forgetting or overlooking the components used and the design decisions associated with them.

Whereas youth is quick to tackle complex issues, often to the point of recklessness, this inevitably leads to mistakes and causes us to slow down and become more cautious. As we grow older, we don't mind tackling complex issues, but we are leery of making mistakes and, consequently, become wiser in how we tackle such undertakings. As we approach retirement and beyond, we are less likely to tackle bold new ventures and, instead, are more inclined to "simplify, simplify, simplify."

Actually, if programmers weren't so bad at designing devices to be easy-to-use, we wouldn't be so dependent on our youth to operate them for us, but that is another subject. As a teenager, there were only two buttons on my family's television set, one for on/off and volume, and a tuning dial. Today, God only knows how many buttons I have on my High Def TV; I know there is one for power, three for color, two to adjust screen positioning, and one to automatically call 911 when I've finally lost my mind.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

SOFTWARE UPDATES

2011-08-11T08:18:00.000-04:00

Years ago, when I was working in the world of computer mainframes, upgrading software was a major event. Rarely were minor releases issued with small corrections. Instead, customers were advised months in advance what the upgrades consisted of and when to expect delivery of the release. This information was used to schedule the upgrades and prepare an in-house training schedule to properly educate users. As a software vendor ourselves, we went to great lengths to communicate our plans with our customers and make sure the software update executed smoothly. This all changed with the advent of the PC and the commercial use of the Internet.

At first, software upgrades for the PC were implemented using mainframe techniques. Upgrades came in the form of voluminous diskettes, then CD's, but now they are distributed via the Internet. Although you can still check to see if a particular software product is in need of upgrading (usually under the "Help" action-bar-chocie), some software vendors now take Carte Blanche over your computer whenever they are in the mood, particularly Microsoft. I appreciate receiving upgrades from a vendor, but inevitably they always come at the most inopportune time for me to implement. For example, I tend to set things up on my computer at night so I can easily execute them first thing in the morning. Although this works most of the time, I can generally rely on Microsoft to reboot my computer at least once a week, thereby negating my preparations for the next day.

Microsoft is not alone in this regard, security software vendors are notorious for running upgrades and background scans of the hard drive which seems to execute for an inordinate amount of time. Even worse, they usually are executed at a point in time aimed at causing the most disruption for a person in the business day. Have you ever noticed your computer suddenly becoming lethargic during the day? Maybe it's just me.

Instead of automatically executing software updates, I would much rather prefer to get a message informing me that an upgrade is available, a description of what it includes along with an indication of its importance (criticality), and ask me when to install it, either immediately or at another time more convenient for me, but I guess that's asking too much of the software companies whose priorities take precedents over my own. There is nothing more arrogant than for a software company to force me to install new software and reboot a computer for a minor improvement. While they install their small widget, I must cool my heels and suspend my business activities. "Sorry, I can't help you right now; the computer is running an upgrade. Call me back tomorrow." Yea, right!

I believe this phenomenon is somewhat Murphy-esque whereby, "A software upgrade will always occur at the most inopportune time of the business day." Not because you scheduled it to execute, but because the vendor did.

As a point of clarification, MS Windows does allow some customization of software upgrades; see:

For WinXP:
Start -> Control Panel -> Scheduled Tasks

For Windows 7:
Start -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Scheduled Tasks

The problem is that 99% of the people using Windows probably does not know such a facility even exists and, consequently, never use it. The other 1% of the people know it exists but never bother with it as they have resigned themselves to the fact that Microsoft will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

By the way, regarding installation progress bars (you know, those bars that tell you are 99% complete but never seem to end) are actually designed to distract the user. It's an old hypnotist trick designed to occupy your time by watching the bar move. You didn't really think they worked did you?

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).