Sunday, May 3, 2009

Older Sibling is Watching You

Selena Cuffe, President and CEO of Heritage Link Brands, LLC, banks at First Republic. From ad posters she says,
It's not really a bank--it's like having an older sibling look out for your best interests.

I wonder if Mrs. Cuffe is paraphrasing, gender-neutral--like, a quote from the first page of 1984:
It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. Big Brother is Watching You, the caption beneath it ran.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Shackles of Liberty

In April 1917 United States enter the World War. To pay for this War to End All Wars, the government sells equally oxymoronic Liberty Bonds. A striking feature of these "Liberty Loans" is how the government compels citizens to finance them.

a choice in bondsFourth Liberty Loan Label for R.F.D.Boxes

16th amendment authorizes a federal income tax in 1913, and the marginal tax rate rises to 77% in 1918. Liberty Loans are additional money that the government asks citizens to contribute. Patriotic citizens display their support (and show compliance) with buttons on their lapels, emblems in their windows and labels on their mailboxes. Uncle Sam feels quite free to question anyone who does not display these receipts. 75,000 four-minute-men volunteer to sell the bonds locally and check on slackers who avoid doing their bit.

slacker

Others volunteer in other ways. Charlie Chaplin produces--at his own expense, all sources agree--The Bond, an 11-minute silent short that shows how bonds of friendship, marriage and liberty all mean that the Trump must pay up.

step i step ii step iii

Title vignette illustrates the bonding process. The Trump gives money to Uncle Sam, Uncle Sam gives money to Industry, Industry gives rifle to Doughboy. According the the War Department in 1917, a rifle and bayonet cost $21.65. The Trump gets a $1,000 gold bond for his bag of a hundred gold Eagles. I wonder what his other $978.35 buys. (Internet Archive has a poor-quality full-length copy of The Bond; Wikipedia has better-quality clips from the film)

Monday, March 23, 2009

Intentions and Results

On January 15, 2009 Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III displays exceptional airmanship when he lands his A320 in the Hudson. All 155 people aboard US Airways Flight 1549 survive. This highly improbable outcome makes Mr. Sullenberger an instant celebrity.

Mr. Sullenberger's passengers are extremely lucky to have him as captain on that particular flight. Mr. Sullenberger's other business is airline safety and reliability. On February 8th he says on 60 Minutes: "My entire life up to that moment has been a preparation to handle that particular moment."

The preparation pays off. Mr. Sullenberger appears on TV, talks to President and President-Elect, lands a book-writing deal, receives keys to NCY, testifies before Congress. The incident creates good publicity for US Airways and for Mr. Sullenberger's consulting company, Safety Reliability Methods, Inc., whose website says, quite justifiably, "by choosing SRM, you get proven performance [and] uniquely qualified experts." This publicity is especially timely as Mr. Sullenberger turns 60 in less than two years. 60 is mandatory retirement age for US airline pilots.

Paradoxically, successful ditching in the Hudson appears to be the most desirable outcome for a flight from LGA to CLT.

Find the Outlier
Landing at Charlotte (CLT):
Landing at destination on schedule. No blood, no glory. (30,000 of these happen per day)
Return to LaGuardia (LGA):
Passengers wait for next flight. Minor inconvenience. (dozens of these happen per year)
Landing at Teterboro (TEB):
Local-news-worthy. TEB has no scheduled flights or public transportation. Passengers need to get to another airport before they can continue on their way.
Landing off-airport on land:
National-news-worthy. Dense urban areas around accident site make injuries and fatalities likely. Damage to aircraft and property on the ground. No brownie points for crew.
Landing off-airport on water:
National phenomenon, if you can pull it off.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

World's First

RIM and Verizon are running a most bizarre ad campaign. How embarrassing would it be if competitors, say Apple and AT&T, beat them to the punch? They would be stuck with the world's second touch screen Blackberry.

If you don't like coming in second, you can always qualify your achievement.

Storm, the World's First Touch Screen BlackberryAlan Shepard, the World's First American in Space

Monday, December 22, 2008

Obama's Kissinger

Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger is a naturalized citizen of the United States. His foreign birth prevents him from seeking the presidency or the vice-presidency. Dr. Kissinger became Secretary of State, the third most powerful position in the United States executive branch. In certain respects, Dr. Kissinger had more power then the presidents he served. President Nixon resigned in disgrace. President Ford's short presidency was in the shadow of Watergate and its aftermath. In contrast with Vice President Agnew and other Nixon aides, Dr. Kissinger was curiously untouched by the scandal and remained Secretary of State until President Carter took office. A quirk of federal law, Mr. Nixon's resignation letter was addressed to Secretary Kissinger.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to secure a presidential or a vice-presidential nomination. She is designated to become Secretary of State. Irrelevantly for Dr. Kissinger, but intriguingly for Sen. Clinton, Secretary of State is 4th in order of succession for the presidency.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Talk to Chuck About the Uptick Rule

TALK TO CHUCK Charles Schwad logoWhen the uptick rule was invented 70 years ago, stocks were quoted in fractions of a dollar. The smallest "tick" then was typically $1/8, plus another $1/8 in commission. For almost a decade now, US stocks have been quoted in decimal dollars and cents. The minimum uptick now is $.01, and they happen more frequently because of their smaller size and larger volume. Whatever effect the rule had then, good or bad, it has but nostalgic value today.

This observation is lost on Charles R. Schwab, who has joined the campaign to reintroduce the uptick rule in his WSJ op-ed:
In the wake of the Great Depression, the uptick rule was established to eliminate manipulation and boost investor confidence. The rule said that short sales could be made only after the price of a stock had moved up (an "uptick") over the prior sale. This slowed the short selling process making it more expensive and limiting the ability of short sellers to manipulate stocks lower by piling on, driving the share price quickly down and quickly profiting from the downdraft they created.
I expect that many of Mr. Schwab's customers find comfort in blaming manipulators for their poor performance in recent markets, and what businessman argues with his customers? But I say, why stop at half-measures? We could prohibit short-selling the way it's prohibited in China. Or better yet--we could prohibit selling altogether. Quoting Barton Biggs in Wealth, War & Wisdom:
[C]oncerned about the ebbing of confidence, the Nazi government imposed controls on stock prices for the remainder of World War II which concealed the damage. No German legally could sell shares without first offering them to Reichsbank, which had the option of buying them at December 1941 prices in exchange for government bonds, which remained in the bank's possession. Not exactly an attractive proposition, particularly since bond prices collapsed.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The Royal They

I received an email recently from a website that read, in part:
This is a reminder that on <date>, <person> sent you an invitation to become part of their professional network at <site>.
The administrators at <site> were quite certain that <person> is a single individual; they were less sure of his sex. (I happen to know <person> and that he is a man.) I think that this increasingly common attempt to co-opt "they" (or worse, "it") to fix a perceived deficiency in English is ugly.

The <site>'s editors' problem is not that English does not have a gender-neutral, third-person, singular, animate pronoun. Hell, some languages don't even have a gender-neutral "they." In Hebrew and Arabic, for instance, only "I" and "we" are are sexless, all other pronouns have gender, and speakers address groups of men and women differently. Gender-specific "you" allows endless gay jokes when translating "I love you"s from English or when covering, in a male voice, songs written from a woman's perspective.

There are any number of ways to rephrase this invalid of a sentence that are grammatical. "His or her network" works as does "<person>'s network." Paraphrasing Mark Twain, only kings and people with tapeworms are entitled to a royal "they."