Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

I had dinner with some flying buddies this evening. I mentioned that some readers of this weblog had taken offense at my referring to Barack Obama as “King Obama”, though for eight years I had called our president “King Bush II” without anyone becoming upset. Was it fair to call Obama a king?

My argument was that recent American presidents are like kings in that their experience of life bears no relationship to that of a commoner. A current president of the U.S.

• never waits in line
• never waits in traffic (or drives a car! or gets a car inspected or renews a car registration or renews a driver’s license)
• never waits for a doctor (he has one or more available inside the White House at all times)
• never interacts with a health insurance administrator
• never waits to catch someone’s attention
• need not carry a wallet
• is always served his favorite foods
• does not go through the $50 billion TSA security system at airports
• has an entire 400-seat Boeing 747 for his personal plane
• upon reaching his destination, finds that three helicopters and multiple land vehicles have been flown in ahead of time for his use (when Obama visited England, instead of borrowing Blackhawks from the British military, the U.S. taxpayer paid to have additional cargo planes full of helicopters flown across the Atlantic)
• never has to cook any food, clean any surface, or organize anything in the house
• has a spouse who doesn’t have to do any domestic chores (thanks to the First Lady’s staff of more than 20 assistants)
• never encounters an unemployed neighbor (because he lives in recession-proof Washington, D.C. and in any case does not walk around the neighborhood too much)
• sees only people who are dressed in their best clothing (e.g., at $6000 per person fundraisers)
• when traveling, sees towns that have been scrubbed and polished to the point that they should be considered Potemkin villages
• need not do sysadmin on any home PCs
• need not sort out phone bills or any other bills for that matter
• need never change a lightbulb, call or wait for a Bosch dishwasher repairman
• need never do any yardwork
• does not send his children to public schools (where 90 percent of American children are warehoused)
• need not worry whether his children will be accepted into an elite private school
• never leaves the house without being surrounded by armed guards
• need not worry about future employment or retirement, if only because of the speaking fees available to former presidents

Was it always like this? I’m just finishing No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II. Eleanor Roosevelt, who traveled extensive around the country and abroad, “refused Secret Service protection, believing that their presence made her look more like a queen flanked by an imperial guard” (book). Because the number of servants and staff required by the Roosevelts was so much less than the number employed by the Obamas (Eleanor may have had just one social secretary), the White House had a lot of empty rooms that they let friends, family, and associates use. Some guests camped out for months or years, a familiar experience to average Americans who live in a big house during tough times.

From 1956 through 1960, President Eisenhower took shorter trips in an Aero Commander, an efficient six-seat airplane with two piston engines (source). The 60,000 gallons of fuel that the current Air Force One burns on a trip to England and back would power the Aero Commander for approximately 2000 hours.

It isn’t any actions carried out by King Bush II or King Obama that make it fair to refer to them as kings, it is the fact that they share so few day-to-day experiences with their average subject.

Was this argument convincing? “I had a breakfast meeting in Bermuda recently,” replied a business guy, “and the Prime Minister of the U.K. happened to be vacationing there at the same time. He was sitting at the next table. No security detail. No special service. No special menu. I don’t think it makes sense to call Obama ‘King’. I think ‘Messiah’ is a more accurate term.”

[Note that nowhere in this posting or in earlier postings have I suggested that we dispense with the American monarchy. I have not advocated that we would be better off being governed by one of our peers. I simply believe that the lifestyle of the president has changed so much since Eisenhower that we need a new title for the position.]

Full post, including comments

… by reading this New York Times article about some non-profit employees in New York City. Because non-profit Form 990 filings with the IRS are public, the salaries of the five highest paid workers become available at Web sites such as guidestar.org. The union guys who roll pianos around on the stages of Lincoln Center will earn an average of $290,000 this year. Their counterparts at Carnegie Hall earn between $330,000 and $420,000 per year according to the article (the actual Form 990 for 2006 shows, on Statement 18, that the five highest paid stagehands at Carnegie earned these amounts plus an additional $75,000 to $107,000 in contributions to benefit programs; i.e., the total compensation for one guy was $535,000 per year).

Comparison: Average medical doctor in Manhattan earns $192,000 per year (source).

Full post, including comments

At a recent birthday party, while my cake blazed like the wreck of the Hindenburg, I was gifted with a great book: The Map as Art: Contemporary Artists Explore Cartography (Thank you, Suzanne!). A related Web feature is available at http://www.womansday.com/Articles/Family-Lifestyle/10-Amazing-U.S.-Map-Artworks.html (the top Aaron Foster piece is behind the counter at the Smithsonian Museum of American Art gift shop, next time you’re in Washington, D.C.).

Full post, including comments

… because nobody can see past 2010. That was my argument at lunch today with a friend who is founder and CEO of a local tech company that peaked at about 200 employees. I noted that most economic forecasts said that things here in the U.S. are going to be slow through 2010 but then pick up in 2011. They have some data that has lead them to conclude that things will remain slow for the next year or so, but no data at all for 2011. Nobody has a crystal ball so nobody can see further than about a year. Why then do they believe that there will be a recovery in 2011? Because they think that the default state of the U.S. economy is growth. As I noted in a January 2009 posting about England, it is possible for an economy to slide sideways for decades (Argentina provides another example).

What did this guy who has created 200 jobs have to say about the theory?

“Most businesses right now are sized under the assumption that there will be a recovery pretty soon. If the economy does not grow, they will have to make a lot more cuts. I don’t see anything on the horizon that would indicate a recovery.”

He is not planning to invest or hire anyone for his firm.

Anyone else have a tale of private hiring or investment to offer? A firm not in government or healthcare doing some hiring? (or not) If so, please tell us about it in the comments.

[Why was I lunching with a business guy? A friend had noticed a posting for a $9/hour part-time job with this company and asked for help in securing it. When I pulled out my friend’s resume during lunch, the CEO said “We’re hiring?”]

Full post, including comments

Some of my airline crew friends would refer to a plastic shopping bag containing their sandwich as a “West Virginia lunch pail”. When folks asked how we navigated while flying a helicopter from California to Boston I would say that we used a “Kentucky GPS”, i.e., descending to 250′ above the ground and reading the green signs on the Interstate. In that spirit, let me say that I emailed my “Crash of 2008 Concierge Physician” (doctor friend) about whether I should be concerned about entering Day 15 of swine flu symptoms. I’ve still got a sore throat and cough. His response:

“I see something similar to asthma on frequent basis after a viral upper airway disease which gives a bit of wheezing and cough for several weeks- can be treated with steroids if symptoms are bad. Will stop on its own eventually (all bleeding stops eventually as well due to clotting or death).”

Now I feel better.

[Separately, a friend’s 5-year-old had been trained to protect himself from flu germs the modern way, with hand sanitizer. Unfortunately the bottle was located on a counter higher than his head. When he pressed on the pump some of the alcohol-based fluid squirted in his eye. Now he has an ulcerated cornea, which is extremely painful but usually heals well. He’s now relegated to the dark basement, watching TV in a Roman Polanski outfit (dark sunglasses, baseball cap).]

Full post, including comments

Back in April, I wrote a post about how local newspapers provided an important check on politicians handing out taxpayer funds to their cronies. I’ve written more recently about the challenge of American private sector workers ever being able to come up with enough taxes to pay for public employee pensions. There are a few recent Boston Globe stories that illustrate the value of a local newspaper in keeping the taxpayer informed:

• an October 22 story about Boston firefighter pensions (74 percent of retirees become disabled on the job, which entitles them to tax-free pensions; a majority were injured on a day when they happened to be filling in for a supervisor, which entitled them to a pension based on the salary of the person for whom they were filling in that day)
• a library trustee who earned almost $10,000 per hour (in pension benefits) for attending a few board meetings
• two public employees approve each others’ pensions (one got $63,000 per year… EXTRA)

What is upsetting about these stories is that you know the Globe’s small staff can’t possibly be finding more than the tip of the iceberg when it comes to state/local government abuse of the taxpayers.

Full post, including comments

An economist pointed out that Bill Clinton was practically a libertarian compared to Barack Obama. Both are popular Democrats, separated by just eight years, so how to explain the difference in philosophy?

My answer was that Clinton had come from Arkansas, a poor state (#48 in household income). There wasn’t that much accumulated wealth in Arkansas to ladle out to cronies. Clinton thus turned to the only remaining possible strategy of trying to grow the pie by making an environment more conducive to business investment.

Obama, by contrast, came to national office from Illinois, a wealthy state (#16). By taxing some of the real estate, factory, and other wealth in Illinois it is possible to hand out significant checks to tens of thousands of supporters. Why attempt the hard work of growing the economy when one can simply tax the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower?

Temperamentally we should expect politicians from wealthy states to behave like Saudi princes, assuming that an inexhaustible supply of wealth is their birthright and spending most of their time figuring out how to distribute it.

Full post, including comments

Not quite as important a contribution as the Britney Spears Guide to Semiconductor Physics, but still interesting is this example of Delaunay Triangulation, Hugh Hefner style. Speaking of Hef, the New York Times ran a story on his graceful aging. Should he die of a Viagra overdose at the age of 85 while in bed with Kristina and Karissa (twins; they’ll be 22 by then), there is little doubt that folks will say “He really would have been happier in a comfy chair reading page 39 of Greenspun’s big PDF and learning how to compute the dual of a Voronoi diagram in Common Lisp.”

Full post, including comments

I’m deeply confused by a Paul Krugman article in the October 22 New York Times. He argues that the Chinese are ruining the world economy, and our economy, by keeping their currency weak. Chinese exports are too cheap. I can’t figure out why this is bad. Would we be better off if we paid higher prices for Chinese-made car parts, electronics, clothing, etc.? Wouldn’t that leave us with less money to spend on other stuff and therefore worse off?

And what about this finance professor from University of Chicago, John Cochrane, who tears apart one of Krugman’s earlier pieces? Whom are we to believe, the Nobel Laureate Krugman or a glider pilot who lives in a part of the country with no ridge lift (see the bottom of his papers page)? Cochrane seems to be a bit of a contrarian, arguing in the Wall Street Journal that the Lehman failure did not cause the Collapse of 2008.

Full post, including comments

Barack Obama visited Boston today to appear at a $6000 per person fundraising event for our Democratic governor, fellow law school graduate Deval Patrick. At first I was excited because I though that perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize winner would take his Aunt Zeituni back with him on Air Force One. Obama indeed praised Governor Patrick for having built additional public housing units here in Massachusetts, but he did not mention that we will be needing them if we are to continue to house illegal immigrants like his aunt. The President also praised Patrick for having increased the number of public school employees in Massachusetts. No praise was apparently due to private sector workers of Massachusetts whose taxes paid for the new teachers’ union members and new housing units. No praise was given to Massachusetts taxpayers who have paid for Aunt Zeituni’s housing for the last six years.

It is unclear why Massachusetts voters love a politician who promises to expand federal spending. According to the Tax Foundation, Massachusetts receives only 82 cents in federal spending for every dollar of taxes paid. The bigger the federal government, the poorer we will become. A politician in New Mexico ($2.20 in spending per dollar paid in taxes) or Maine ($1.41) could be expected to vote for additional federal programs, but why would we want to pay taxes to build pork barrel projects on the other side of the continent?

Deval Patrick received $600,000 from donors who wanted to lunch with Obama. Federal taxpayers probably spent at least $2 million on transportation and security for the President. Commoners suffered lost wages and productivity when they found subway stations closed, streets closed, their scheduled airline flight stopped at Logan, etc. Local flight schools alone suffered at least $10,000 in lost revenue. It would be a lot cheaper if we said that every day for the next 8 years the federal government will write a $1 million check to the person of Barack Obama’s choice and in return the President will agree to stay at his desk and work.

After the fundraiser, Obama stopped by MIT with his lawyer friends Deval Patrick and John Kerry. The transcript of the talk reveals that this speech about renewable energy credits two dozen politicians. John Kerry is “an all-star” who is “[working on legislation to] make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America” . Abe Lincoln “designated a system of land grant colleges”. FDR “signed the GI Bill”. Senators are praised for working with the all-star Kerry. Representative Ed Markey “deserves a big round of applause” for passing legislation relating to energy.

Was anyone left out of the talk? No scientists or engineers were mentioned, except for a couple of guys who served on Obama’s council of advisors. According to the troika of lawyers on the dais, all scientific and engineering innovation is apparently due to the efforts of politicians like themselves.

Does it make sense to credit technical achievements to lawyer-politicians? Consider that, since the Enlightenment, scientists and engineers have worked successfully in monarchies in England and France, in feudal systems in more fragmented European countries, on expeditions with Napoleon, under Communist rule in Russia and China, for Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, and here in the U.S. under whatever we’re calling our present system of government. Isaac Newton was a member of the Royal Society, but I don’t remember King Charles II taking credit for the Principia.

Who are my heroes of renewable energy? Let’s limit this to starting in the year 1900 so that we don’t have to reflect on our own inadequacies compared to Newton, Maxwell, Gauss, et al.

We’ll consider electricity first. Let’s thank Oleg Vladimirovich Losev, inventor of the LED. To keep some of the Obama spirit in my speech, I’ll also thank Marx and Lenin for creating the Soviet Union that enabled Mr. Losev to do his important work under a political system that inspired our own planned economy today. M. Stanley Whittingham and John B. Goodenough, inventors of the lithium-ion battery; if we had better batteries, all of the rest of our energy problems would be simple to solve. Karl Alexander Muller and Johannes Georg Bednorz for their work on high temperature superconductors that enable low-loss electric power lines. Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, inventor of the transistor, and then all of the silicon nerds who enabled us to run millions of transistors at the cost of just a few watts.

How about power generation? Robert M. Potter, Eugene S. Robinson, and Morton C. Smith, developers of the Hot Dry Rock idea (1974 patent), which may yet save us from barbecuing the planet.

Things with a lot of parts? Kiichiro Toyoda, founder of Toyota Motor Corporation, and his colleagues for figuring out how to make machines that don’t break; it saves a lot of energy if you can use an automobile for 20 years instead of 7. For more modern heros, Wang Chuan-Fu, the founder of Shezhen-based startup battery company BYD, and Warren Buffett, who recently added $230 million in financing for BYD’s line of electric cars (story).

Can innovation and energy independence be achieved by expanding government, celebrating politicians who spend taxpayer money, and spending $52 billion per year on homeland security (partly by running 4,400 Secret Service agents around the U.S. to partisan fundraisers)? I sure hope so.

Full post, including comments