Saturday, March 28, 2009
The importance of newspapers
In looking at the Plain Dealer coverage of Gerald McFaul, it's hard to imagine another organization that could have dug so far to discover the extent, duration and depth of the corruption in that office. While I am guilty of cancelling delivery of the daily PD, I still subscribe to the Sunday edition. Cleveland.com and Ohio.com (the Beacon Journal's site) are still where I find my local news, but I am VERY concerned about the future of our towns if the newspapers decline to a point where they can't report the hard news anymore.
More Red Light Camera news
Finally, a mayor of a town who admits he's putting the red light cameras and speed cameras in place in order to gain $1Million in additional unapproved tax revenue. Quoting Mayor Thomas Longo of Garfield Heights, Ohio: "You really don't want to say we did it for finances, but really we are." A little honesty is refreshing in today's culture of corruption in public office.
Read the full article and public comments at Cleveland.com.
I suppose I should be pleased at how many corrupt politicians are getting caught, from Sherriff McFaul to Governor Blagojevich. But I'm not: it's just depressing how people we've trusted for years have used their office for personal gain beyond their legal compensation for the job. We re-elected McFaul for
32 YEARS!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 8 times, shame on all of us who voted for him.
Read the full article and public comments at Cleveland.com.
I suppose I should be pleased at how many corrupt politicians are getting caught, from Sherriff McFaul to Governor Blagojevich. But I'm not: it's just depressing how people we've trusted for years have used their office for personal gain beyond their legal compensation for the job. We re-elected McFaul for
32 YEARS!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 8 times, shame on all of us who voted for him.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Gardening
Planning a garden and getting all the early seeds germinating has taken more time than I thought (always does). We'll put an herb garden with all the usual stuff in one corner of the front yard, will need to transplant some perennials that are already there.
We'll have 50 strawberries, 2 new grape vines, 2 currant bushes, 2 blueberries, 5 raspberry canes, lots of sunflowers, a bunch of hot peppers (germinating in the basement right now from seeds harvested last year). I might do a cucumber or squash hill, I like brussels sprouts, cauliflower, Maybe a tomato, some lettuce and cabbage. Beans and peas are difficult to pick, but are good to eat.
But I may have already overshot my capabilities...
We'll have 50 strawberries, 2 new grape vines, 2 currant bushes, 2 blueberries, 5 raspberry canes, lots of sunflowers, a bunch of hot peppers (germinating in the basement right now from seeds harvested last year). I might do a cucumber or squash hill, I like brussels sprouts, cauliflower, Maybe a tomato, some lettuce and cabbage. Beans and peas are difficult to pick, but are good to eat.
But I may have already overshot my capabilities...
Friday, March 20, 2009
Red Light Cameras
Holy crap! How many accidents do we have at an intersection that we need to start issuing automated tickets by computer? If there are THAT many, it would be obvious and the traffic engineers would change the operation of the intersection. How unsafe are we?
How many months or years do the cameras need to stay active to have an impact on drivers' behavior, which is the goal, of course. After all, this is only about safety.
Is there a big sign a block or two in front of the camera or just a small one that would influence the drivers' behavior? If this is about reducing accidents at this particularly dangerous intersection, then drivers should be told in advance to adjust their behavior to AVOID ACCIDENTS, not the 100 dollar ticket that pales in comparison to the cost of an accident. If it's about safety.
If after a year there is a downward trend in violations, will the government agree that the goal of reducing risky behavior has been accomplished and take down the cameras? What IS the specified goal in terms of reduction of accidents or number of red light violations? Certainly we are not taking our citizens' money without having a goal for accident reduction. Safety First!
-or-
If after a year there has been almost NO change in accidents, will the government agree that the cameras are ineffective at improving safety and remove them? If we are no safer, then why should we send half our money to Redflex in Arizona?
As has been said from the beginning "this isn't about the money: it's about safety." So if no or only small safety gains can be shown after all this time, we can conclude that the cameras are not effective at improving safety. So take them down. If the city isn't measuring and acting on the data obtained from the cameras, then how do we know if we are any safer? If it's about safety.
I really don't like it when people lie to me. And when a politician does it, then you can bet it's about money or influence. I subscribed in November 2007 to Yahoo Alerts which sends me every article about red light cameras in every newspaper in the US.
NOT ONCE in over 3,000 articles has a politician or law enforcement officer stood up and said "We don't exactly know if any of these cameras will dramatically reduce accidents. But we do know that if we generate just 20 tickets a day at 100 dollars each, one camera can generate $730,000 a year that we have no other way of raising."
-or-
We can collect $730,000 while eliminating (say) 6 accidents, saving the insurance companies almost (what?) $200,000. That is an even worse return over the past year than my IRA.
I'm trying to follow the money (as Deep Throat taught us during Watergate), and it all leads to city hall. So find out WHO is doing WHAT with YOUR money. If this is just a back-door tax then it should be repealed until approved by the voters.
How many months or years do the cameras need to stay active to have an impact on drivers' behavior, which is the goal, of course. After all, this is only about safety.
Is there a big sign a block or two in front of the camera or just a small one that would influence the drivers' behavior? If this is about reducing accidents at this particularly dangerous intersection, then drivers should be told in advance to adjust their behavior to AVOID ACCIDENTS, not the 100 dollar ticket that pales in comparison to the cost of an accident. If it's about safety.
If after a year there is a downward trend in violations, will the government agree that the goal of reducing risky behavior has been accomplished and take down the cameras? What IS the specified goal in terms of reduction of accidents or number of red light violations? Certainly we are not taking our citizens' money without having a goal for accident reduction. Safety First!
-or-
If after a year there has been almost NO change in accidents, will the government agree that the cameras are ineffective at improving safety and remove them? If we are no safer, then why should we send half our money to Redflex in Arizona?
As has been said from the beginning "this isn't about the money: it's about safety." So if no or only small safety gains can be shown after all this time, we can conclude that the cameras are not effective at improving safety. So take them down. If the city isn't measuring and acting on the data obtained from the cameras, then how do we know if we are any safer? If it's about safety.
I really don't like it when people lie to me. And when a politician does it, then you can bet it's about money or influence. I subscribed in November 2007 to Yahoo Alerts which sends me every article about red light cameras in every newspaper in the US.
NOT ONCE in over 3,000 articles has a politician or law enforcement officer stood up and said "We don't exactly know if any of these cameras will dramatically reduce accidents. But we do know that if we generate just 20 tickets a day at 100 dollars each, one camera can generate $730,000 a year that we have no other way of raising."
-or-
We can collect $730,000 while eliminating (say) 6 accidents, saving the insurance companies almost (what?) $200,000. That is an even worse return over the past year than my IRA.
I'm trying to follow the money (as Deep Throat taught us during Watergate), and it all leads to city hall. So find out WHO is doing WHAT with YOUR money. If this is just a back-door tax then it should be repealed until approved by the voters.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Youngstown Business Incubator
Visited Jim Cossler and got a good understanding of YBI's unique business model. YBI brings in only technology-based companies commercializing proprietary Intellectual Property (IP). It was also highlighted on an NPR piece February 17. You all know that most or all major cities have business incubators, but YBI focuses solely on B2B software and electronics companies ready for commercialization. It is the best example I know of a "Managed Cluster" of related tech companies.
One of its operational strengths is the way the YBI staff facilitate communication and problem solving between closely related skillsets. Chances are that among the 300 or so software people there, your bug report can be analyzed and resolved in minutes by someone who has already been down that path.
Zethus software, Green Energy TV, and machine vision systems. Turning Technologies makes the "clicker" that was praised and panned by student users on a March 2, 2009 NPR piece.
If you have a proprietary product with heavy software content that is ready for commercialization, the YBI is where you need to be. I've got my eyes on it.
One of its operational strengths is the way the YBI staff facilitate communication and problem solving between closely related skillsets. Chances are that among the 300 or so software people there, your bug report can be analyzed and resolved in minutes by someone who has already been down that path.
Zethus software, Green Energy TV, and machine vision systems. Turning Technologies makes the "clicker" that was praised and panned by student users on a March 2, 2009 NPR piece.
If you have a proprietary product with heavy software content that is ready for commercialization, the YBI is where you need to be. I've got my eyes on it.
TiE Meeting
About a hundred people attended at Hilton Garden Inn Downtown. Oddly enough, I didn't see a garden at the "Garden Inn".
Widely diverse audience, not just a bunch of old white men like me. Richard Herman moderated an excellent panel featuring Margaret Wong, Phil Alexander and Hiroyuki Fujita. Each talked about their business and gave their educated opinion on the barriers to building new businesses in Cleveland, and some ways to overcome those barriers.
One thing we entrepreneurs can do is to teach or at least try to convince the politicians that it is a good thing to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to create and grow their companies here in Cleveland. This being a primarily political decision, it's a huge educational problem. The politicians' CONSTITUENTS need to be convinced that it doesn't matter if your CEO is Chinese or Indian: the company is here in Cleveland and you have a job. Unless the constituents are onboard and tolerant of foreign CTOs and CEOs, then we can never be a world class city again.
The current political climate that is focused on bringing back jobs for the iron-age workers is a barrier preventing us from moving to the next phase of growth in the information / medical care / materials science / polymer / sensor industries.
When Beachwood extends a hand to the Israeli tech community, and Cleveland says it's not a high priority to invite foreigners here, who wins? Beachwood.
Who loses? You.
Widely diverse audience, not just a bunch of old white men like me. Richard Herman moderated an excellent panel featuring Margaret Wong, Phil Alexander and Hiroyuki Fujita. Each talked about their business and gave their educated opinion on the barriers to building new businesses in Cleveland, and some ways to overcome those barriers.
One thing we entrepreneurs can do is to teach or at least try to convince the politicians that it is a good thing to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to create and grow their companies here in Cleveland. This being a primarily political decision, it's a huge educational problem. The politicians' CONSTITUENTS need to be convinced that it doesn't matter if your CEO is Chinese or Indian: the company is here in Cleveland and you have a job. Unless the constituents are onboard and tolerant of foreign CTOs and CEOs, then we can never be a world class city again.
The current political climate that is focused on bringing back jobs for the iron-age workers is a barrier preventing us from moving to the next phase of growth in the information / medical care / materials science / polymer / sensor industries.
When Beachwood extends a hand to the Israeli tech community, and Cleveland says it's not a high priority to invite foreigners here, who wins? Beachwood.
Who loses? You.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Cleveland Mayor Jackson
Mayor Jackson has the courage to stand in front of his constituents for over two hours taking unscripted questions, often rambling monologues, personal agendas and criminal accusations without flinching, losing his temper or taking a cheap shot at anyone. I attended his Glenville neighborhood meeting and was highly impressed by his professionalism and patience.
He also makes sure that anyone who is listening understands how he makes decisions, what he takes into consideration. He will explain every issue to constituents, often in greater detail than necessary but in a way that even an 8th grader will understand if he is paying attention.
Thanks Frank. Keep going.
He also makes sure that anyone who is listening understands how he makes decisions, what he takes into consideration. He will explain every issue to constituents, often in greater detail than necessary but in a way that even an 8th grader will understand if he is paying attention.
Thanks Frank. Keep going.
The Euclid Corridor, Ch. 1
Who's the winner with the new design of the Euclid Corridor?
1. Not the bus riders(A) The buses now run down the middle of the road so the pedestrians have to compete with car traffic to cross the car lane to get to the bus stops. No matter which direction the rider wants to go, or which side of the street he's on.
2. Not the bus riders(B) The rider, in order to be legal, has to walk up or down the block to get to the traffic light to cross to the bus island, then walk back to the actual bus stop. I hope my bus doesn't come while waiting at the light.
3. Not the bus riders(C) Now the rider is on the bus hoping to make the trip quickly. The buses, however, need to stop for all the same lights as the cars. With the number and duration of the lights, the buses make average less than 10 MPH.
3. Not the buses: they have to stop at all the same traffic lights the cars do, AND they have to stop at the bus stops in the middle of the block. They don't move any faster than the they did before.
4. Not the local businesses: the ones that went out of business during the protracted construction process are just gone. The remaining business now have access to only half of the car traffic coming down the road. There is a center barrier preventing a car from turning left into the business so the car has to travel to the next available left turn lane, sometimes several blocks. Sometimes the driver will just drive on to the next restaurant. It doesn't really matter, there is almost no parking on The Corridor.
5. Certainly not the cars: if one follows the 25 MPH speed limit (very close to the speed of a school zone) then the car is caught by numerous traffic lights (sorry, no turn on red at any intersection in any direction on The Euclid Corridor). It turns out that the lights are almost perfectly timed for 35 MPH travel (DAMHIK)! By following the actual speed limit, a car can average almost 12 MPH on The Euclid Corridor, being at a complete stop 37% of the time.
So who is the winner after years of construction and huge expenditures? It's not clear to me yet. But I have more questions for the next chapter.
1. Not the bus riders(A) The buses now run down the middle of the road so the pedestrians have to compete with car traffic to cross the car lane to get to the bus stops. No matter which direction the rider wants to go, or which side of the street he's on.
2. Not the bus riders(B) The rider, in order to be legal, has to walk up or down the block to get to the traffic light to cross to the bus island, then walk back to the actual bus stop. I hope my bus doesn't come while waiting at the light.
3. Not the bus riders(C) Now the rider is on the bus hoping to make the trip quickly. The buses, however, need to stop for all the same lights as the cars. With the number and duration of the lights, the buses make average less than 10 MPH.
3. Not the buses: they have to stop at all the same traffic lights the cars do, AND they have to stop at the bus stops in the middle of the block. They don't move any faster than the they did before.
4. Not the local businesses: the ones that went out of business during the protracted construction process are just gone. The remaining business now have access to only half of the car traffic coming down the road. There is a center barrier preventing a car from turning left into the business so the car has to travel to the next available left turn lane, sometimes several blocks. Sometimes the driver will just drive on to the next restaurant. It doesn't really matter, there is almost no parking on The Corridor.
5. Certainly not the cars: if one follows the 25 MPH speed limit (very close to the speed of a school zone) then the car is caught by numerous traffic lights (sorry, no turn on red at any intersection in any direction on The Euclid Corridor). It turns out that the lights are almost perfectly timed for 35 MPH travel (DAMHIK)! By following the actual speed limit, a car can average almost 12 MPH on The Euclid Corridor, being at a complete stop 37% of the time.
So who is the winner after years of construction and huge expenditures? It's not clear to me yet. But I have more questions for the next chapter.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Going to DC
I will attend the SIDS conference 3/24 and 25 with Esther Verbovsky. We've requested a meeting with Representatives Kucinich and Boccieri.
The Hug Me Joey infant support system can help reduce the probability of a SIDS death by supporting the baby so he or she can breathe easier. www.HugMeJoey.com.
The Hug Me Joey infant support system can help reduce the probability of a SIDS death by supporting the baby so he or she can breathe easier. www.HugMeJoey.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
