Duane Gran’s log of thoughts

Democracy Now! | Venezuelan-Owned Citgo Faces Congressional Inquiry For Offering Discounted Oil to U.S. Poor

Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas has launched an investigation into one of the world’s major oil companies. But he is not investigating whether any of the oil giants are engaging in price gouging at a time when gasoline and heating oil casts are skyrocketing. Instead Barton has set his sights on the only oil company that actually dared to lower its prices last year - at least for the poorest Americans. Last week Barton demanded the Venezuelan-owned company Citgo produce all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to the company’s novel program of supplying discounted heating oil to low-income communities in the United States.

Maybe there is more to the story, but it is patently brazen to look the other way as ExxonMobile posts a 38 Billion dollar profit last year and to investigate Citgo when they help the poor. Possibly it is embarrassing that a state owned company, in a Socialist nation, helps poor Americans when the invisible hand does nothing.

A cynical explanation, related to Representative Barton’s financial allegiance, comes by way of a New York Daily News article, which refers to Barton as “the closest thing on Capitol Hill to a mouthpiece for Big Oil.” He was “was second only to fellow Texan Tom DeLay in the amount of oil industry contributions” in the last election cycle.

Monied interests always play a role, but this investigation is poor form any way you cut it. In the meantime, I believe I’ll go out of my way to locate a Citgo station.

Opinions vary, but if it should come to pass that we are actually in a housing bubble, an analysis from SearchLight Crusade will certainly seem prophetic. The author of the essay consistently shares poignant insight from his perspective as a mortgage broker. I’ve recommended his writing to several people considering a home purchase or sale, given his keen ability to separate emotions from fact.

A clever essay puts to words several thoughts I’ve had about the mindset of Libertarians:

For those who don’t know, corporations are totally a form of socialism, allowing folks to group together their resources so they can do things that they couldn’t do by themselves. And that’s what socialism is all about. Grouping resources together to do things that you can’t do as individuals. And that’s what unions are all about. And so why is it that libertarians totally defend the concept of corporations, while totally attacking the concept of unions? One is based upon economic strength, and the other is based upon labor strength; but essentially, they’re the same idea.

Most Libertarians I’ve met are either stuck on theory or only appreciate the viewpoint for its ability to validate their innate selfishness.

Last night I attended the ASAP meeting and was encouraged by some common ground between rail and slow growth advocates. In truth, “slow growth” may be a mischaracterization of the goals of ASAP, but I believe it encompasses the general concern about unchecked development in our rural community. See my previous notes about the issue for some background on my position. While I’m a member of C’ville Rail I don’t speak for the group in any official way. This is my personal summary of events and I’m sure others in attendance may have a different perspective.

I expected some friction but I’m pleased to say that some common ground emerged on the matter of transportation choices and priorities for activism.

Rail is something to be rediscovered, as Charlottesville used to have a wealth of choices for its citizens. As late as 1956 there were 22 passenger rail trips per day between Washington DC and Charlottesville. Today there are 2, serviced by Amtrak, and the service is unreliable to the extent that Amtrak willingly suggests that you not use the service if you really need to arrive at your destination. While we have invested in private transportation and roads over the past 50 years we have let our rail infrastructure fall apart. This leaves many people with fewer choices today than in previous years.

But is this a choice that encourages sprawl and turns Charlottesville into a bedroom community? Opinions varied at the meeting, but a vocal majority seemed to believe that this wasn’t the case for two reasons:

1. Bedroom communities seem to emerge out of a desire for affordable housing, as commuters move further outward from a metropolitan area. Charlottesville is expensive to live and it seems inconceivable that masses of people would opt to live here over more affordable communities closer to DC.
2. Charlottesville lacks professional employment opportunities to fulfill its present workforce, who commute occasionally to Washington. Rail service would make life more convenient for existing commuters, but it’s a stretch to claim that masses would move to Charlottesville when the commute time by rail would be 2.5 hours. The benefit serves those who are here, but it doesn’t seem attractive enough to draw newcomers.

Beyond the issue of choice, I think ASAP may see pragmatic reasons to not oppose rail in Charlottesville. There are higher priorities for activism, such as various connector roads and bypass proposals. Connections between rail and sprawl are tenuous, but are well established with other modes of transport. While I don’t sense that ASAP endorses intercity rail for Charlottesville, I believe the majority won’t oppose it.

I’ve written a new article for CodeSnipers.com which exhorts software developers to be more reflective before they replicate business logic. A colleague of mine at Dominion Digital, a local software development firm, has made a strong impression on me in this area. They have made an investment in Six Sigma certification for their project managers and the company is carving a niche for delivering more value to its customers by improving process on the front end. The devil is in the details, but I hope the article may raise awareness about process management.

This Thursday evening, February 16th, at 7:30 pm there will be a meeting of the Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population concerning a proposal to bring commuter rail to Charlottesville. The meeting will take place at the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the Library.

At issue will be how commuter rail and sustainable growth can work together, if at all. I’m of the view (as a member of C’ville Rail) that rail transportation tends to encourage density and discourages sprawl. The counter argument is that rail can turn Charlottesville into a bedroom community for commuters to Washington DC, as has been done to communities within a 50 mile perimeter of the DC-Metro area.

The discussion should be interesting, as I find myself solidly in the anti-sprawl and pro-rail camps. I expect to emerge with a view of the middle ground or cognitive dissonance.

A Wired News article summarizes the research on the ambiguity of e-mail communication:

According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I’ve only a 50-50 chance of ascertaining the tone of any e-mail message. The study also shows that people think they’ve correctly interpreted the tone of e-mails they receive 90 percent of the time.

The results aren’t surprising, as writing is divested from non-verbal cues that fill in the gaps. Writing is, and always has been, an ambiguous art, but there are practical things to do about the problem. Letter writing (on paper) has employed various techniques to avoid confusion, namely using an apologetic tone and welcoming response. Nothing prevents us from applying the lessons of paper communications to the digital medium. I’ll go further so say that many of the ambiguities would dissipate if this were done.

Unfortunately, the medium is tied closely to the technology and I have some doubts if handheld communication devices, like the Blackberry, gain traction. It would take the wisdom of Solomon and the cryptographic talent of the NSA to decode the meaning of some messages I’ve received from handheld devices. Terse and fragmented prose is the norm, and unfortunately so is confusion.

If the researchers are willing, I would propose two follow up studies:

1. Ask the senders to transcribe their email from written letters, or first write them with a pen and then keyboard the message. It would be interesting to see if the message retains more fidelity by using tried and true techniques for written communication.
2. Ask the senders to use a handheld device and again test for fidelity.

As an aside, if anything I’ve written here is ambiguous, by all means use the comment section to alert me.

Much has been said and written about the recent outrage of Muslims over the depiction of the prophet Muhammad in a Dutch newspaper, and the consequent reprint in European newspapers. Embassies have been evacuated, flags have burned and no one seems very happy with one another. We are told that this is a contest between free expression and religious zealotry, but among the hand wringing discussion I observe a historical disconnect where the western world and the 20-40 latitude are talking across purposes.

Put simply, the Muslim community (which means the leadership and its vocal proponents) has a 16th century world view. The west is thoroughly ensconced in the 20th century (I think the 21st is too new to discern any differences) which presumes a lot about state and government function. We are, in fact, so sure about how government and society should be structured that few people think twice about the sense of making the rest of the world in our image. While we have great mastery over the power of sword and jewel, we neglect the mirror too often.

But things seem even worse on the other side. For example, a BBC article reports that an Iranian newspaper is holding a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust. Herein lies the cross-purpose thinking: While westerners see a conflict of expression and religion, vocal Muslims (and opportunists throughout) see a conflict between Islam and Israel. If you can stomach it, a fellow Virginia writer delves into the themes of blasphemy and puts in stark relief the extreme views of those who protest the cartoons. There isn’t much room for ambiguity when a protester’s sign declares, “slay those who insult Islam”.

To put this into context, Europe has a centuries-old culture of ridiculing and lampooning religion, much to the ire of the Vatican. Most reasonable Christians have come to see such behavior as a useful counter balance to the authority of the Church and among the offended, nearly all believe in peaceful resistance to blasphemy. This viewpoint is relatively new in the past few centuries, which leads to the historical disconnect. The friction today could very well be the same as if a 16th century Christian were transported into today’s secular world.

We can’t (and I’ll go further to say we shouldn’t) secularize Muslim countries against their will, and they also can’t apply Sharia to secular society anymore than we can instate Kings and the Holy Roman Empire. However, we can — and should — find ways of getting along. To that end, it was poor taste for the Dutch publisher to commission the illustration and worse judgement for newspapers to reprint them, knowing full well that it would fan the flames of Muslim outrage. Being right about the freedom of expression is immaterial when lives are endangered.

The Christian Science Monitor offers a good summary of newspaper positions on the matter. I find the position espoused by The Guardian to be particularly apt:

The Guardian believes uncompromisingly in freedom of expression, but not in any duty to gratuitously offend. It would be senselessly provocative to reproduce a set of images, of no intrinsic value, which pander to the worst prejudices about Muslims. To directly associate the founder of one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions with terrorist violence - the unmistakable meaning of the most explicit of these cartoons - is wrong, even if the intention was satirical rather than blasphemous.

Can’t we all just get along?

David Sugar wrote an excellent article about his recent travels to Venezuela to assist them with their national directive to migrate all government agencies to free software within two years. The goal is ambitious, but mixed in with historical anecdotes he mentions the seed for this revolutionary viewpoint on IT in the public sector. Namely, after President Chavez nationalized the oil industry it was found that the IT systems were implemented with proprietary systems and the passwords were only known by the previous owners. Sugar explains the impact, as computer hackers regained control of the systems:

The Venezuelan revolution is perhaps the first revolution in history saved by computer hackers and this is one of the reasons the government is so very strong on promoting the use of free software, particularly in public administration. The Venezuelan government wishes never again to have vital infrastructure held hostage or sabotaged by agents of foreign nations.

One may disagree with the public policy of Venezuela, but they are wise to prefer open source software, all things being equal. The mandate to switch all systems to open source is less pragmatic than I would choose, but this will undoubtedly serve as a spur for innovation.