[Cross-Posted at Progress Ohio]
I read a hilarious article Link by Paul Kostyu in the Canton Repository about Auditor Mary Taylor’s megalomania and self-promotion on her official state website. Mary leaves no opportunity undone in her zeal to advertise her CPA.
“Press releases coming from her office and her office Web site are emblazoned with the Ohio seal and her name followed by CPA in big, bold letters.”
How pathetically embarrassing. I used to work with a guy that signed every letter with his name followed immediately by “M.B.A.” He was the source of much snickering and amusement in an office filled with Ph.D.s, M.D.s, J.D.s, and plenty of Masters degrees in topics I could only pretend to understand. I just want to pick up the phone and say “Mary, Mary, Mary…enough with the CPA-thing”.
People want you to be well-educated. But once they have placed their faith in you, they do not want to be reminded of it, and they are less forgiving of you when you make a mistake. I learned long ago that the secretaries, mailmen, clerks, receptionists, maintenance personnel and every other support employee are the real backbone of every office. The rest of us are pretty much expendable and things will progress smoothly until the next guy arrives. And they will cover for you and help you do your job to the best of their abilities as long as you do your job well and show them the respect that they deserve.
But watch out if you don’t. Take my father-in-law (PULEEZE :). I once sent a Christmas card with a return address label that had my name and “Esq.” I never gave it a thought, since they were the free labels that come with a plea to support disabled vets or the heart association. Three years later when he was mad at me he pulled out the gem “that I rub his nose in the fact that I am an attorney”. I was stunned as I had always been careful to avoid any discussion of politics or legal issues. When I called him on the comment, he pointed out the return address label on a Christmas card three years previous.
Mary, let my father in law and a return address label be a metaphor for the electorate. You may have gotten your job based on your credentials, but unless you do the job that you were elected to do (such as responding for a request by SOS Brunner to audit the SOS’s office), your self-aggrandizing, even if it is in the form of a free return address label, will be perceived just as it is.
The voters put you in your position but expect you to do your job. And they don’t like to hear about how much you love yourself. Save your CPA letters for when you sign an audit report, if you must. Oh, and when you write to our Governor, I hope that you follow his name with HIS credentials, B.A., M.Div., Ph.D. Somehow I suspect that you won’t.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
NASA and Coal?
Cross Posted at Progress Ohio
I ran into an interesting article Link by Kevin Kelley with West Life News, a Westlake area publication, that is worth a read. The article followed Governor Strickland’s visit a few weeks ago at NASA Glenn Research Center.
Apparently the Governor’s visit was to take a look at the alternative fuel research going on at the NASA facility. The Governor visited the facility’s “Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig”, the only device of its kind in this country, which is being used to develop alternative jet fuels. The combustion process converts CO2 and hydrogen to produce liquid fuel.
What caught my eye is that NASA is looking at technology to convert Ohio’s coal into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Fuels converted in this process have no sulfur emissions (which produces acid rain) and reduced CO2 emissions. Just think, a coal-powered space shuttle?
I find this very exciting, although I am concerned about applications that increase the mining of coal within the state without a concurrent policy to deal with the devastation left behind. Greater use of our coal resources would be a huge economic boost to our Appalachian areas of the state. Coal use further may increase with “clean-coal technology” in the generation of electricity. Add “liquid fuel” to the mix, and the mining industry will indeed be happy.
If the cost of coal increases, many ecologically sensitive areas that were too expensive to mine in the past may be economically viable. Because of federal law, mining companies are doing a better job at “reclamation” of land after mining activities have ceased. But the landscape is forever changed. And older mines have left a legacy of ecological problems, from mine subsidence to acid mine drainage into our potable water. There is not enough funding to address these problems created by mining companies long relegated to history. It is my hope that if these new technologies are successful, that increased mining is predicated on provisions for taking care of the environmental costs associated with the past, present and future mining operations.
I ran into an interesting article Link by Kevin Kelley with West Life News, a Westlake area publication, that is worth a read. The article followed Governor Strickland’s visit a few weeks ago at NASA Glenn Research Center.
Apparently the Governor’s visit was to take a look at the alternative fuel research going on at the NASA facility. The Governor visited the facility’s “Advanced Subsonic Combustion Rig”, the only device of its kind in this country, which is being used to develop alternative jet fuels. The combustion process converts CO2 and hydrogen to produce liquid fuel.
What caught my eye is that NASA is looking at technology to convert Ohio’s coal into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Fuels converted in this process have no sulfur emissions (which produces acid rain) and reduced CO2 emissions. Just think, a coal-powered space shuttle?
I find this very exciting, although I am concerned about applications that increase the mining of coal within the state without a concurrent policy to deal with the devastation left behind. Greater use of our coal resources would be a huge economic boost to our Appalachian areas of the state. Coal use further may increase with “clean-coal technology” in the generation of electricity. Add “liquid fuel” to the mix, and the mining industry will indeed be happy.
If the cost of coal increases, many ecologically sensitive areas that were too expensive to mine in the past may be economically viable. Because of federal law, mining companies are doing a better job at “reclamation” of land after mining activities have ceased. But the landscape is forever changed. And older mines have left a legacy of ecological problems, from mine subsidence to acid mine drainage into our potable water. There is not enough funding to address these problems created by mining companies long relegated to history. It is my hope that if these new technologies are successful, that increased mining is predicated on provisions for taking care of the environmental costs associated with the past, present and future mining operations.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
What is Your GE (Greenhouse Emission) Quotient?
(As Posted at Progress Ohio)
Hey, it’s Superbowl Sunday so of course it is time for online car shopping. Well, it didn’t start out that way. It started from a Time Magazine article wherein I read a Joe Klein article on the hand-wringing of the GOP at an audience of conservatives convened by the National Review.
Not that this was not entertaining enough, but I saw an argument put forth by former CIA Director James Woolsey that caught my eye. The article sums up Mr. Woolsey’s argument thusly, “As a matter of national security, the U.S. Government should support hybrid technology and alternative fuels”. It wasn’t that it was a particularly brilliant observation, it was just the source and the audience that the argument was made to that I found striking.
Not to be outdone by a bunch of Post-Traumatic Stress-suffering GOP-ers, I set out on trying to find out what our federal government was doing about energy policy. Not much. Increase the strategic national reserve, “environmentally sensitive drilling”, now there is an oxymoron. O.K., so if the government is not doing anything, what can I do?
That is when I stumbled upon a decent government website on car fuel economy. A few statistics:
58% of our oil is imported, domestic resources are waning.
About two-thirds of the world’s oil resources are controlled by OPEC members.
Oil price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC have cost our economy about $7 trillion from 1979 to 2000 cost the U.S. economy—and each major price shock was followed by a recession.
Ultimately, the solution to this problem lies in technological progress:
•Developing advanced vehicle technologies that use energy more efficiently
•Creating new energy sources that can replace petroleum cleanly and inexpensively
But what about today? How can we reduce our gas use “footprint”? By taking an interest in fuel economy, we can reduce U.S. oil dependence now and create incentives for carmakers to produce cleaner, more energy efficient vehicles.
Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.
Energy efficient technologies that also reduce greenhouse emissions are available today. I found a nifty “side-by-side comparison” of automobile models that everyone should try out just to see how we are individually contributing to energy non-efficiency. Link
For example, my beloved older model Ford Taurus Wagon seems pretty conservative to me in comparison to the Urban Assault Vehicles that pass me every day on my commute. But when I compared it to a Kia Rio, I was a bit embarrassed. Worse still, I found that buying a Honda Civic Hybrid would reduce my gas consumption by 356 gallons (8.5 Barrels!) per year and reduce my greenhouse emissions by 5 tons/year.
Thus, you will find me during the game car shopping. And if the model comes with lower greenhouse emissions, higher gas efficiency and Sirius radio, in that order, I may just even buy!
Hey, it’s Superbowl Sunday so of course it is time for online car shopping. Well, it didn’t start out that way. It started from a Time Magazine article wherein I read a Joe Klein article on the hand-wringing of the GOP at an audience of conservatives convened by the National Review.
Not that this was not entertaining enough, but I saw an argument put forth by former CIA Director James Woolsey that caught my eye. The article sums up Mr. Woolsey’s argument thusly, “As a matter of national security, the U.S. Government should support hybrid technology and alternative fuels”. It wasn’t that it was a particularly brilliant observation, it was just the source and the audience that the argument was made to that I found striking.
Not to be outdone by a bunch of Post-Traumatic Stress-suffering GOP-ers, I set out on trying to find out what our federal government was doing about energy policy. Not much. Increase the strategic national reserve, “environmentally sensitive drilling”, now there is an oxymoron. O.K., so if the government is not doing anything, what can I do?
That is when I stumbled upon a decent government website on car fuel economy. A few statistics:
58% of our oil is imported, domestic resources are waning.
About two-thirds of the world’s oil resources are controlled by OPEC members.
Oil price shocks and price manipulation by OPEC have cost our economy about $7 trillion from 1979 to 2000 cost the U.S. economy—and each major price shock was followed by a recession.
Ultimately, the solution to this problem lies in technological progress:
•Developing advanced vehicle technologies that use energy more efficiently
•Creating new energy sources that can replace petroleum cleanly and inexpensively
But what about today? How can we reduce our gas use “footprint”? By taking an interest in fuel economy, we can reduce U.S. oil dependence now and create incentives for carmakers to produce cleaner, more energy efficient vehicles.
Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.
Energy efficient technologies that also reduce greenhouse emissions are available today. I found a nifty “side-by-side comparison” of automobile models that everyone should try out just to see how we are individually contributing to energy non-efficiency. Link
For example, my beloved older model Ford Taurus Wagon seems pretty conservative to me in comparison to the Urban Assault Vehicles that pass me every day on my commute. But when I compared it to a Kia Rio, I was a bit embarrassed. Worse still, I found that buying a Honda Civic Hybrid would reduce my gas consumption by 356 gallons (8.5 Barrels!) per year and reduce my greenhouse emissions by 5 tons/year.
Thus, you will find me during the game car shopping. And if the model comes with lower greenhouse emissions, higher gas efficiency and Sirius radio, in that order, I may just even buy!
Saturday, February 3, 2007
What's Plan B?
I read a recent blog on Emergency Contraception being denied to the Florida woman arrested on old warrants and it reminded me of a recent Dayton story about the Wal-Mart pharmacist who refused to dispense “Plan B” to a married couple.
According to the story, “Tashina Byrd, 23, of Springfield, said the pharmacist ‘shook his head and laughed’ when a pharmacy attendant asked this month about giving the woman and her boyfriend Plan B. The hormone pills can help prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.”
“Brent Beams, the pharmacist, told The [Columbus] Dispatch that he denied the couple's request for the contraceptive pills because ‘I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception.’ After the pharmacist turned them down, O'Neill and Byrd asked for a store manager who "came over and said, 'The pharmacist has the law on his side,' " O'Neill said.”
Here's my RANT: I just about have had it with other people dictating to women their health decisions and making judgments on their presumed lack of moral clarity. The FDA approved the over the counter (non-prescriptive) use of Plan B last August (2006). Under the guidelines, the drug is required only to be offered by licensed drug wholesalers or retail pharmacy operations in order to keep it from the use of minors without a prescription.
So all I should have to do is show my ID to prove I am over 18, and then be given the darn drug. How is it that the pharmacist has “law on his side” when handing it over does NOT require the professional judgment of a licensed pharmacist? Shoot, when I was young, my Catholic education teacher preached that condoms and birth control is a sin. Under the pharmacist’s rationale, these items can be kept from me as well.
It_is_time for pharmacists to be held to licensure standards that prohibit them from supplanting their own moral beliefs for the professional judgment of a licensed physician or the personal beliefs of a women or married couples.
According to the story, “Tashina Byrd, 23, of Springfield, said the pharmacist ‘shook his head and laughed’ when a pharmacy attendant asked this month about giving the woman and her boyfriend Plan B. The hormone pills can help prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.”
“Brent Beams, the pharmacist, told The [Columbus] Dispatch that he denied the couple's request for the contraceptive pills because ‘I do not believe in ending life, and life begins at conception.’ After the pharmacist turned them down, O'Neill and Byrd asked for a store manager who "came over and said, 'The pharmacist has the law on his side,' " O'Neill said.”
Here's my RANT: I just about have had it with other people dictating to women their health decisions and making judgments on their presumed lack of moral clarity. The FDA approved the over the counter (non-prescriptive) use of Plan B last August (2006). Under the guidelines, the drug is required only to be offered by licensed drug wholesalers or retail pharmacy operations in order to keep it from the use of minors without a prescription.
So all I should have to do is show my ID to prove I am over 18, and then be given the darn drug. How is it that the pharmacist has “law on his side” when handing it over does NOT require the professional judgment of a licensed pharmacist? Shoot, when I was young, my Catholic education teacher preached that condoms and birth control is a sin. Under the pharmacist’s rationale, these items can be kept from me as well.
It_is_time for pharmacists to be held to licensure standards that prohibit them from supplanting their own moral beliefs for the professional judgment of a licensed physician or the personal beliefs of a women or married couples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)