01 October, 2009
21 September, 2009
Just the Truth - National Security
Republicans interred terrorists in Cuba in a time of war
Democrats interred Japanese and German American Citizens in America in a time of war
Democrats interred Japanese and German American Citizens in America in a time of war
11 September, 2009
20 August, 2009
An open letter to the President
Mr. President
Stop blaming your failures on others. I have been at two events dealing with the health care debacle that is occurring. I am not a radical. I am not a racist. I am not an "evil monger". I am not a sheep to follow others blindly. I have not been given a script to read and no one has helped me find my way to these events. Certainly no one has offered to bus me anywhere or printed out signs for me. Fear is not my primary motivation. I am most certainly not bearing false witness. You and your counterparts may be saying these things to create a cloud of doubt or you may honestly believe what you are saying but if you honestly believe that what is occurring is an artificial construct of your political enemies then you truly do not understand the depth of loss of trust in you that is happening.
Many of us voted for you and almost all of us supported you for a while as our President. My neighborhood voted overwhelmingly for you. That would not happen right now. That loss of trust is happening and it is very real.
I and many others who have been persistently trying to politely voice concern and ask questions simply want an honest discussion that occurs over a long enough time period to get the facts out. Instead we are demonized, ignored, and in some cases physically attacked for daring to ask those questions.
In every event I have seen video of, the initial questions were quite polite. It was not until the people were ignored, talked down to or verbally accosted by the reps or their lackeys that things became more tense. At this point your "punching back twice as hard" has caused people to stop turning the other cheek. Even in those scenarios the only escalation is verbal and remarkably mild verbal in comparison to the political discourse of the last few decades (and certainly the last 9 years).
We are not the stupid sheep that we are being made out to be. I know very well that the end of life consultations are not intended as a "death panel" but I also know that they could become exactly that in function if mandated. I realize that the cost of medicare is at the point that it will soon become insolvent but I am not convinced that the way to solve that government induced failure is to impose similar government controls and concepts to the entirety of the rest of health care and to every single citizen of this country.
Fear is not driving us. Knowledgeable concern is driving us. The hubris of trying to forcibly alter (or take over bureaucratic control of) a fifth of our economy in two months without real debate or even one clearly written bill is driving us.
It is not a "Hope" issue it is a "Trust" issue. I do not want to have to hope that I can trust the government.
I am mostly happy with my healthcare. If I wasn't I could always find different care. I am ok with the government trying to find ways to expand the coverage base for the uninsured that want it. I think it is disingenuous to say that the uninsured do not get care though. I would be very OK if the government limited lawyers from specious lawsuits against sound medical practices. I would find it acceptable if the government removed barriers preventing me from having choice in private insurance but I do not want a government option. I believe that more people will "fall through the cracks" in a government system than in the system we currently have.
I am not naive. I know that any government option will eventually force out all of the other options. It will not do this because of fair competition or because it is better. It will do this because it has seemingly endless pockets and can operate at a loss. Seemingly endless because the real cost will be shifted. It will occur in higher taxes. It will occur in the form of inflation as the government prints money to cover shortfalls. It will occur in lower wages because businesses will either be taxed or regulated. It will occur in higher unemployment because thousands of small businesses will have to offset personal tax costs (taxing incomes over $250K). It will occur in reduced care to "less productive" society members (even if they paid their fair dues before). It will also force others out because as part of the government it will eventually regulate out competition. It will create a monopoly. The only thing worse than a monopoly is a government monopoly.
I think that 15% of our economy is worth 6 to 9 months of deliberation and not a hasty political cram.
I respect you and my government. I respect you and my government significantly more than most others respected the previous administration.
I am loosing that respect though. It is difficult to respect people who do not appear to respect me. People who are prejudging based on appearances, racial groupings and socioeconomic status.
Respectfully,
Jim C
PS - I am completely aware that your staff will likely censor this from you but on the off chance you do read it I would certainly be willing to buy you a beer to talk about it.
Stop blaming your failures on others. I have been at two events dealing with the health care debacle that is occurring. I am not a radical. I am not a racist. I am not an "evil monger". I am not a sheep to follow others blindly. I have not been given a script to read and no one has helped me find my way to these events. Certainly no one has offered to bus me anywhere or printed out signs for me. Fear is not my primary motivation. I am most certainly not bearing false witness. You and your counterparts may be saying these things to create a cloud of doubt or you may honestly believe what you are saying but if you honestly believe that what is occurring is an artificial construct of your political enemies then you truly do not understand the depth of loss of trust in you that is happening.
Many of us voted for you and almost all of us supported you for a while as our President. My neighborhood voted overwhelmingly for you. That would not happen right now. That loss of trust is happening and it is very real.
I and many others who have been persistently trying to politely voice concern and ask questions simply want an honest discussion that occurs over a long enough time period to get the facts out. Instead we are demonized, ignored, and in some cases physically attacked for daring to ask those questions.
In every event I have seen video of, the initial questions were quite polite. It was not until the people were ignored, talked down to or verbally accosted by the reps or their lackeys that things became more tense. At this point your "punching back twice as hard" has caused people to stop turning the other cheek. Even in those scenarios the only escalation is verbal and remarkably mild verbal in comparison to the political discourse of the last few decades (and certainly the last 9 years).
We are not the stupid sheep that we are being made out to be. I know very well that the end of life consultations are not intended as a "death panel" but I also know that they could become exactly that in function if mandated. I realize that the cost of medicare is at the point that it will soon become insolvent but I am not convinced that the way to solve that government induced failure is to impose similar government controls and concepts to the entirety of the rest of health care and to every single citizen of this country.
Fear is not driving us. Knowledgeable concern is driving us. The hubris of trying to forcibly alter (or take over bureaucratic control of) a fifth of our economy in two months without real debate or even one clearly written bill is driving us.
It is not a "Hope" issue it is a "Trust" issue. I do not want to have to hope that I can trust the government.
I am mostly happy with my healthcare. If I wasn't I could always find different care. I am ok with the government trying to find ways to expand the coverage base for the uninsured that want it. I think it is disingenuous to say that the uninsured do not get care though. I would be very OK if the government limited lawyers from specious lawsuits against sound medical practices. I would find it acceptable if the government removed barriers preventing me from having choice in private insurance but I do not want a government option. I believe that more people will "fall through the cracks" in a government system than in the system we currently have.
I am not naive. I know that any government option will eventually force out all of the other options. It will not do this because of fair competition or because it is better. It will do this because it has seemingly endless pockets and can operate at a loss. Seemingly endless because the real cost will be shifted. It will occur in higher taxes. It will occur in the form of inflation as the government prints money to cover shortfalls. It will occur in lower wages because businesses will either be taxed or regulated. It will occur in higher unemployment because thousands of small businesses will have to offset personal tax costs (taxing incomes over $250K). It will occur in reduced care to "less productive" society members (even if they paid their fair dues before). It will also force others out because as part of the government it will eventually regulate out competition. It will create a monopoly. The only thing worse than a monopoly is a government monopoly.
I think that 15% of our economy is worth 6 to 9 months of deliberation and not a hasty political cram.
I respect you and my government. I respect you and my government significantly more than most others respected the previous administration.
I am loosing that respect though. It is difficult to respect people who do not appear to respect me. People who are prejudging based on appearances, racial groupings and socioeconomic status.
Respectfully,
Jim C
PS - I am completely aware that your staff will likely censor this from you but on the off chance you do read it I would certainly be willing to buy you a beer to talk about it.
11 June, 2009
20 May, 2009
06 April, 2009
20 March, 2009
24 September, 2008
Ubuntu Rules
1. No I haven't abandoned the blog.
2. Yes I am going to finish the FMEA stuff.
3. Ubuntu is quite nice.
Oh Snap
2. Yes I am going to finish the FMEA stuff.
3. Ubuntu is quite nice.
Oh Snap
28 June, 2008
Mortgage - Doddgate = more homeless
Look if we remove the risk and impact on mortgage companies of defaulted loans the result will be more defaults and therefore foreclosures. The result of congress bailing out the mortgage companies will be more foreclosures not less because they will have less incentive to negotiate with borrowers who are on the line.
This holds especially true in variable rate loans where the borrower is able to make initial payments but the increased payments are out of reach. In these cases neither the borrower or the lender should have made the agreement in the first place but if you remove the downside of the default from the vendor why would they ever entertain the idea of negotiating with someone who was making payments earlier.
This article misses the point in the end but I agree with the bailout point. Government involvement is exacerbating the problem and it isn't a solution.
This makes Doddgate even worse. Dodd's FOA status might lead directly to more people getting kicked out of their houses.
We need to make it clear to Congress and the Senate that they need to be very careful about how they walk when it comes to solutions that take away one side of the bargaining position. In this case our side.
This holds especially true in variable rate loans where the borrower is able to make initial payments but the increased payments are out of reach. In these cases neither the borrower or the lender should have made the agreement in the first place but if you remove the downside of the default from the vendor why would they ever entertain the idea of negotiating with someone who was making payments earlier.
This article misses the point in the end but I agree with the bailout point. Government involvement is exacerbating the problem and it isn't a solution.
This makes Doddgate even worse. Dodd's FOA status might lead directly to more people getting kicked out of their houses.
We need to make it clear to Congress and the Senate that they need to be very careful about how they walk when it comes to solutions that take away one side of the bargaining position. In this case our side.
18 June, 2008
FMEA Step 1
Develop the Ratings table/index
The ratings table consists of 3 columns.
Severity Rating
Occurrence Rating
And Detectability Rating
You typically have a scale from 1 to 5, 7 or 10 depending on the level of granularity that is needed in your organization
Anyone who has done a real BIA would get the Severity section almost immediately.
In short the trick here is to tie each escalating level of severity to some specific series of business impacts.
Brand/Reputation - TJX, Hannaford ... what else needs be said
Direct Financial Loss - Fraud, Equipment Damage, Theft, Embezzlement, Lost Sales ...
Indirect Financial Loss - Cost of Data Recreation, Lost FTO time, Lost future sales, Project Delays
Legal Liability - often part of direct and indirect but also includes, Legal costs, Fines, Cost of increased regulatory oversight ...
Compliance - The costs associated with failed compliance
Many more ... when you develop the ranking table do it with the business leads and let them define their concerns
Occurrence, and Detection Continued later
I will stress this one more time this is not a risk assessment it is a risk priority ranking. The risk guru's will definitely get the distinction right away but if you don't get it and you are doing this you will eventually run into the all powerful cost justification argument. It is powerful when dealing with audit and those pesky internal budget decisions.
Because it focuses primarily on priority it is faster, easier and more agile. Think 10 meetings vice 100 with 20 people instead of 200. (obviously adjust those for company size)
The ratings table consists of 3 columns.
Severity Rating
Occurrence Rating
And Detectability Rating
You typically have a scale from 1 to 5, 7 or 10 depending on the level of granularity that is needed in your organization
Anyone who has done a real BIA would get the Severity section almost immediately.
In short the trick here is to tie each escalating level of severity to some specific series of business impacts.
Brand/Reputation - TJX, Hannaford ... what else needs be said
Direct Financial Loss - Fraud, Equipment Damage, Theft, Embezzlement, Lost Sales ...
Indirect Financial Loss - Cost of Data Recreation, Lost FTO time, Lost future sales, Project Delays
Legal Liability - often part of direct and indirect but also includes, Legal costs, Fines, Cost of increased regulatory oversight ...
Compliance - The costs associated with failed compliance
Many more ... when you develop the ranking table do it with the business leads and let them define their concerns
Occurrence, and Detection Continued later
I will stress this one more time this is not a risk assessment it is a risk priority ranking. The risk guru's will definitely get the distinction right away but if you don't get it and you are doing this you will eventually run into the all powerful cost justification argument. It is powerful when dealing with audit and those pesky internal budget decisions.
Because it focuses primarily on priority it is faster, easier and more agile. Think 10 meetings vice 100 with 20 people instead of 200. (obviously adjust those for company size)
17 June, 2008
FMEA
Failure Mode Effects Analysis
I mentioned it a few weeks ago.
In a nutshell it is a relatively fast and dirty way of weighting and assessing relatively relative priority of risks. It is not a risk assessment and certainly not a ALE but if you combine it with a good series of BIA's linked empirically to the Failure Effects that are assessed against it can close a lot of gaps with not much work. If I were a consultant looking for a quick way to add risk prioritization value to a client I would certainly look into it. If the ratings table is properly developed it also significantly reduces the controversy of the rankings quite a bit.
More later
I mentioned it a few weeks ago.
In a nutshell it is a relatively fast and dirty way of weighting and assessing relatively relative priority of risks. It is not a risk assessment and certainly not a ALE but if you combine it with a good series of BIA's linked empirically to the Failure Effects that are assessed against it can close a lot of gaps with not much work. If I were a consultant looking for a quick way to add risk prioritization value to a client I would certainly look into it. If the ratings table is properly developed it also significantly reduces the controversy of the rankings quite a bit.
More later
11 June, 2008
Musical Religious Jux
I might be a bit schizo
Though if you listen one is the promise the other the fear.
another one that has no video is here http://music.yahoo.com/track/16308352
15 May, 2008
Sometimes a soul is perfect before birth and God decides it is time
Nathan Green Cupps
Born May 14 2008
Died May 14 2008
Tough Week
Born May 14 2008
Died May 14 2008
Tough Week
16 April, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
