Show Me Your Budget and Your Values

Resources shouldn’t dictate priorities. It should be exactly the opposite. Our strategy — goals and values — must be decided upon before we can appropriately deploy our resources to carry it out.

As Vice President Joe Biden has said, “Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

Resources will always be limited — but we must use those available to enact an overall plan for the state.

I can’t say I’ve seen a real strategy set forth by Texas lawmakers. Not short-term, mid-term or long-term. And definitely not a fully funded one. Rather, there seem to be various components merely grinding against one another with no real understanding of or will by legislators to appropriately oil them or make sure they work together to meet expected ends. Education remains under-funded. Our future water supply — the area in which we have the closest to a strategy — is yet to be funded. Health care is a mess.

Lack of strategic thinking is a problem the Texas Legislature has yet to overcome. If it continues to only look at what it can afford, it will never see what could really be done to create a better future Texas. In government, strategy without resources is wasted effort and money, and resources without strategy may as well be described as theft.

This is especially applicable to Texas and many other states where balanced budgets are required. That is, spending cannot exceed revenues. In Texas, the Comptroller even has to certify that the budget passed by lawmakers can be adequately funded with projected revenues (taxes, fees, etc.). If not, it’s back to the drawing board. Ouch.

As an example and contrast of strategic and non-strategic budgeting opportunities, let’s take two budget declarations in recent times by Gov. Rick Perry:

1. That every agency zero-out it’s budget, forcing lawmakers to fund them from the ground up.

2. That every agency submit a budget request with an arbitrary 10 percent decrease in spending.

Now, zeroing-out budgets was a political maneuver on Perry’s part. But to put it a positive spin on it, it should have allowed lawmakers to truly fund their values and a strategy for Texas.

The second declaration is purely ideological. It puts spending and service cuts before even looking at their roles in a larger strategy for the state of Texas. This is, unfortunately, how most budgeting seems to occur in Texas.

There will always be ideological reasons to oppose some funds and support others (and the programs they support). But I bet if we can agree on our values — that education, health, economic development and other things important to the future of the state of Texas — we can find a way to fund them. These values may be expressed through funding government-administered programs, public-private partnerships or outsourcing. Lawmakers also have the power to increase revenues (raise taxes, fees and other income streams) if needed to fund the values informing the strategy upon which they have decided. If their values are important to them, that is.

It’s okay for our strategy to run over-budget, if we’re willing to find a way to fund (or not) our values. And we have to be honest about what we’re doing: We’re cutting funding from our agreed-upon strategy for the state. It’s that simple. We know there are problems, but we’re unwilling to create and fund a strategy to resolve those issues — to do what the people of Texas ask their leaders to do.

Take education. From TAAS to TAKS to STAAR. From public schools to vouchers, charter schools and private schools. From the State Board of Education to the legislature’s education committees and from private companies to local schools districts. Drop-out rates to in-school health centers. Who in Texas’ leadership has set out a true strategy for Texas education? Is No Child Left Behind, with its completely unrealistic goals, our education strategy?

I would describe Texas’ current investments in education, infrastructure, health and human services, environmental and other necessities as theft over strategy-driven. Maybe we’ll see a strategy in 2015.

I’d like to think I could some day say about the Texas budget what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said about the new Defense Strategic Guidance: “This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”

Atheists, Chaplains and Counselors in Foxholes

There’s a good letter to the editor in this month’s Armed Forces Journal in response to a column from March bemoaning the lack of chaplains in the Air Force (and by extension other services).

In the initial column, Chaplain (Maj.) Robert A. Sugg writes,

“Once upon a time, our Air Force chaplains knew every face in their units and could call out many airmen by their first names. Today, we get lost searching for the commander’s office. A profound cultural shift, two decades in the making, is driven by dynamics as diverse as expeditionary warfare, personnel shortages and a proliferation of programs that divert chaplains to administrative work. Tethered to desks and redundant programs, our chaplains are no longer able to provide effective spiritual guidance and pastoral care to commanders and war fighters.”

That’s probably true. But, strangely, the column is titled “Counseling crisis.” I think we can all agree there’s a mental health crisis in the military — just look at recent news coverage of the suicide rate, sexual abuse and other problems among military personnel. And while chaplains are great sources of support (even as an agnostic I used chaplains for support while in basic training), I think Maj. David Bigelow’s letter, “Counseling For All,” hits the real problem firmly on the head:

“. . . I believe that replacing chaplains with nonreligious counselors is a wonderful step forward in putting the needs of airmen before the needs of the various religious groups.

. . .

Nonreligious, professional counselors will focus entirely on the needs of the airmen and will not bring in the baggage of religious accoutrements and subtle proselytizing that all chaplains exude. The shortages of new chaplains and chaplain assistants and reduced support by wing commanders are likely more attributable to the ever-growing number of nontheists in the ranks and the country as a whole than to decisions on how best to manage the Officer Performance Reports of chaplains.”

Maj. Bigelow is absolutely correct in calling for more non-religious, professional counselors to serve our troops. (I’m sure others will contest his “ever-growing number of nontheists in the ranks” assertion.) The Department of Defense and Veterans Administration have both only recently started employing Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) to serve our troops. There simply aren’t enough Licensed Clinical Social Workers, psychologists and psychiatrists to serve the number of soldiers requiring mental health care. And such professional care can rarely be provided by a chaplain. (Indeed, maybe part of the problem is that going to the chaplain isn’t nearly as stigmatized as going to mental health.)

Hiring LPCs and LMFTs is a good — long-in-coming — step. From yesterday’s The New York Times:

“Under intense pressure to expand and improve treatment and prevention programs, the armed services have hired additional mental health counselors, conducted advertising campaigns to encourage troops to seek care and instituted resiliency programs to help them control stress through diet, exercise, sleeping habits, meditation or counseling. Commanders are being instructed on how to identify the telltale signs of suicidal behavior as an early-warning system.”

Moral support, spiritual support and increasing morale among religious soldiers may be a better role for chaplains — and that requires fewer chaplains. The real counseling crisis is the lack of professional counselors (military and civilian) who can serve all troops equally.

Is There a Place for the U.S. Army in East Asia?

When most Americans think about conflict with China, they often envision legions of Chinese soldiers easily defeating the U.S. — if only by the sheer number of bodies they could throw into any war. (Unless you’re a Red Dawn type.) In reality, China currently threatens its region neighbors — Taiwan (of course), Vietnam, Japan and others — over territory. Largely, over a bunch of islands. So the obvious way the U.S. can help its regional partners stand up to China is air and naval assets, right? There’s not really any use for ground forces unless you were to foolishly attempt an incursion into mainland China, right? Well, Maj. Robert M. Chamberlain, an instructor of international relations in the social sciences department at the U.S. Military Academy, lays out a strategy for the land-based U.S. Army in East Asian conflicts.

“[M]any American allies in the region and many countries potentially threatened by Chinese power are islands. If China chooses to employ military threats against these states, the threat would almost certainly take the form of sea, air or missile attack. Traditionally, these have been the purview of our vast and powerful Navy and Air Force. But the trouble with relying on these services is that keeping enough air and sea power in the region to sink the Chinese navy or cripple the Chinese missile fleet is an inherently threatening and destabilizing force posture.

I propose that, rather than relying on our ability to achieve dominance in the air and on the sea to thwart potential Chinese military adventurism, America develop a land-based anti-access/area-denial capability of its own. This entails the expansion of theater missile defense initiatives, further development of the U.S. air defense capability, and investment in land-based anti-ship systems. All these capabilities, with the exception of some elements of missile defense, are currently met in Air-Sea Battle by the Air Force and the Navy. That means what the U.S. perceives as defending its allies, the Chinese could legitimately perceive as an expansion of power in the region. By contrast, land-based A2/AD systems are purely defensive. Once the attacker has been defeated (the planes driven off, the missiles shot down, the ships sunk, etc.), the system has no further capability. For example, a Joint Strike Fighter could shoot down incoming aircraft and then be re-armed to attack ground targets. The same is simply not true for land-based air defense.”

Essentially, he argues that the Air Force and Navy’s actions in the region are more destabilizing than the Army and Marines. Mainly because land forces in East Asia can be only defensive (as they are based on the contested islands or their mainlands) where the other branches are both defensive and offensive in the view of China. This is true, especially if, as he notes, there may be little need for actual basing of American soldiers in theater. Much can be achieved through cooperative military training, equipment transfers and sales and other means to support our allies with little need for soldiers on the ground.

He duly emphasizes our economic ties with China and the military’s job in ensuring our military posture in the region (even with the Pacific pivot) isn’t overtly threatening.

“The current obsession with the rise of China and the active debate about its implications for the world and the appropriate Western response have afflicted the American foreign policy establishment with an acute case of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, China’s growing military capacity and willingness to employ force or threats of force to resolve regional disputes is alarming and may indicate an armed confrontation is in the offing. On the other, China’s active participation in the global economy, substantial financial interests across the region, and heavy investments in the U.S. may indicate that it is essentially a status quo power more interested in wealth than conquest. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle and, thus, the appropriate American strategy is to prepare for war while encouraging trade. The challenge, then, is to ensure that the pursuit of one goal doesn’t inhibit the other.

. . .

The whole purpose of the strategy is to encourage China’s peaceful rise, underwrite regional stability, and firmly delink military and economic modes of competition and dispute.”

Obviously, you should read the entire piece, as it goes deeper in its explanation of his land-based strategy and critiques of Air-Sea Battle (which I still don’t completely understand). I mean, I understand it. But I don’t.

Two issues I want to note about the article are his assumptions that:

1. We can decouple military and economic relations with China. This is both a political and military issue. Political leaders need to look at our sources of funding (how much are the Chinese funding our military?), and military leaders have to ensure no moves occur that might threaten trade routes in the area. Decoupling is nice in theory, but I’m not certain how it works in reality — and getting back to realpolitik is Maj. Chamberlain’s overarching goal. Further, how involved is the Chinese military in that country’s  industrial and “commercial/private” sector?

2. He writes,

“I propose that, rather than relying on our ability to achieve dominance in the air and on the sea to thwart potential Chinese military adventurism, America develop a land-based anti-access/area-denial capability of its own. This entails the expansion of theater missile defense initiatives, further development of the U.S. air defense capability, and investment in land-based anti-ship systems.”

In this case, I’m wondering if he’s suggesting further investment in continually failing “Star Wars”-type programs or relying on fairly proven current and evolving technologies (like PATRIOTs, etc.). The latter I can understand, the former I’m highly wary of — especially if we’re trying to reign in spending.

3. We must be very careful about the number of ground troops deployed to the region. Our ability to rapidly deploy ground forces is itself a deterrent — and much more threatening if the soldiers are in your backyard and not halfway around the world. In this case, introducing the third leg of the table may cause it to topple over.

Those issues aside, I think his argument makes perfect sense. As a complement to air and naval forces in the region, land-based units definitely have a place in defending our allies from Chinese aggression.

 

Delusional or In Need of Media Trainer?

I’m not qualified to say this guy is delusional, an idiot or a straight-up liar, but he definitely needs a media trainer at the very least:

The New York Times Magazine, 12 MAY 2013

The New York Times Magazine, 12 MAY 2013

Sunday Notes

A few brief notes this evening:

I find the idea of the IRS targeting organizations of any political stripe deplorable. So I was inclined to agree with Ross Douthat’s column when I saw it in today’s The New York Times. I mean, it’s kinda dumb to target a group of people who are complaining of being Taxed Enough Already. But he goes on:

The Tea Party had won its midterm victory, and as the movement’s ardor cooled and its influence diminished, the fears of its critics began to diminish as well. With Beck off Fox and the Tea Partyers off the streets — replaced by Occupy Wall Street and union protesters, often shouting none-too-moderate slogans of their own — it became harder to look at American conservatism and see Brownshirts or grand wizards on the march.

I’d like to remind him that “leftist” organizations — including Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Austin — have been infiltrated by the FBI and local police. That seems a bit more nefarious than targeting a few tax filings.

—

I’m rather satisfied with the outcome of last night’s Austin ISD bond election. The two propositions I thought were least needed were defeated and the two I considered important in improving our schools (within reason) did pass.

Proposition 2, which totaled $234 million, would have relieved overcrowded schools, which district officials said were among the most critical needs on campuses. The proposition contained three new schools and campus additions that district officials say are desperately needed. It also would have funded a 500-seat performing arts center at the Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders, something critics called a luxury.

Proposition 4 would have provided $168.6 million for academic programs, fine arts and athletics. That measure had several controversial proposals in it, most notably $20 million for renovations to the old Anderson High School to create an all-boys school.

—

Columnist Frank Bruni has a good piece in the NYT about “America the Clueless.” With all his statistics proving the ignorance of Americans, I find it interesting he doesn’t mention how little most Americans believe in science.

Here’s a great book on the subject: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

—

Anyone else noticed how in love with data scientists the NYT is?

—

To be honest, I don’t really have a clue what to make of this profile (?) of Raise Your Hand Texas.

—

This whine of the plight of the Millennials/Gen Y is interesting. Generation X’s response is even better.

—

Finally, I’ve had this tab open in Chrome for nearly a week now and every time I look at it I become infuriated. I just don’t understand how we needed to go from two battle dress uniforms (BDUs) to 11+ different versions. What a complete waste of time and money. Also, ever wonder who came up with digital camo? Find out.

Four Folks Walk Into Public Service . . .

This is really simple. And it’s outrageous. It’s probably going to happen, but not without my registering my disgust.

Gov. Rick Perry is the highest paid governor in the nation. He not only pulls his state paycheck, but, since he’s been a politician for so long, he pulls his state retirement as well. This is known as double-dipping.

Texas legislators? Oh, they’ve got it good. Their retirement is tied to the pay of state judges. Thus, they can get away with increasing their retirement benefits (and cutting everyone elses’) by hiding under the cover of retaining well-qualified judges.

Judges currently make $125,000, so a retired lawmaker with 20 years of service would get $57,500  in annual retirement.

Texas legislators think teachers should have to work longer and contribute more to their retirement accounts before being allowed to retire. Currently, teachers can retire if the number of years they’d worked in addition to their age equaled 80 (# years of state service + age = 80 = you can retire). Under the proposed rule our (well-compensated in retirement) legislators would require new teachers work at least until 62 before claiming any retirement benefits. Should legislators have to wait longer? Nah.

To qualify for a pension, legislators have to be in office for at least eight years, and if they serve for at least 12 years, they can begin collecting their pensions at age 50 instead of waiting until age 60. Increases in pay for judges affect not only future retirees but also current ones. It is probably worth pointing out that some of those current retirees are lobbyists, hanging around the Capitol, where it would not be entirely out of line to mention support for those hard-working jurists.

So, Gov. Perry earns a state salary and draws a state pension, state legislators only have to be reelected a few times before they get a hefty pension (along with opportunities to increase it both while elected and as a lobbyist) starting at 60 (and as early as 50!) and teachers get the shaft.

And the Texas Legislature hides behind judges. So let’s look at the judges for a moment. Do they really need an increase in pay above what they already make? Are they really raring to get back to the private sector? Are judgeships not going filled because no one is running for office because of the low pay? No. So why do they need pay raises?

Other state workers haven’t had pay raises in years, and judges suddenly deserve an over-20 percent raise? That’s ludicrous. Show me where there are no judges because they would prefer to be in private practice and I’ll show you a barrel-full of high-powered attorneys who aren’t interested in seeking more power. I also have some waterfront property in Rwanda I think you’ll be interested in.

I’m betting legislators wouldn’t be nearly as interested in judges’ salaries if their own retirement wasn’t tied to them. Maybe legislators need to draw a regular retirement after years more of service out of the very same fund as our under-served, far-more-sacrificing teachers. Then we’ll see whose salary is important.

Nit-Picking the NYTimes Biz Section

The previously much-ridiculed co-founder of AOL, Steve Case, discusses leadership in last Sunday’s The New York Times Business Section (5 MAY 2013). (Ah, for the days when chatrooms instead of timeline feeds were the main conduit of disgust with the digital overlords’ decisions!). There are, however, a few off-the-cuff denunciations of the government’s negative interference with innovation I’d like to address*. He says:

“The attackers are the entrepreneurs who are disrupting the status quo, trying to change the world, take the hill, anything is possible, and have nothing to lose in most cases. They’re driven by passion and the idea and intensity. Large organizations — and it’s true of Fortune 500s and it’s also true of governments and other large organizations — are defenders. These guys aren’t trying to pursue the art of the possible, how to maximize opportunity. They actually are trying to minimize the downside, and hedge risk. They’re trying to de-risk situations. Entrepreneurs can’t even think this way. It’s not even a concept they understand.”

He ignores the continuing, massive investment in R&D and innovations created by the government — including the very infrastructure on which his fortune was built. I’m no huge fan of Apple, but I bet they’d disagree that larger organizations can’t be creative.

Further, while Case may consider “defenders” as some sort of obstacle to be overcome or enemy of entrepreneurial innovation, he should also realize that “minimiz[ing] the downside, and hedg[ing] risk” is the government’s core job. It’s the whole point of the social contract. I give up some rights to be protected in those I retain, a protection offered by the government as a body of citizens. Protecting citizens from harm is not stifling innovation.

On the other hand (and next page of the paper edition), Jenna Wortham discusses the all-too-real implications of a growing digital divide created by high-end, personal and wearable computers’ cost prohibitive-ness to less wealthy “early adopters.”

“Surely, wearable computers are in our future, whether they are embedded in glasses or smart watches or even contact lenses. But the experience of wearing Glass raised questions for me about the future of new technology and who gains access to it first — part of a much larger debate concerning the undercurrents of power and privilege that course through the Web.

At the very least, the release of Glass could shape how we think about human and computer interactions, and — considering Glass’s abilities to quietly take photographs and record videos — how we influence policies about privacy and public spaces.

And it would be a shame if the only people who participate in this leap forward are those who can afford it.”

This is true, and a very good point. The last thing we want is the like of Steve Case, Clay Shirky, Sunil Paul and other technological solutionism evangelists and the wealthy deciding all policy on these issues either. Pointing that out is part of the purpose of this blog.

She goes further to note that privacy may, essentially, become a commodity.

“Some analysts say the future of security and privacy on the Web will belong to those who can afford expensive, anti-hacking software and other protective services. That could be the antithesis of the rise of the social Web, which promised a utopia imbued with the ability to empower those who used it, regardless of their location, financial means and level of privilege.”

You want privacy? Pay a private company for it. Can’t afford it? You’re out of luck. (This is where Case and others miss the point of government interventions.) She also notes that the poorest receive hand-me-down, poorly performing smartphones.

“This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. When the iPhone came out, it cost almost $600, in its cheapest form, and I couldn’t afford one. By the time I’d picked up enough extra shifts as a waitress to pay the price, the second and third versions of the gadget were on the market.

There’s no doubt that the device changed my life. It made me a much more streamlined individual and eventually gave me a competitive advantage as a budding technology reporter who had firsthand experience as the Apple ecosystem evolved. Relatively early access thus proved beneficial, as it has for many others who were the first to adopt and use new services, like the early “vloggers” (that’s video bloggers) on YouTube or developers in the App Store.”

There is a certain arrogance in assuming that providing children and adults in the lowest economic brackets with the latest technology would give them the needed leg-up to succeed in our society. Definitely, our students and lower-income folks (like myself) should be given the opportunity to experiment with, learn about and develop skills with the latest technology, if only to help with employment readiness. But we can’t leave out socioeconomic context. When she says lower- to lower-middle class incomes, she means middle class. There are far more pieces to the puzzle in helping the majority of people climb out of poverty. I appreciate that this is a short business column, and it raises some good points that others in Sunday’s section do not, but there is a lot more that goes into moving from waitressing to writing in the Times. It ain’t an iPhone.

 

*I know I’m starting to sound repetitive and nitpicky with various people’s statements, but that’s the idea. It’s important to counter these statements with equally timed responses. That’s partly what this blog is all about.

The CEO Fiction Reading List

For years upon years, CEOs and employers (and, thus, teachers) have told us how highly they value employees’ abilities to effectively communicate in writing — and especially in plain language writing (which is even more difficult).

But, when it comes down to hiring, promoting and retaining employees, let’s be honest: The above individuals’ declarations of valuing writing is a crock. Actions don’t match words.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating anyone go out and start snatching up every available newly minted English graduate. A good 50 percent of them couldn’t write their way out of a text message. I’m merely questioning whether C-level executives and their hiring managers pay enough attention to the writing skills of employees.

More important, do they recognize good writing when they see it? I wouldn’t suggest assuming CEOs aren’t well-read or great editors. But many spend so much time focusing on their businesses they just don’t have time to spend on reading beyond what they must to manage and propel their businesses.

One supply chain manager told me reading fiction wouldn’t get me anywhere in business. The implication being that reading leadership, business and wealth-creation how-tos and industry (even if popularized) publications would. The comment haunts me because — if we’re once again brutally honest — those publications are not in most cases stables of burgeoning Great American Writers. Or International. (There are many great business writers and journalists out there. Props to them. Nor is all fiction created equal.) And don’t get me wrong: Those books and magazines and sites aren’t bad. They are written to their audience’s needs and desires. They absolutely have places on physical and digital bookshelves. Heck, I work for one such publication. But, in my position, one of my first criteria is whatever we share be at least halfway-decently written.

So, while there aren’t any business or leadership how-tos or motivational books on my list, that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take what is offered in them.

In urging executive and hiring managers to read fiction, I am only suggesting that well-written short stories and novels not only break the monotony but also stir creativity, display the flexibility of language, bring them to the true edge of innovation: Imagination. And imagination written down can spark even more insights. Choose writers with a particular facility with language. Find things sing in one’s mind, and others that completely disrupt one’s view of the world, history and reality itself. Fiction may not be in your business plan, but at one time your business plan was fiction. So are tomorrow’s inventions. Novelists may not give you a clear how-to on innovation or a new product, but they may briefly warp your mind or change your perspective enough to spark your own.

My final point — as any education professional would tell you — is that in reading well-written texts, people — all people — learn how to improve their own writing, editorial capabilities and ability to identify the best communicators on their staffs and potential hires. Simply, reading makes you a better reader and a better writer. But you need to be reading well-written work.

All that said, I now present you with my suggested quick reading list:

  1. Enter completely new realities. Consider the absurd. Laugh out loud. Read stories that are only a few pages long, but make you want to continue following the characters’ lives. That’s Etgar Keret’sThe Nimrod Flipout or The Busdriver Who Wanted to be God. (Those are the two I recommend one start with.) Keret is also from Israel, which is second only to the U.S. in innovation and venture capital. So there’s that.
  2. Strategic planning. Novelists often plan their stories, though there are many who (claim to) just let their stories take them wherever they lead. But structure can boost creativity. CEOs also need to understand complex relationships and storylines, which have direct application to the workplace. So go grab a copy of The Brothers Karamazov. I’m kidding. But grab a novel — something you’ve never thought you’d make it through before but always wanted to — and give it a shot.
  3. Want to make it easy on yourself? Just subscribe to a good fiction journal — or journal that includes fiction. I recommend the Virginia Quarterly Review or The Oxford American. They both include fantastic fiction, essays and other thought-provoking pieces, but their photography is awe-inspiring (and sometimes despairing); come to your mailbox and provide a couple of months’ worth of reading material if you have little time.
  4. Pick something. Executive’s choice. What was your favorite book in high school or college? Vonnegut? On the Road? Go back and reread it. See how you’ve changed. See if you can even finish it. (If you’re thinking The Great Gatsby, you better read it quick before you see the movie.) Or find something completely different. (This does not include Steve Job’s biography. Real fiction.)

Now, obviously, the above list is completely subjective. It’s supposed to be. Note that it really only includes one or two recommendations. I don’t mean to dictate. I only offer these books, journals and ideas up in the desire to rekindle (pun only somewhat intended) CEOs’ and hiring managers’ appreciation of truly good writing.

Writing serves many purposes. Writers, many will tell you, are valuable assets. If that’s true, C-suite executives and hiring managers need to be able to recognize workers who, among other attributes, can write well. The best way to accomplish that? Read.

Also, read to your kids.

Full disclosure: I do offer writing, editing and other communications services, but this post isn’t written purely out of selfishness and I rarely do line-by-line edits on my blog posts (so please don’t point out every typo! Just the glaring ones.). I’d also be happy to recommend other great writers.

 

Sunil’s Lawsuit Against Austin

Something I didn’t think about while writing last night’s post but thought of today while a Sweetish Hill:

Sunil Paul’s lawsuits in Austin and other cities cost taxpayers (his potential customers) more money. So, in contrast to whatever benefits he boasts SideCar provides communities, an immediate consequence of his irascibility is wasteful expenditures on an entirely preventable lawsuit. He need only properly and respectfully engage in the policymaking process. By that, I mean discussions and negotiations with the city, citizens and others impacted by his app. I don’t mean through political donations, though that is a viable alternative.

Currently, Sunil is just wasting your and my money. Money that could be going to other very needed services — schools, infrastructure, mass transit. But, then again, draining the coffers of public mass transit services may not be a bad idea for those in the “disrupting transportation” business.

Sunil Paul: Apps Transcend Laws

In the days after the Newtown massacre, my uncle posted on Facebook that there must be some sort of technological innovation that could prevent future mass murders. His example was a firearm that could only fire once every five minutes. My response was that we don’t need innovation, we merely need reasonable gun laws. It was technological innovation that created the machine gun in the first place. If you want a weapon that only fires once every few minutes, let’s go back to bolt-action, single-shot rifles — most inexperienced, potential killers would be stumped (there are few Lee Harvey Oswalds and Charles Whitmans). This wouldn’t necessitate any technological solution. What are you going to do? Put biometric scanners on every trigger to ensure only the owner fires it? Good luck with that. The NRA won’t even allow full-on background checks.

My larger point in this is that the technological solutionism offered by people — people far more involved in the future of technology than my uncle, which is not a knock on him — is disconnected from the day-to-day reality and the potential and limitations of inserting such “technological innovations” into policy is completely ignored by such “innovators” or “disruptors.”

Sunil Paul continues to provide a valuable (if rather naive) target, if only because he’s a very vocal evangelical of the “technology should transcend laws” religion.

When I last left off, he was violating — loudly and proudly — the laws of Austin, resulting in ticketing and impoundment of the vehicles of some users of his app, SideCar. This was during SXSW. He was fairly indignant and snotty in interviews. It really irked him that, once again, a city was enforcing its laws — laws that he, his employees and users of the app were knowingly violating. I also mentioned some of the possible immediate and long-term socioeconomic consequences stemming from his app.

Question: Didn’t he threaten to sue Austin over the ordinance? Did he follow-through? I’d like to see it. Oh, here’s a little about it (aside from Sunil’s blog post announcing it).

Well, now he’s taking on the Big Apple. Officials there are no more happy with Paul and SideCar than Austin was. But this time his rhetoric has become more extreme. Take this sentence, which pretty much sums up his (flimsy) argument in all the cases/places SideCar has had problems:

If something is not prohibited by code then it should be allowed.

That’s an absurd statement. The “code,” or law, creates standards and limitations and licenses for a reason. He may interpret the code differently, but that doesn’t allow him to break it. In the end, it’s the argument of a man who both subscribes to the idea of technological solutionism and is driven by profit motive. Consequences be damned. His is a view devoid of the very real, very informed aspects of law, the appropriate way to change such policies and a willingness to engage with stakeholders to convince them of any benefit of this service or why it should be allowed at all. Likely, such an examination would find that SideCar provides no real social benefit — but they may still approve a policy change. That’s less likely to happen if your default approach to policymakers is litigation and statements such as:

If you want to be disruptive you’ve got to piss people off.

You probably aren’t going to get far with that attitude. This isn’t the Civil Rights Movement, Sunil. But if one of your cases makes it to the Supremes, maybe apps will be given the status of personhood as well. Such nonsense has happened before.

(As can be seen in the article, Jay Bregman, founder of Halio, a SideCar competitor, favors my approach — but, then again, he’s gone through the proper channels to license his product. His approach will probably earn him much more money, respect and contracts than Sunil Paul’s.)