Saturday, December 17, 2016

When Will We Learn...?

We used Executive Orders to subvert the legislative process, and now we're worried we'll use Executive Orders to subvert the legislative process.

We said it was "OK" to have all this surveillance, because we trusted those in charge of the information. Now we're worried about all this surveillance because those in charge of the information.

We quashed the fillibuster with the "nuclear option" to grunt through legislation, and now we're worried we'll quash the fillibuster with the "nuclear option" to grunt through legislation.

We pushed through legislation without any bipartisan support, and now we're worried that we'll push through legislation without any bipartisan support.

We tried "Faithless Electors" to over-ride the results of a Presidential election. We talked about abolishing the Electoral College. Then it was The Logan Act. 25th Amendment. Emoluments Clause. Russia Collusion, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey memos, the “Resistance” efforts, campaign finance violations accusations, Stormy/Avenatti, tax returns, whistleblowers, leakers, Russia. Ukraine. Quid Pro Quo Impeachment. Bribery Impeachment. Hell, using impeachment as a method to remove someone from office that you just don't like.

Do we really believe these new standards and tactics will end with a change in office? That everything will "just go back to normal"?

When will we ever learn? short-sighted example among many...

On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later 
by Noemie Emery
 | September 11, 2018 12:00 AM
Are you happy now, Teddy Kennedy? Are you happy, Joe Biden? Are you happy now, Harry Reid? It’s due to the things that you did and said that Donald J. Trump is now naming his second Supreme Court justice in under two years in office. It is your fault that the once courtly process of Supreme Court appointments turned into the blood-and-thunder-eye-gouging drama that we hate and we live through today.
It was 31 years ago, in 1987, that Edward M. Kennedy burst on the floor of the Senate to tell us all that with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, “women would be forced Into back-alley abortions,” blacks would eat at segregated lunch counters, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the freedom of millions would hang by a thread.
Before it was over, liberals would raise and spend over $10 million in negative ads (quite a sum at the time) and in lobbying efforts. They would threaten black witnesses with career-ending reprisals and seize and search records of video rentals for signs of blue movies that were never found.
As Steve Hayward says, “The demagogic nature of the public campaign against him made it a watershed moment in American politics, permanently deforming the nomination process as for the judiciary, with ideological battles now extending to the lower federal courts as well.” How true this was proven in 1991, when Kennedy’s office unleashed Anita Hill upon Clarence Thomas, though with less success.
And in 1992, Biden averred that if a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court before the presidential election, the Democratic Senate should refuse to let Republican President George H.W. Bush fill it until the election was over, so that the new president (who would be Bill Clinton) could decide.
Twenty-four years later, in 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took this advice. He refused to allow a vote on a nominee picked by an exiting Democrat. Democrats fumed, but, as they expected a President Hillary Clinton, they bided their time.
Picture their rage when Trump was elected, bringing not only himself but a procession of judges whom a Republican Senate would rush to confirm. The first pick, Neil Gorsuch, did not change the court’s balance, and Democrats would have done better to put up a fight on the second one, which would. But their anger and shock knew no bounds.
In 2013, in a fit of pique at GOP opposition, Majority Leader Harry Reid had blown up the 60-vote rule for non-Supreme Court nominations, reducing the threshold to a simple majority vote. “You will regret this,” McConnell had said at the time, and he would be prescient. Democrats went to war, and McConnell went nuclear, later blowing up the 60 vote rule for Supreme Court nominations — just as Hillary Clinton’s running mate had promised to do after she won in 2016.
Now Democrats need that judicial filibuster, and it’s no longer there for them, lost in the rubble they helped to create.
Pity the Democrats. Thirty-one years of blood, sweat, and tears in which they sacrificed all to the abortion rights movement, uprooting rule after rule and norm after norm, laying waste to the rules of Supreme Court selection in the interests of what remains a fringe issue.
All that, and they ended up even further behind than they were when they started, with Trump and Mike Pence in positions of power, about to cement a conservative Supreme Court majority for who knows how many more years. One could feel sorry for them, if only they didn't so richly deserve this comeuppance.
Do you feel better, Robert Bork, now that justice has triumphed? Happy now, Kennedy; and Biden, and Reid? 

Thursday, December 15, 2016

On the VW TDI "Scandal"...

By now you are well aware of the Volkswagen “TDI Scandal”: In September 2015 VW got caught by a West Virginia University lab[1] cheating on its emissions testing procedures for 2009 – 2015 VW 2.0L TDI-equipped cars. Simply put, the EPA accused VW of putting code in its ECU to recognize that the car was being officially tested by the EPA and adjust the engine appropriately to pass the tests[2]. However, when the car was being driven normally by the consumer, the ECU code would revert to different emissions levels to improve drivability and fuel economy.[3] The result was increased emissions of NOx, claimed by the EPA to be “of 10 to 40 times above EPA compliant levels”.

VW could have addressed this by the addition of “selective catalytic reduction”, or SCR, which involves injecting urea into the exhaust; this is what they did on 2016 and later models. However, doing so affects the packaging of the components (tank, heater, mixer) in the smaller vehicle and around the suspension components and that, of course, costs extra money and intrudes into interior space. Instead, in the mid-2000s VW worked on an alternative called “lean NOx trap” or LNT, which uses a catalyst to absorb and store NOx so it doesn’t escape into the atmosphere[4]. It costs less and uses less space, but the downside is reduced fuel economy. VW apparently didn’t initially get it right and delayed delivery of TDI  cars through the summer of 2008. But VW finally announced that they figured it out and the 2009 cars were eventually released. Now we know how they did it.

One can debate the final source of that decision – VW managers are pointing fingers at “rogue engineers” and vice versa – but ultimately that die was cast, placing Volkswagen in its current situation.

This past September a resolution was agreed to in Federal court: an estimated $14.7 billion in buybacks, repairs, fines, and punitive damages. Volkswagen has agreed to either buy back or repair all affected VW TDIs; buybacks will be at the wholesale value as of immediately prior to the public release of the  find (values of TDIs plummeted on the news) plus $5100.[5] As of yet there is no approved “fix” for the emissions issue but if one is found and the owner chooses that option, they will receive a $5100 “we’re sorry” check.

While no one is debating whether VW cheated the tests – they clearly did – missing in the discussion is discussion of the regulatory limits to which they’re tested: are these limits reasonable to begin with? I've yet to find any supporting evidence that the 2009 and later Environmental Protection Agency regulations for which VW did an end-run are actually effective in, well, protecting the environment. These same cars meet the emissions regs in other parts of the world; EU regs, for example, are much more focused on big-picture environmental goals. Their standards push fuel efficiency and limit CO2 emissions; in the USA it's all about acid rain (NOx), smog, and health impacts, which hurts fuel efficiency.[6] VW’s cheat “resolved” the NOx problem.

As Eric Peters wrote in his blog last June:
It is not enough that the “affected” VW cars would have easily met all the standards in place circa five years ago – standards that were already extremely strict. Most people are not aware of the fact that since the 1990s, harmful exhaust emissions have been reduced to almost nothing; that for the past ten years at least, EPA has been chasing fractions of the remaining 3 or so percent of what comes out of a new car’s tailpipe that’s potentially an issue, air-quality or health-wise.
At some point – and we’ve arguably passed it – we’ll either have to accept that internal combustion will never be 100 percent ‘clean’ but that 97.5 percent’“clean’ is clean enough – or internal combustion will have to be outlawed.[7]

Are our laws tainted with political bias with the implied intent to limit diesels (and other internal-combustion engines) in the passenger market? That theory is supported further by secondary requirement of the Federally-approved VW resolution: as part of the decree, VW is mandated to "direct $2 billion of investments over a period of up to 10 years into actions that will support increased use of zero emission vehicle (“ZEV”) technology in the United States, including, but not limited to, the development, construction, and maintenance of zero emission vehicle-related infrastructure."[8]

So, in effect, as part of VW’s penance, the Feds are mandating that (one of?) the largest automakers in the world "invest" billions of dollars into EV technology. Any guess how that's gonna work out for all the others that have to compete against this worldwide automotive Goliath? Expect Volkswagen to tout its new religion of “clean electric technology” at a dealership near you.

Another environmental concern with the Federal decree is disposition of the bought-back vehicles. Obviously, these vehicles cannot be re-sold until they are fixed, assuming a fix is ever found (I don’t expect VW can fix these engines to the Feds’ and CARB’s satisfaction in a reasonably economical manner without significantly hurting performance, economy, and interior space. And even if it happens the “fix” will be expensive and may not even resolve the issue.[9]) More troubling, the Feds will not even allow VW to export ‘un-fixed’ cars to a market where they do meet the emissions regulations! I find that ridiculous, given how clean these engines actually are; why not force VW to do a “Cash for Clunkers” swap in Delhi or Mexico City where old-vehicle-diesel pollution is killing people, and in the process improve air quality in both locations?[10] I‘d not be surprised if those vehicles actually cleaned the air as they drove around!

Instead, these ‘un-fixed’ returned vehicles are going to be scrapped; well, per the decree, “rendered inoperable by removing the vehicle’s Engine Control Unit (“ECU”) and may be, to the extent possible, recycled to the extent permitted by law.” At least they moved away from the proposed decree’s requirement of punching a 3” hole in the side of the engine blocks and bisecting the frames in at least two locations…but consider the environmental damage of these buyback/salvage cars: the environmental costs of delivery to dealership, from dealerships to staging areas, drainage and storage of fluids, crushing, sorting, recycling, and landfills. And then there’s the environmental cost of producing all the new replacement cars; it’s been said that the buyback might be environmentally worse than the crime.[11] Can’t we just leave the cars on the road to live a normal life cycle and plant a bunch of trees instead (and maybe give Al Gore a Tiguan)…? In aggregate, if it's worse for society than just letting them be then why are we doing that?

Why indeed: revenge? Vengeance? $14.7B for ‘crimes against the environment’ (compare that to fines given to Takata (airbags), Toyota (accusations of unintended acceleration), and GM (key/ignition failures), things that actually killed people). You can (and should) crush VW's lawlessness – and send a message to the industry – through forcing compliance and significant fines. But if you crush vehicles and thus overall societal and environmental value in the process you have failed in the overall endeavor. I don't think that’s supposed to be the intent, but don’t I expect our "leadership" to take that into consideration.

So what now? Well, I suggest VW will eventually make situation this whole for the majority of affected TDI owners. In December 2015 VW offered a $1000 TDI Goodwill Program ($500 VISA gift card, $500 VW dealership credit, 3 years roadside coverage). It has agreed to buy back all affected vehicles at reasonable trade-in prices plus a $5100 “we’re sorry” check. Go to and to learn more. Alternatively, owners can wait for a fix to be developed at which point the car could be fixed and the owner will receive that $5100 compensation. Note that owners have until September 1, 2018 to make a decision.

As an owner of one of the affected vehicles – a 2010 Jetta TDI Sportwagen – my initial reaction upon learning of this was “whoa!” As a racer constantly looking for rules loopholes,I followed that up with a “hah, that’s clever!” As a citizen, I’m more concerned about the reality of these emissions regulations and environmental effects. In the end, it seems to me that these regulations, and the subsequent decree, are designed for a singular purpose: to get the oil-burners off the road and replace them with electric vehicles. As a diesel fan (I also have a Ford Excursion diesel), I am upset that Volkswagen pulled this end-run and has, in a lot of ways, walked right into a trap set for passenger car diesel specifically and internal combustion engines as a whole. Volkswagen has announced they will no longer sell diesel-powered vehicles in the United States and with limited exceptions other manufacturers have clearly decided this is not the market for their diesel options. This is unfortunate.

For our part, we are in no hurry to turn in our car. We enjoy the vehicle, it continues to serve us well (just did a 3500-mile roundtrip to visit family, swallowed everything we needed plus a large dog in a crate). Further, given VW’s agreement, as long as we do not put more than 1,042 miles per month on average on the car, the buyback offer will not decrease (and if we do, it’s at about $35/5000 miles) so it’s fully depreciated. Also, as long as the vehicle is “operable under its own 2L TDI power” it is eligible for buyback, so even if the vehicle is totaled by the insurance company but still drivable, we can get our full VW compensation (so maybe we save some money by dropping collision insurance?) Emissions are covered under extended warranty as are some key high-failure items (e.g., exhaust flap, high pressure fuel pump, others). Finally, this older vehicle is cheaper to insure and property taxes are significantly lower.

I suppose we could always decide to do nothing; after all, no one is going to come to our home and confiscate our car (right…?) However, it remains to be seen how states will handle emissions testing  and registration on affected vehicles (a table of all affected VINs has been provided by VW and released by the courts, so it’s possible that states with emissions testing may choose to not re-register TDIs unless provided proof of repair). Maybe there will be a burgeoning TDI market in Montana?

Finally, another part of the Federal decree is that VW must either repair or buyback 85% of the affected vehicles or it will face a fine of $85M per 1% of the fleet it misses, or about $17,500 per vehicle. I’m guessing at that point they’ll be “highly motivated” to cut some deals on new cars…you just never know.

So, overall, it just makes rational sense to continue driving it until September 2018. There's truly no downside other than you don't get to buy a new car. Maybe a “fix” will come, maybe it won’t. And if it doesn’t we’ll surrender the car back to Volkswagen in 2018 for a big check, and look into replacing it with one of their fuel-efficient turbo gasser wagons (it is highly unlikely to get replaced with an electric vehicle). Or, maybe we’ll pocket the check and I give my wife the GTI while I daily-drive my V8-diesel-powered Ford's that for unintended consequences/perverse incentives...?

One of the most important lessons I learned in B-school was not about spreadsheets or numbers, or forecasts or financial documents, it was that “corporate culture comes from the top”. We had many a conversation about failures of companies that resulted from the corporate culture that the leadership created, either intentionally or accidentally. Values and mission statements hung on the wall are nice, and look great in company documents, but how you live them day-to-day has a much greater affect. History will decide who/what/when this all came about; expect a movie starring Matt Damon soon.

I sure hope that works out for the rest of us.


Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Recollections of Something I Used To Be Able To Do Well...

...before Facebook...and before going back to motorsports...

I ended up flying home today. At noon when I left the customer's site, the forecast for BDR mid-afternoon was still for 800 feet, but BDR was reporting 1000. I looked at the reports for the last few hours and it was fairly consistent. I could see that some rain was working its way in from the southwest, but the stations under it were reporting 800-1000. I elected to go.

I started from ALB with full tanks, and was in between layers until around abeam BDL. Then the clouds and rain started. Odd stuff, as BDL was 1500 or better; the wx seemed isolated to the coastline and Long Island.

I called BDR FSS and re-checked the ATIS. The BDR ATIS was still calling 600 broken, 1000 overcast as I started to get vectors for the ILS. Right about then the rain started in earnest; I got into some Level 2 rain during the vector, and the controller thought he saw some Level 3; I asked to be vectored around that. In the end he lost the Level 3 and sent me around to STANE.

Right about then my VSI and altimeter started bouncing up and down; I guessed the static ports were getting blocked and unblocked by rain. I hit the alternate static and kept going. (I think I left it on...gotta  check it this weekend.)

The vector to the inbound course (2000 feet) was in full IMC, and he cleared me for the approach. I captured the localizer and engaged the autopilot, then caught the glideslope no prob. Still IMC. As I dropped under 800 feet I was still in the clouds and I mentally prepped for a miss.

I was flying the ILS, but I had the GPS loaded with the RNAV06 approach (same approach points, nice visual backup). Right before STANE the GPS called off my RNAV 06 approach due to lack of RAIM at STANE (I wonder if the rain was blocking the signal?) Unfortunately, I was counting on that box for my missed approach info, so I had to quickly dial in the BDR VOR on the stand-by freq (single VOR) and dialed in the miss radial (I know, shoulda had it there before...)

The rain got harder (and noisier) and I dropped through 500 feet in the clouds. I was planning the miss.

Right as I hit 400 feet I saw side glances of some "jaggies" under the airplane and right then I dropped out of the clouds and caught sight of RWY 06 (sure would be nice to have a rabbit there). The winds were 110 at 15, so I had a nice right crosswind; the tower wanted me to circle to RWY11 (circling minimums being 400-something feet) I told him to pound sand and I landed RWY 06; skidded a tad bit on the wet pavement from not enough aileron.

There was a nice driving rain going on at the field, and when I turned off and called him I got no response. I tried again several times, then tried Ground and Clearance. Just when I was about to taxi off on my own (3-4 minutes later) he popped on the freq and said someone was working on the radios and had turned off one his receivers!

ANYWAY, I taxied to the North Ramp and got soaked all the way through tying down the airplane and putting my luggage in the car and covering the airplane. Even bent one of my favorite umbrellas...

All in all, a fun, successful, learning experience! Total time, door-to-door, 2.5 hours. Same trip, prior week, driving the blue S4 -- 2.5 hours. Oh well.

Thanks for the advice. Didn't know why they had changed the minimums to RWY06; seems goofy to me. If you hit a truck shooting the ILS06, you weren't where you were supposed to be anyway...

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The World's Collective Experiences...

When I was a young lad in grade school - the 1970s, back when we were walking to unheated schools with no windows uphill both ways while barefoot - and I was losing important kin, I wondered if we'd ever, someday, be able to connect to people before they died and somehow plug in and download their life's history and experiences and catalog it. It might be mundane, it might be extraordinary, but collectively it would be an absolutely incredible story...right?

And we're doing just that. With the advent of the Internet and everybody pouring out their hearts on the social media sleeves, can't someone in 50 years be able to learn who their grandmother really was? What type of person your grandfather was not only as an adult, but as a schoolboy? Will you have any doubt as to what your great-grandfather did for a living?

It's a blessing. It's a curse. But now we'll know.

Friday, April 22, 2016

A Phrase It's Time To Retire

"So sorry for your loss".

Life is full of tragedies; death is but one of them. When someone we know, someone we care about has a loss, we feel compelled to say...something. We want them to know that they're in our thoughts, in our prayers, that they know we care and that we're there to support them.

A decade or more ago, we stammered for the words. In times of tragedy or loss we needed to something to say, but we didn't have those comforting words. The awkwardness increased as the Internet and social media grew, and we were more closely associated with our friends, no longer separated by distance and time. Then, slowly, a phrase was born that allowed us to express our empathy, easily.

"I'm truly sorry for your loss".

A simple phrase, but it acknowledges and empathizes with the loss, and can open a dialog where we can further discuss our shared grief.

Recently, however, this simple phrase has become a trite habit. Instead of using the phrase to open a dialog, it has become a impersonal acknowledgement of the loss, neither requiring - nor expecting - further discussion. It has become a Facebook "unlike".

Go to any social media post where someone has lost a loved one, and you'll see comment after comment after comment of nothing more than minor (or zero) variations of that same over-used phrase.

"So sorry for your loss".

Nothing else. Just that. Not "I'm truly sorry for the grief you must be feeling from the loss of your parent". No recalled memories of the loved one, no interesting anecdotes of how that person may have affected the commenter's life, no discussions or recognition of how that person's loved one affected them. Few, if any, variations whether the loss was a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or even a cat or dog.

"Sorry for your loss".

Just as simple as a click of a button, the sadly-overused phrase now appears as a checkbox, a desire just to be seen empathizing.

A decade ago this phrase was a simple and acceptable way for us to recognize a person's loss and affirm our ties with them. But with social media growing up and becoming a big part of our society, we need to grow up as well. I suggest that any time we feel compelled to post this comment in recognition of a loss, we need to stop and think about what we really mean, what we're really trying to say. And we need to do it using our own words, not by using an overused phrase.

Otherwise, just hit the "Sad" button and move on.