Are Age-Old Rivalries Ending?

So it’s rivalry week. The Egg Bowl. The Iron Bowl. Georgia-Georgia Tech. Florida-Florida State. But with so much talk about the “Big Three” U.S. auto manufacturers in the news, a different rivalry comes to mind—Ford versus Chevy. When I was a teenager, that rivalry seemed important. Loyalties spanned generations. Folks drove a Chevy pickup because daddy did and grandpa before him. Ford versus Chevy was a big deal—but not any more.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are seeking $25 billion in taxpayer funding, supposedly to remain solvent through the year 2009. GM alone lost $7 billion in the third quarter of 2008. America’s largest automotive manufacturer is burning through cash like a Suburban drinks regular unleaded. According to the CEO’s of the Big Three, who this past week failed miserably at acting destitute while flying private jets, there are 240,000 direct auto manufacturing jobs on the line and another 2.2 billion jobs at stake in parts suppliers, dealerships, and other related businesses that depend on car-maker spending.

So should we spend taxpayer money to bail out the Big Three? To their credit, Congress has asked to see a viable business plan before doling out any cash. America’s automakers seem to be a house of cards. The weight of thousands of retirees’ benefits are certainly an albatross. Even worse, the United Auto Workers parasitic presence is a burden not borne by foreign competitors. But perhaps most damaging is the inability of the American automakers to design and build cars that people actual want. With the exception of large and luxury SUVs and the surprisingly popular Chevy Malibu, sales figures for nearly every category of cars are dominated by foreign manufacturers.

So just how disinterested are Americans, especially younger adults, in American cars? This week General Motors dumped Buick spokesman Tiger Woods. According to Buick, part of Tiger’s role was to give the nameplate a more youthful image. During Woods tenure as spokesman, the average age of a Buick purchaser dropped from the low 70’s to 66. Wow. I wonder how many of those were ordered with neon kits and spinners?

And what about “buy American”? Somehow, that mantra has lost some appeal since the majority of “American-made” cars have significant amounts of foreign-made parts and many are assembled in Canada or Mexico. And foreign manufacturers such as Toyota, Honda, and BMW have a substantial manufacturing presence in the U.S. The Honda Odyssey, a perennial favorite of soccer-moms everywhere, is assembled in Lincoln, Alabama and is manufactured with 75% of its parts made in the U.S.

So will Congress vote to bail out the Big Three? Probably so. Would it be better to let GM go bankrupt? Only time will tell. Without a doubt, if the U.S. auto manufacturers cannot find a way to compete for the hearts and souls of American drivers, they are doomed. And one way or another, American taxpayers will end up salvaging the benefits of those retired UAW employees. And while we’re at it, we might as well get used to the idea of a new rivalry—Camry versus Accord.

Barack Obama's Energy Plan

So America has spoken and Obama is the word. Now that the national post-election-day party celebrating the Obama victory is somewhat over, some fears emerge foreshadowing a lingering hangover that may impact us all. America is deeply mired in a very difficult economic situation. Unfortunately, it seems Senator Obama’s energy plan, as presented on his Website, could make matters considerably worse.

Obama’s energy policy seems to be centered on renewable energy. It is, after all, a bandwagon with very limited seating available. But the president-elect will soon have the power to make all of us pay for his environmental ideas. Foremost among his plans is the desire to eliminate any new development of coal generation despite the need for new generation to address growing electrical demands. In fact, he has said he would use carbon caps to “bankrupt” any companies seeking to build coal-fired power plants. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ) And he wants to have ten percent of the nation’s electricity generated from renewable resources by the year 2012.

America has about a million megawatts of electric generation capacity. Currently, about 106,500 MW are from renewable resources. But 77,000 MW of those are from conventional hydroelectric. The darlings of every environmental group, wind and solar account for a very small percentage of the country’s electric generation. Wind generation totals 15,600 MW and solar only 498 MW. Without the hydro generation, the total renewable capacity is about 2.5% of the total generation, a long way from ten percent.

So how will Barack Obama find 100,000 MW of renewable generation in three years? And where will it be located? Solar is just not a reasonable option, with costs exceeding sixty cents per kWh. Wind generation is only viable in limited areas of the country where average wind velocities are greater than 12 mph. (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap.pdf) That eliminates most of the country and most of the areas near population centers except California and the New England coast. At ideal wind speeds, larger wind turbines generate 1.8 MW of electrical capacity. They are also 260 feet tall. So if we can site, manufacture, and erect 55,000 turbines in three years, we’re home free… well, assuming the wind always blows. I don’t know that I would want to be in the hospital on life support on a really calm day.

So is Obama really committed to his energy plan? Is this symbolism over substance? If the track record in Illinois, his home state, is any indication, the effort may come up short. Despite having large rural areas with decent average wind speeds, Illinois has only about 700 MW of wind generation. Conversely, Texas has 4,800MW of wind capacity. Yet that equates to only about two percent of the Lone Star State’s total capacity needs.

Will Obama’s energy plan find success? If electric customers, including America’s struggling manufacturing base, can stand replacing affordable coal generation, currently priced nationally at less than ten cents per kWh, with wind generation, priced at twenty cents or more per kWh, the plan might work. But if electric utilities are forced to abandon coal and no viable replacement emerges, Americans accustomed to reliable electricity may suddenly be faced with darkness. Wouldn’t it be a shame for President Obama’s press conferences to go unseen on days that the wind doesn’t blow?

Rhythms or Algorithms

Recently, I met an executive with a company that analyzes music in search of hit songs. Now that sounds pretty fun—I’m instantly thinking of Tom Hanks’ character, Mr. White, in That Thing You Do, one of my favorite movies. But this isn’t a story about record label scouts working smoky bars and college talent shows. This is the tale of “Hit Song Science”. It seems this company uses complex computer algorithms to search for patterns similar to those found in hit songs.

By this point in the conversation, I’m staring at this executive as if he’s grown a trombone out of his forehead. Now this company, Music Intelligence Solutions, Inc. (http://www.uplaya.com/index.html), has apparently been at this for a while and has some credibility, including a case study by the Harvard School of Business. But somehow, the musician in me just couldn’t help but react in predictable fashion—computers deciding what songs and what artists are commercially viable instead of people?

Now granted, as a member of a touring cover band that will likely never produce a hit single and never generate revenue from the sales of singles, CD, or EPs, I’m certainly less likely to need the services of a “hit song science” company. But with that disclaimer firmly in place, I still can’t help but consider this product an affront to art. It’s not that I mind entrepreneurship or cutting edge technology. I just have a problem with executives in an office in New York, Los Angeles, or Nashville deciding what gets airplay.

It’s strangely ironic to me that record labels would use technology such as “hit song science” when the same companies fought technology in the recent past. Admittedly, outlets such as Napster were more about stealing intellectual property than anything else, but there were some key ingredients the record labels missed. While the record companies pushed album length CD’s, often with two hits and eight songs we would skip past, Napster and contemporaries gave us the ability to get the song we wanted. But at least we can listen to the whole CD if we want; instead of listening to the same ten songs those same suit-clad executives give us on the radio.

But Laissez-faire economics came to the rescue again. Companies like iTunes found ways to sell us the songs we wanted and the whole CD at a discount. And artists across the globe used the Internet to bypass traditional record labels and their executives to find airtime elsewhere. And in droves, Americans circumvented increasingly syndicated traditional radio to purchase satellite radio, giving deeper cuts and specialization that record labels couldn’t offer.

History may certainly prove me wrong. Hit song science may discover hundreds of new songs that make for platinum CDs. But for me, I’ll have to stick with a full dance floor and a request for a repeat performance or a business card to gauge whether my music is desirable. I can’t help but wonder what computer algorithms would have thought of the groundbreaking work like the Beatles or Chicago. Would the White Album have been overlooked because it didn’t fit in the same “hit clusters” as the Smother’s Brothers? Hopefully, the hits of tomorrow will be decided by me and the critics who matter—those debating whether to put down that drink and hit the dance floor.

Election Day Looms

So it’s Election Day eve—an impossibly long campaign process is nearly at an end. Unless we find Clarence Thomas counting hanging chads in December, we should conclude this electoral mélange by midnight tomorrow. I suppose I should be apprehensive. Perhaps I should be cowering behind locked doors, fearful of what may happen, regardless of who is elected president, state representative, or county coroner. The doomsday anarchists seem convinced that Armageddon is overtaking us in the rearview mirror. And just now, the governor called me to solicit my vote for his candidate for representative, the seventh campaign call tonight.

Elections are important. So is voting. It’s one of the most important rights we possess. Many died to preserve it. And there are some pretty important issues at stake—national security, the economy, energy policy, and the need for a playoff system in college football. And let’s face it—there is a pretty good chance that a combination of ignorant and greedy voters, the influence of special interest groups, and a nearly-unanimous demand for national change will create a worsening climate for businesses, the middle class, or a strong foreign policy in the near future. And I think we will see an erosion of health care and an increase in energy prices.

Our system of government is the best in the world. And our elected officials are certainly accessible when we need them. But as former Georgia Governor and U.S. Senator Zell Miller once told me, the two party system of government is broken. Politicians spend too much time working at the bequest of their party caucus and far too little time listening to constituents.

But I will not spend this Election Day hunkered down with my shotgun waiting for the violent hordes. And I certainly will not assume that Micheal Stipe is correct and it is, “the end of the world as we know it.” But I do feel fine. I place my faith in just a few things; God, democracy, my close friends, and myself. First of all, I know that God is in control. “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.” (1 John 4:4) And I know that democracy will prevail. It has through troubled times before, and it will again. And certainly, I believe in me. I can’t see the Russians from here, and I don’t have a federal subsidy to manufacture wooden arrows, but I’m convinced that I’m more capable than anyone in Washington of deciding my future or ensuring that it’s a success.

Now, how many teams should make the NCAA football playoffs?