Chris Hardie

As an employer, my company Summersault is required to withhold and then turn in federal taxes from our employee paychecks.  In the past we've turned in those withheld funds by printing out a check, walking it a block down the street to the bank, and getting a receipt.

I recently took the IRS's advice and inquired into enrolling in "EFTPS" - Electronic Federal Tax Payment System.  (It's too bad they didn't call it something really cool like "Maximum Velocity Pay" or "Blue Tiger," but I guess EFTPS is at least accurate.)  The idea behind EFTPS is that it will save you time and simplify payment and filing of federal taxes.  So far, here's what the process has involved:

1. Receiving copious amounts of printed materials sent via postal mail encouraging us to sign up for EFTPS.  There was no obvious option for opting out of these mailings.
2. Visitng the EFTPS website and "enrolling," which meant typing in a bunch of information that the government already has on file and could have looked up using our Federal Tax ID number, which we also provided.
3. Receiving an "Enrollment Trace Number" that we had to write down as a second unique identifier in the process.
4. Waiting 10-15 days to receive a letter in the mail informing us that we've successfully enrolled in EFTPS, and noting that we'll receive a PIN in a separate mailing, for security purposes.
5. Receiving a PIN letter on the same day as the welcome letter, in identical mailing envelopes, so as to make it especially easy for someone trying to intercept the PIN.  And just noting: that's 10-15 days for them to automatically generate and mail out a 4 digit number.
6. The PIN letter says that we must now call a toll-free number to obtain an Internet password, which will require the Enrollment Trace Number and the PIN to generate.
7. I call the number and enter our Federal Tax ID, our enrollment trace number, and our PIN.  The system generates a temporary INITIAL password that we can use to log on to EFTPS for the first time.
8. As a part of the first login, I enter our Federal Tax ID, our PIN and our temporary password.  To generate a new password, I again enter our Federal Tax ID and our PIN, and then enter a new password.
9. Finally, we have access to EFTPS.

Sigh.  I hope I never have to see inside the brain of the person who thought up this process.  "If we just make it complicated enough with enough different numbers, no one will EVER be able to crack it!"  Of course, the end result is a sense that the government wasted taxpayer dollars creating and implementing an overly complex system.  Shocker, I know.

Why not a simpler version?  If being able to safely receive postal mail at the address on file for your business is the linchpin of communicating sensitive information securely (which is NOT a given), we could have done it this way:

1. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID.
2. Receive postal mailing with a sufficiently unguessable PIN
3. Visit EFTPS website, enter Federal Tax ID and PIN, pick a password, enrollment is complete.

That's at least one fewer postal mailings (and the paper and postage required), at least one less phone call (and all of the phone menu infrastructure required to support that call), and at least a few minutes saved on the part of EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS IN THE U.S.

I think I'll suggest it to the IRS.  Via e-mail, subject line: "Proposal for Blue Tiger."

And then I'll probably go back to walking checks down to the bank.

Recently I've heard some people make the all-too-common assertion that they don't have enough time in the day to get done all of the things they want or need to get done.  I was reminded of an exercise I went through about a year ago, during a period when I was making similar statements, sometimes out loud, sometimes just to myself.  I wanted to do the math to see how the hours really did add up - did I have enough time in the day to do what I wanted to do, or was I actually overbooked and trying to make 1 + 1 = 3?

It's a pretty simple exercise in the end.  Make a table of all of the things you spend time on in a week, and compare that to the total hours available.  If you're over, then you have to change something.  If you're at or under the available time, then you still might need to change something to be happy, e.g. increasing the amount of time available for fun, sleep, or just relaxing.  Or you may find that you spend time exactly the way you want to!

Here's what my chart looked like, in no particular order:

Activity Current Hours Needed/Week Change amount? New Hours/Week Sleep and day-ending/day-starting activities Cooking/Eating Household upkeep, paying bills, etc. Quality time with my partner Quiet/meditation/exercise time Television/Movie Watching Calling/writing/visiting friends Time at job (including transportation to/from place of work) Non-profit organizations / volunteering / community events Blogging / Writing / Creating Other fun stuff / unplanned time TOTALS Hours/week 168 -- 168 Difference?

When I filled out a version of this chart more than a year ago, I found that I had 184 hours/week of stuff I planned to do, 16 more hours per week than actually existed.  I made adjustments and scaled back or ended some of my time commitments, and got it down to 168 hours.  I've rarely found myself feeling continuously overwhelmed since (short periods of oh-no-how-will-I-do-it-all still come and go), and once in a while I update the table to see where I'm at.

Of course, it may be difficult or undesirable to commit to some firm number of hours for each activity every week, and we all know that life has an impressive way of nullifying even the best made plans.  But the exercise itself can help you see any disparity between your mental model of how you want to be spending time, and what reality might actually dictate.

How does your first column of hours add up?  Any line items that surprised you (or that I forgot!)? Which items are you going to change so that you can spend your time the way you want to?

I recently met with a local organization involved in environmental education efforts to talk about the status of sustainability education in Richmond and Wayne County.  In preparing for that conversation, I put together a list of what I see as some of the challenges our community faces when it comes to becoming more sustainable and self-reliant:

1. Most high profile community leaders and organizations aren’t modeling awareness of sustainability issues, sometimes even at a basic level.
2. Almost all development and expansion efforts continue to incorporate a car-centric model of transportation and community zoning/planning.
3. Most of the focus on environmental education is targeted at individuals instead of at businesses, factories, and government organizations, the latter groupings being the ones that tend to use the most resources.
4. The notion of conducting “green business for green living” has been widely adopted as a goal, but also significantly watered down in its impact, often to the point of minimal actual benefit.
5. Sustainability-oriented efforts and organizations are fragmented and overlapping, despite valiant efforts of a number of projects to bring them all together at the same table.
6. The status of and appropriate use of natural resources has been made into an emotionally charged political or religious debate, which often leads to an avoidance of the topic for fear of offending.
7. There are basic educational challenges in the community about the question of how food is produced and where it comes from.  For many people, food is effectively created at the grocery store.
8. Some people seem to feel that solely by financially supporting one environmental organization or another, they’ve “done their part” for sustainability efforts in the community.
9. Our ability to transform the community mindset about sustainability issues doesn’t seem to be keeping up with the realities of peak oil, climate change and economic despair.

(These are some locally specific issues on top of some other challenges I've already identified, e.g. our personal fears around sustainable living.)

So, what are some paths forward that might address some of these challenges?

1. More organizational collaboration and communication.  It might be hard, it might be messy, but it has to happen.
2. More effectively mobilizing community members who care about these issues and who can have an impact on decision-makers
3. Asking corporations / factories / governments to participate as much or more than individuals in making Richmond and Wayne County more self-reliant.
4. Clearly defining sustainability and environmental concepts and terms, to avoid watering down or misapplying them.
5. Creating strong advocacy efforts, or better fund the existing ones
6. Bringing in speakers from other communities with success stories, real life experiences, practical suggestions that we can begin implementing today.
7. Work to untangle the science of sustainability issues from the emotional, religious, and political connotations.
8. Continue education about issues of peak oil, climate change and economic trouble, and how they impact our community.

That's one set of challenges and possible solutions that I see.  What are the challenges and solutions you see in your community?

Richmond, Indiana businessman Don Bates Jr. is running for election to the U.S. Senate.  It seems somewhat rare that a local person runs for national office, and as a participant in the local political blogging culture, I think that makes me obligated to comment, right? 

Bates has a campaign website, a Facebook page, a Twitter feed, and a YouTube channel, so he can check the "modern candidate" requirements off the list.  The content of the website is at times confusing in its construction and full of typos and grammatical errors, and generally seems a notch below what one might expect from a national candidate.  But then again, if that's the worst you can say about a campaign, we're doing pretty well, and at least Bates is putting his views out there for examination and discussion.

On "the issues," the theme of Bates` positions seem to be (A) fight against whatever Barack Obama and other Democrats wants to do,  and (B) try to resurrect the politics, if not the physical incarnation, of former President Ronald Reagan.  I'm almost not kidding about the resurrection part:

I look forward to the day in Heaven when I can look [Ronald Reagan] in the eye, shake his hand, and thank him for saving the United States of America from Communism and economic disaster.

That's Bates on celebrating President's Day, posted on his Facebook page.

Evan Bayh's very recent announcement that he would not seek re-election brought some media attention to Bates, which Bates re-appropriated to imply that Bayh thinks President Obama's legislative agenda is harmful:

I started telling people that Barack Obama's agenda would not be good for America, and that because of Senator Bayh's inability to stop President Obama's agenda, Senator Bayh must be replaced.  At first, very few people believed me.  It now appears that even Senator Bayh believes me.

What Bayh actually said was that Obama's legislative agenda "is the right agenda for America...My decision was not motivated by political concern."  But that didn't stop the local paper from quoting Bates` statements without challenging his shrewd re-framing.

Overall, Bates` behavior and language has been consistent with his statements that he's running for office because he believes the country is headed in the wrong direction.  In my view, a candidate with that primary motivation should have a very strong "right direction" that they can present to inspire and mobilize supporters - especially if they have an artificial lack of national political experience.  So far, Bates seems to be a reactionary candidate ready to demonize anyone who disagrees with him and dive into the fist-fight, instead of someone driven by hope for a better future, the ability to collaborate and compromise, or any real faith in the political process to better the lives of all of the citizens he would serve.

(Yes, this is a possibly harsh initial conclusion drawn after viewing the Bates campaign website and a few news articles - I haven't talked with the candidate in person, and I reserve the right to update my observations later.)

Regardless of his political positions, I hope that Mr. Bates can work on creating a campaign that's focused on a positive vision, and communicating his own unique qualifications for making that vision a reality.  Good luck to him!

If you're new to Facebook, Twitter or some of the other social networking spaces out there, you're probably asking yourself, "what should I expect to see when it comes to the status updates that people post in these places?" Or if you're a social networking veteran, you might still be thinking, "what's my niche online?  How do I decide what to post?"

Well, you're in luck!  I really enjoy cataloging and categorizing these kinds of things, and so I've put together this list of 12 kinds of social networking status updates.

Most every status update will fall into one of these categories:

1. I want you to know how happy I am. I have really amazing family, friends, career, hobbies, food, or some other factors that I will go on about publicly to hundreds of strangers, and I just want you to know how perfect everything is in the world right now.
2. I am incredibly busy and productive. But, I'm taking some time out of my incredibly busy schedule to tell you how incredibly busy and productive I am.  But as soon as I'm done with that, it's back to being incredibly busy and productive!
3. I am kind of a big deal. Here's some information about me that's only thinly veiled as informational, but is actually designed to show you how important, successful, athletic, skilled, wealthy, well-connected and/or influential I am.
4. I want you to know how unhappy I am. You won't believe how pathetic and unworthy I am, but I'd like to try to tell you about it anyway.
5. I am really clever and insightful. Let me just say this really clever or witty thing and let you bask in how amazing I am.
6. I would like to tell you about my physical location. Here is where I am right now.
7. I'd like to share about the activities of my child or children. Let me show you how cute and/or irreverent they are.  If you don't have children, consider taking this opportunity to feel inadequate.  If you do have children, consider taking this opportunity to feel like you don't enjoy your children as much as I do.
8. There is an injustice that needs your attention! Some person, organization or company has done something unacceptable and I need you to take action RIGHT NOW to help make it better.
9. I have a link that I'd like for you to click on. It's really interesting, and it's possibly going to change your life.  Come on, just click on it.  What if it's a really cool photo of a cat in some situation you've NEVER seen before?  There, wasn't that amazing?
10. I have a medical condition that I'd like to share about. I'm sick, or I'm getting better, or I'm having surgery, or I broke something, or someone or something threw up on me or I threw up on them.  Let me tell you about it.
11. I would like to comment on some aspect of popular culture. Allow me tell you why a particular television show, movie, celebrity, singer, actor or athlete is in or out of my favor right now.
12. I am mysterious. I would just like to post this string of characters that may or may not resemble words in your language, hoping to increase your confusion while also instilling some sense that I know something you don't.  598234.

Do you have other categories to add?  What kinds of status updates do you tend to post?

A few raves and reviews from the weekend:

On Friday night I had the opportunity to see The Punch Brothers with Chris Thile in concert at Earlham College. As with many of the artists that Earlham brings to town, I hadn't heard of them when I came in, but when I left I was craving more of their work. The event was billed as a mix of "bluegrass, gospel and klezmer," but that hardly does justice to the talent, complexity and variety the group brought to the packed auditorium.  Mandolin player and group convener Chris Thile evoked David Gray, Jeff Buckley and Dave Matthews in his vocal range, honest lyrics and child-like wonder as he danced around the stage - he made it hard not to smile and dance in my seat, and several audience members were moved to call out in praise throughout the show.  It was quite an experience, and based on the quality of the performance I saw and the group's full tour schedule, it looks like they're really going places.

On Saturday evening I had the opportunity to go with my Valentine's Day date (or, Chinese New Year co-celebrant, if you're down on contrived Hallmark holidays) Kelly to the beautifully restored Gennett Mansion for an amazing dining experience prepared by chef extraordinaire Jennifer Ferrell.  I hadn't been in the mansion before and it was really a wonderful glimpse into Richmond's past.  Donna and Bob Geddes were warm, attentive hosts, we had a great time getting to know our fellow dining guests, and the cuisine was outstanding in flavor and presentation.  It was easily the best dining experience out I've ever had in Richmond.  The Gennett Mansion has private dining seatings on Friday evenings, it's worth checking out.

Some other reviews from other sources:

• Aaron Hill reviews the Roku Internet media player
• Rachel Sheeley reviews the Richmond Civic Theatre's production of "A Streetcare Named Desire" (how'd she do, Jean?)
• Director Kevin Smith reviews Southwest Airlines` "too fat to fly" policy on his Twitter stream; the airline better step up its efforts at amelioration ASAP
• Matt McKimmy reviews his new Droid phone (not quite posted yet, coming soon I'm sure)

What about you - anything to weigh in on?

A few random thoughts on the Superbowl, quite belated in Internet Time:

After the initial total failure of my cable-less schemes for watching the Superbowl online, and the subsequent grumbling trip to an alternate viewing venue, I enjoyed watching the game. I say "enjoy" as in, "it roused the part of me that enjoys the technical aspects of physical competition and spectacle," not enjoy as in, "I really appreciate the Superbowl and what it says about the state of humanity." And I couldn't help but feel pretty dirty afterward.

Let's try out the "alien anthropologist" test: what kind of singular unprecedented event in human history would justify over a hundred million people giving their energy and attention for four hours straight all at the same time? Was it some sort of miracle that brings hope and happiness to our people? Or maybe it was some sort of massively collaborative conversation about the state of the world and how we can make it better? No, it was a sporting contest that really only needs to take a little over an hour, but is painfully drawn out to four hours so that there's enough time to sell products and degrade women.

I have some sense that the Superbowl is a big deal because the Superbowl is a big deal. In other words, if you took away the hype and the clever advertisements and the fancy camera angles and the overpaid players and the self-absorbed sports commentators, I doubt you could draw 100 million people. Maybe you'd still have an interesting contest and maybe it would still be worth watching, but then again maybe there would be more interesting ways to spend four hours in your own community. The spectacle breeds spectacle, and we humans love that.

And yeah, maybe I'm just an overly-sensitive, epicene failure of a manly man, but what's up with so many of the ads this year not even pretending to be anything other than misogynistic trash? Here's the script from a car commercial:

I will get up and walk the dog at 6:20AM.
I will eat some fruit as part of my breakfast.
I will shave, clean the sink after I shave.
I will be at work at 8:00AM.
I will sit through two hour meetings.
I will say yes, when you want me to say yes.
I will be quiet when you don’t want me to say no.
I will take your call and listen to your opinion of my friends.
I will listen to your friends opinions of my friends.
I will be civil to your mother.
I will put the seat down.
I will separate the recycling.
I will carry your lip-balm.
I will watch your vampire tv shows, with you.
I will take my socks off before getting into bed.
I will put my underwear in the basket.
And because I do this.
I will drive the car, I want to drive.

Really??

Translation: I hate you and all of the things that you bring to my life which are obviously contrary to my natural state of being an unhealthy, pig-headed moron, but I will temporarily stifle my hatred so that I can channel my insecurities and immaturity into the experience of transporting myself quickly from one place to another in a particular impractical vehicle that will serve as a poor substitute for any real sense of self-worth. I have no other reason to care about you or your happiness.

Compelling stuff, right? Ugh.

I know that there are people who thoroughly enjoy the Superbowl and all kinds of pro sports and all of the interesting cultural things that go with them. I'm not here to criticize them or tell them how to spend their time. My only hope is that there is some sense of clarity and self-awareness (for me included) that, by saying "I'm going to watch the Superbowl," we're at least in part also saying, "I'm going to give some of my limited life energy to support what the Superbowl stands for."

So, um, did you, uh, watch the game? How 'bout them Saints?

Is working hard to make personal changes in our lives, especially when it comes to living sustainably, a futile effort in the face of all the other kinds of unsustainable things going on in the world?  Is personal lifestyle change effective?

I've asked a version of this question before: Must we become the change we wish to see in the world? You can maybe tell that there's a theme here - impactful personal lifestyle change is not often convenient, and sometimes it is downright scary.  But that's not a reason not to spend as much energy and time as it takes to try to live more sustainably, right?  Change has to happen with each person individually before we can expect the system to change, right?

Or does it?

There's an essay out there that's been weighing on me lately, bothering me, in fact.  Essays like this don't bother me unless either (A) I know they're speaking the truth and I'm having a hard or slow time integrating that truth into my own life, or (B) I know that they're missing something important in their treatment of the subject, but I just can't put my finger on what it is.  In this case it may be some of both.

The essay is "Forget Shorter Showers: Why personal change does not equal political change" by Derrick Jensen.  Jensen basically says that it's problematic to see an individual living more sustainably as an effective political act, and that devoting time and energy to doing so is not necessarily worth it unless it's personally rewarding for you.  His reasons:

1. Simple personal living as a political act is focused on harm reduction, instead of on helping bring about needed positive change
2. Simple personal living assigns the blame, guilt and burden to individuals for addressing sustainability issues, instead of to the entities (corporations, governments, etc.) who are creating and perpetuating the problems.
3. Simple personal living as a political act accepts the capitalist redefinition of people from citizens to consumers, reducing our forms of action to "consuming" and "not consuming."
4. If we don't question the intellectual, moral, economic and physical infrastructure that create destructive, unsustainable ways of life, but insist that we want to personally be a part of the solution, the inevitable conclusion leads us to self-destruction (or, as Jensen puts it, suicide).

I've rephrased some of Jensen's reasoning, so I hope you'll read the full essay to get his original thoughts.  But here's my take on what he's saying and my original question:

I agree that it's silly and self-defeating to expend significant resources on personal change without also challenging the pieces of infrastructure that cause harm in the first place.  I do think that a balance can be found more easily within the construct of a community than it can within an individual's life.  Some people may be really good at effecting personal lifestyle changes while not so good at doing the work needed to challenge a broken economic system, and vice versa for someone else.  Working together, a community unit can do both effectively.

I also agree with Jensen that we must not accept the premise that we as individuals hold the sole power to make our existence as humans more or less sustainable, and that our mechanisms for doing so are choosing what products we do and don't buy.  I feel embarrassed that I spend any time worrying about making sure the hallway light is off when I'm not using it as I drive by empty strip mall parking lots lit up like daylight, using far more energy than my hallway light ever will.

But I also know that corporations, governments, etc. are made up of individuals just like us, and so I believe that there is power in changing individual minds, modeling sustainable living for each other, and planting seeds of possibility.  It may not be as powerful as getting that strip mall to change their lighting practices, but it's not nothing.

Jensen concludes his article by saying "the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems."  I know a number of people who believe that they're doing both - that by navigating systems of oppressive power well, they are playing a role in confronting them, changing them, and even taking them down.

It may come down to the math of the situation, in equations where we can't know all of the variables right now.  If enough people effecting personal lifestyle change or working within broken systems is enough to actually make a lasting difference, then we're all set.  If it turns out that the systems of power and corporate/governmental destruction and resource consumption are far more effective than we could ever hope to stop, then we better hope that our individual decisions along the way were personally rewarding, as memories of a life well-lived in the face of a world breaking around us may be the only reward we get.

How does the math work out for you?  Is personal lifestyle change worthwhile and effective?

For over a year now, I've been living well without cable or broadcast television in my life.  I thought I would share some thoughts on how that transition has gone, and some pointers to tools and technologies you might be interested in if you're on a similar path.

(Disclaimer: I'm not here to tell you how to live, but my general sense is that the world would be a better place if people didn't spend their time watching television.  Period.  That said, and the reality of TV watching as a cultural norm firmly in place for now, I continue with my narrative.)

The end of channel surfing

The first stage in my transition away from "watching TV" was to get free of the notion that my schedule should ever revolve around the schedule of TV broadcasters.

It's a shame to think about how much of my childhood scheduling might have revolved around wanting to be home at a certain time to watch a certain show, and what other opportunities I might have missed as a part of that.  That's where the Tivo DVR that I bought a number of years ago really changed everything - because it records the shows you want to watch for later viewing, I never again had to worry about being proximate to my TV at any particular time.  Add in features like fast-forwarding through commercials, having "access" to shows and movies that were on during hours of the day I never would have watched before, and integrating content from the Internet and my computer, and it was quite the little media center.

Yay! I was a little more in control of my TV watching habits, and didn't spend any more time wandering through channels looking for something mediocre to watch.

Tethered to a TV?

Once my TV-watching was controlled by storing content on an Internet-connected device that would let me retrieve it for later viewing, I thought more about why I couldn't watch the content from anywhere I had a screen, instead of having to be in front of the TV itself.  The most impressive tool that I found in aiding that un-tethering was the Slingbox, which takes most any audio/video signal and makes it available over the Internet, while also allowing you to remotely control whatever device is playing the signal.  In other words, I could watch my TV from anywhere I had network access.

This meant that not only did I not have to be on time to watch content I wanted thanks to Tivo, I didn't have to be anywhere in particular either.  While my actual practical uses of this were few, the slight shift in TV watching paradigm was refreshing.

Thank you, Hulu.

A few years ago, to give up cable TV meant giving up the watching of most TV shows altogether, unless you were bumming off of friends and family.  But the recent trend is that most kinds of television content is available in some other digital form, whether it's on DVD or on the web for free or available for purchase through an online store like Amazon or iTunes.  The emergence of services like Hulu.com, which makes full length episodes of many TV shows available for "free" soon after their broadcast, further drove establishing standards for digital delivery.  (I say "free" in quotes because Hulu still shows you advertisements that take up your time and burn into your soul, and neither time nor souls are free.)

So it was about a year ago that I decided that the few shows I still watched on television were either (A) shows I didn't need to watch anymore, or (B) shows that I could find within a reasonable amount of time using other means.  I called the cable company and told them so, and haven't looked back since.

Hello, Roku.

This strange new world of only watching shows over the Internet was working just fine, but I did notice that there was a drop in the convenience factor, as I could no longer sit down in front of the TV, pressing a button and watch something.  If I wanted the TV-watching experience, I took the time to hook my computer up to my TV and sound system, and things like pausing to answer the door or switching between content options became a lot more noticeably distracting.  (Reality check: yes, watching glowing rectangles is the true distraction.)

A few months later, I saw the announcement of a new $100 device called the Roku player that would make digital content as easy to browse and view as "regular TV" had once been.  By linking it with a Netflix account at the lowest price level ($9/month with 1 physical DVD at a time) or paying per-use for Amazon.com selections, I had access to a significant collection of movies and TV shows available for on-demand viewing, and I was back to navigating all of that with a remote control - no computer hookup needed.

A little bit after that, the folks at Hulu made available the great "Hulu Desktop" application, which basically turned navigating their content into something you could also do with a remote control, and so while there was still some computer hookup needed there, it wasn't as distracting.

Am I there yet?

That's where I'm at right now.  I can sit down with a remote control and have a real "TV Watching Experience."  I have a wide variety of interesting (some of it is even, dare I say, socially redeeming) content available to me on demand, and I don't miss cable or broadcast TV at all.  I go to the movie theater a lot less because I have (IMHO) an equivalent or better experience with my own technical setup.

I can't make any claims around living a life free of the distractions and time-wasting activities that cable TV brought with it - I spend plenty of time staring at glowing screens, I still watch shows produced for TV, I'm still bombarded with messages not of my choosing, and I'm still subject to information overload.   But I've got a lot more control over how and when I experience that information than I ever did when I subscribed to cable.

While watching this content (especially documentaries) is something I enjoy greatly, I hope to continue to reduce the amount of time I spend in front of a TV for any reason, trading it for time spent experiencing the world in other, less passive ways.

If you have experiences with making changes in how you "experience television," (whether you own one or not), I'd love to hear about them in the comments.

A few petitions and e-mail campaigns have been circulating that demand financial institutions waive their processing fees for the handling of donations to help relief efforts in Haiti, following the earthquake there last week.  Some of the requests that I've gotten have expressed irritation that fees are charged at all on charitable giving transactions of any sort.

While I commend the efforts of those who are seeking to maximize the funds that have a direct impact on the actual aid work, I'm not sure that this particular request makes sense to me.

First, a little background on how processing fees work:

How money gets from here to there

Most donations that any of us give to any organization flow through some sort of multi-step process before the funds are actually available to that organization.  The simplest form, of course, is that I walk down the street to the organization's headquarters and hand them cash that comes out of my wallet.  The cash is in their hands, ready to use however they might need it.

A more common flow is that I write a check and mail it into the organization.  The costs and hassles here are still minimal - I might pay 42 cents for the stamp, I probably had some envelopes laying around, the additional staff time needed at the organization to convert the check to usable funds is probably wrapped up in a deposit they'd do anyway, and their bank probably doesn't charge them for that process.  But still, it's a little more overhead and infrastructure than the cash transaction needed.

Which brings us to credit card transactions and other forms of electronic giving.  When you pay for something with a credit card, there are a slew of institutions involved in making that transaction successful.  There's your relationship with your credit card company that allows you to have the line of credit in the first place.  There's the receiving organization's relationship with a credit card processor, which allows them to take you credit card number and hold some dollars on your account.  There's the credit card processor's relationship with other credit card companies, which allows them to talk to your credit card company to make sure you have those funds available.  And then there's the credit card processor's relationship with the receiving organization's bank, which allows them to deposit your money into the bank account. Similar relationships are in place when you use online payment services like PayPal.

Of course, all of this happens with the swipe of a piece of plastic and some behind-the-scenes bit shuffling, but that doesn't mean that it's not an incredibly complicated series of relationships and many pieces of physical and technological infrastructure.  It's understandable that there are some costs involved.

Do they really need to charge that much?

Now to be sure, I think that the credit card companies and PayPal are making quite a nice profit margin on their operations.  Between the fees they charge the receiving organization for using their services (usually a monthly charge plus per-transaction fees) to the interest and account fees they make off of each credit card holder, it's arguable that they've got quite a nice little racket going.

But this reality doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the transaction is being made for a charitable cause - I use my credit card regularly for things that I think are good and necessary in my life, the life of my community, and the larger world, and they may or may not be going to an IRS-recognized 501(c)3 charity.  If the credit card companies choose to use some of their earnings to give back to the relief effort, that's their choice, but I'm not sure we can demand it within the capitalist context of the financial ecosystem and our on-demand society that allows them to exist and thrive in the first place.

Another angle to this is that there are some very clever, entrepreneurial people out there who have pioneered the technologies and relationships that let you do things like send a text message to a certain number in order to donate funds to a good cause - one that's gotten some attention with the Haiti giving is mGive.  If someone has created a tool that didn't exist before allowing faster, easier donation of funds in a way that raises more money, I think they should be allowed to make a business model around that creation.  Choosing to donate some or all of their proceeds back to the relief effort would be an admirable thing for them to do, but I'm not sure we have a right to be indignant if they don't.

Refocusing on the bigger issues

When we give money to a relief effort, we expect that that money isn't going to end up in the pockets of the people in need of help.  It will be used to buy things and services that help them, and it will be used to fund the infrastructure needed to get those things and services delivered.  Donation processing fees may not be as tangibly or obviously necessary as the cost of a supply airlift flight or medical supplies, but they're still a part of that infrastructure and ecosystem.

Again, I'm not saying that credit card / electronic transaction processing fees or the whole credit system is fair or just - I suspect that is not true at all.  But calls to change it should be focused on the broader industry practices and the culture that enables those, not the temporary diversion of fees charged during charitable giving.  And those calls are out there - major retailers (e.g. 7-Eleven) have launched campaigns to fight back against the fees they're paying to accept credit cards, and there are plenty of private and governmental efforts to cap interest rates on cards.

If you're interested in these issues and like watching glowing rectangles, I highly recommend the Frontline special "The Secret History of the Credit Card" and the film Maxed Out.  I also suggest you talk with the people who run the businesses and organizations you support, and ask them how credit card processing fees affect them - you may find yourself writing more checks or even handling cash more often.

Welcome to my first blog post of 2010.  I didn't expect that my hiatus would be over a month long, but here I am in mid-January.

Thanks to those of you who took the time to complete my blog feedback survey at the end of 2009 - it was really helpful in understanding how my regular readers see the blog.  From the responses I received, here are the highlights:

• 60% of you read most of the posts here, and 40% always read the full posts.
• Most of you find out about blog updates from Twitter or Facebook, and the rest use RSS feeds or just visit my website directly.
• Most of you think the blog is either very (or at least more than moderately) interesting and useful.
• You seem to like the variety of my blog topic areas, but "technology and internet stuff" came out on top while humor, sustainability issues, and posts about Richmond, IN all came in a close second.
• You think the design and layout of the blog is generally adequate; only 1 person said it was distracting.
• The single thing you think I should do to improve my blog is to post more frequently.  After that, you either want me to expand to more topics, or to focus to fewer topics.
• At least half of you would like to comment more on what I write, but don't feel like you have time to formulate a response.
• For most of you, adding sponsorship ads to my site is either not a problem at all, or might be annoying but wouldn't change how you read the blog.
• Other comments included:
  • "More naughty bits!"
  • "I like your courage in saying what you want to say."
  • "Thanks for keeping it interesting."
  • "I think you should go retro and get a weekly column in the PI."  (I'm open to this.)
  • "It's one of the few blogs I genuinely try to read on a regular basis."
  • "I appreciate that you take a public stance on several important community issues."
  • "Even if I don't agree with the viewpoint of your commentary, I usually come away with the feeling that you have approached the subject from a thoughtful perspective."
  • "I read new entries just about immediately."
  • "I think you have a unique perspective on small business, technology, and alternative means of building community...You have a lot of knowledge AND a vision, which is a great combination."
  • "Keep up the good work."

Thanks again so much for your honesty, and thanks for reading!  (And of course, I welcome feedback any time.)

Now I can announce the winner of the random drawing to win a $25 gift certificate for either any business in the Center City business district in Richmond, Indiana or for Amazon.com.

The winner is Aaron Hill! I'd like to post the entirety of Aaron's response upon being notified of his win, since I think it really captures a lot:

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Thanks again, Aaron.

Looking forward, I'd like to honor the recurring theme in the feedback I got in that survey and from others: that posting more often about the issues of the day in our community is a good thing.  One of my own personal goals for this year is to do more creative writing, and while my blog can't be my only outlet for that, I hope it's a significant one.

My current target is to post at least three times per week, and at least one substantial entry within those three.  The other entries may be more like a couple of paragraphs and a little less refined, but hopefully still useful and/or interesting enough to keep you tuned in.   I will appreciate any encouragement, reminders or coffee that you want to offer if you see me slipping from that a bit.

Happy 2010.  Here's to a new year of blogging.

I've been walking to and from work via the Main Street business district here in Richmond, Indiana, and as I take in with fresh eyes the businesses and product/service offerings located there, I can't help but argue a bit with the folks who would say it's a struggling area.  We have several great local restaurants, a wide variety of local banks, a place devoted entirely to the art of knitting and crocheting, a cloud computing specialist, a local sporting goods store, massage therapists and acupuncturists, software consultants and website developers, an amazing toy store, bakeries and candy shops, several local jewelers, coffee shops...yeah, the list keeps going on.  What a neat place to live and work!

One of the new additions that I'm most proud of right now is the Clear Creek Food Cooperative, located at 710 East Main Street, right below my company's new headquarters. The store is open to the public as of this past weekend, and the inventory is still growing as we stock local foods, organic produce, crafts and gifts made by local artisans, and healthy bulk foods, snacks, spices and more.

On one hand, it's just another place where you can buy food and related stuff here in Richmond.  But behind the facade of a simple grocery is the promise of something that, I think, is much greater than that.  As a cooperatively-owned business, it has the potential to help us return to the roots of what small business is about - a community of people meeting a common need or desire in our town, pooling their resources to do it in a way that everyone benefits.  With a focus on locally sourced items, it helps work toward the promise of Richmond as a self-sustaining place.  With a focus on organic and fair trade items, it helps work toward an economic model that values justice as much as it values monetary wealth.   And so on - you can read about the co-operative identity to learn more.

Four years ago I joined the Coop's board of directors to see how I could help out.  The Coop was a place that served the primary function of serving a lunch to students on the campus of Earlham College, and much of its other mission - to be a gathering place for a community of people interested in those Co-operative principles, healthy food, education and collaboration, etc. - had been left behind.  Even with that clear role on a college campus - it was still struggling financially, and people in the wider Richmond community who wanted to take advantage of it had a hard time finding it, knowing when it was open, feeling at home shopping there, etc.  And yet, conversations about making changes were hard - students didn't want to lose this campus gathering space, and the traditions and culture that had evolved up over the years had become sacred to some; the idea of taking a risk on a big change like moving was at times unthinkable.

You may remember about a year ago when I made some snarky remarks about an article in the Earlham Word about the future of the Coop and whether or not it would move off campus.  That was one step in a long process of considering our options for revitalizing the organization, one that goes well beyond my time with the board - so many people have put so much time and energy and passion into making the Coop a better place.  We did decide that the best place for the Coop was out in the community and that it was time to make that leap, and this new beginning in a new space represents not only a success of the current board, staff, membership and volunteer base, but a gradual progression of a decades-long conversations.  And even though the future is uncertain and there are still plenty of things to figure out, it's a milestone to celebrate!

Shopping at the Coop will not be like shopping at Meijer, Kroger or Walmart, and you'll still have to go to those other kinds of places to get everything you need.  It won't be open 24 hours and you cannot get your oil changed or your photos processed while you browse.  But if you find value in the values of small Main Street businesses, one that considers the health of its customers and the local community in its decision-making processes, you'll find that you belong at the Clear Creek Food Cooperative.

I hope to see you there!

I'm doing some planning for the future of this blog, and I'd like your feedback.  Of course, you're always welcome to leave your comments in the comments section below, but I've also created a survey with some specific questions that I would appreciate your candid responses to.

It's only 10 questions, most are multiple choice, and if you do take it by the end of the year, I'll put you in a drawing to win $25, either for any business in the Center City business district in Richmond, Indiana or for Amazon.com.   (And if you don't want to identify yourself, that's fine too, you just won't be in the drawing.)

Thanks for your feedback.

I've been consuming a lot of information, and I'm here to tell you, briefly, what I've learned:

Book, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom by Don Miguel Ruiz: a great little book, a quick read full of wisdom that seems like it should just be common sense.  To find happiness, be impeccable with your word, don't take anything personally, don't make assumptions, and always do your best.

Book, Leaving Church by Barbara Brown Taylor: moving reflections on a life devoted to ministry and service, and the unexpected twists and turns in how that was manifested.  As someone who has vacillated widely in my relationship with organized religion over time, much of it rang true for me.

Books in progress or coming up soon: The River Why by David James Duncan (thanks Derric), The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron (thanks Artie), The Chaos Scenario by Bob Garfield (thanks Bob).

Magazine, Men's Health: I was somehow subscribed to this magazine through some purchase or survey I took, and when I track down who it was, I'll let them know that they'll never get another dollar or opinion from me (so far I've traced the path through three agencies, waiting on a call back from the third).  As you might guess, the magazine presents ridiculous ideals of what an actual healthy man is like, objectifies women into puzzles to be solved so that they'll be more available for servicing men, and encourages rampant consumerism as the true path to personal happiness.  Umm, no thanks.

Live Performance, Second City in Chicago.  I've seen this Saturday Night Live feeder troupe do their thing in the past and it's been really, really funny.  When I went again recently, the material was not funny, the actors were not in to it, and the show dragged on.  Lest you think it was just me, one of the longest jokes in the performance centered around a man describing for several minutes in graphic detail the brutal rape of a woman his character met at a bar; apparently it was supposed to be funny because it was edgy, but it was actually just wrong.

Live Performance, Cats: What the hell was Andrew Lloyd-Webber smoking when he created that?  And oh, there was some good singing and dancing and stuff.

Television, Glee: I shook my head in disbelief when my co-workers described the premise to me, but I ended up watching it anyway.  It's part high school drama a la "Friday Night Lights," part Auto-Tuned musical production, part ridiculously contrived sitcom.  I'm worried that, like the dreadful mess that was Prison Break, the show's creators never really expected it to take off, and therefore have no idea where they're taking the story or character development, and so they inject artificial plot twists to delay the season finale so they have the off-season to make something better up.  I can't say I recommend it on the whole, but the interesting renditions and mash-ups of the musical numbers are pretty impressive nonetheless.

Television, V: I love a good "the aliens have come to destroy us" sci-fi drama, and it's harder to resist when the story is couched in the hopes, fears, technologies and personalities of the present day.  V (for Visitors) has done a reasonable job of creating just that, but it seems like they've unleashed their entire bag of tricks in the first few episodes, so (like Glee) it's hard to imagine a sustaining storyline and character development.  The hardcore fans of the original show must be really ticked off, and having been a fan of her work in Lost, it's too bad to see Elizabeth Mitchell compelled to say such campy lines.  I will give maybe one or two more episodes of my time, and then I will go back to watching old Star Trek: TNG episodes, because it was never campy.

Movie, 51 Birch Street: a really neat documentary that anyone who's ever thought about life, love, family, relationships or marriage would probably enjoy at some level.  It was a helpful reminder for me that even the marriages of my parents and grandparents and their peers, which may seem to me frozen as unquestionably pure during unquestionably better times, were probably actually more complicated than that.  It's also a great story about never quite knowing what your moment in the spotlight will look like.

Anything you'd like to suggest?

Jason Truitt at the Richmond Palladium-Item has requested input from the paper's readers on its current strategic planning conversations, saying "we want to do a better news operation in 2010."  As I've done in the past, I'd like to try to answer some of Jason's specific questions here, and while they're somewhat particular to our community, my recommendations might be useful for other papers too:

1. Watchdog journalism involves writing stories that hold public officials accountable for their actions or stories that help to right wrongs in the community, for example. In what ways could we improve in this area?

The Palladium-Item is to be commended for its consistent presence at government and institutional meetings, no matter how boring or routine they are.  That said, the paper often seems to be getting its stories out the door about important or controversial issues just as those items are reaching some sort of final decision point.

At some level I'm sure this is what many decision makers and news makers would prefer - their jobs are easier when there's less time for the public to be outraged before it's "too late."  And it's true that it's still the responsibility of the citizenry to make itself aware of what issues are before, say, Common Council, and not depend entirely on the paper to note items of possible interest.  But I would be pleased to see the Palladium-Item try to maintain even more context on community issues that are under discussion, before they've reached a point of ostensible "no return."

On the other side of the matter, there's the issue of accountability once a wrong or disservice has been committed.  The general "media strategy" practiced by most public figures in this community when they're involved in something controversial is "wait a few days and everyone will have moved on to something else." They're generally right that the collective memory of the community is subject to manipulation and distraction - hey, what's that shiny thing over THERE....oh wait, sorry - and so we do need the paper to look back at how decisions were made and hold the decision-makers accountable.  It can be tough sometimes when the mindset of the reporter understandably becomes "how many more stories can I do about disingenuous plotting by council members to de-fund the Human Rights Commission, we already DID that one?"   But know that nonetheless, I think there's a real thirst in this town for follow-up and perspective on those kinds of things, because they help us remember what we did wrong, and how we can do better next time.

And when election time rolls around, don't just print the candidates` answers to questionnaires and their prepared responses at a debate - show us their voting record, their public statements (or noticeable lack thereof) about important issues, their actual contributions to the community (instead of their provided list of affiliations).  Tell us their story in a way that fits into the larger narrative of the community, and don't take their word for it.

2. The Sunday edition of the Palladium-Item has, by far, our biggest single-day circulation. Past feedback tell us its the day our readers have the most time to spend with the paper. It's also an important day to our advertisers because of the bigger audience it enjoys. What could we do to make that edition special for you?

When I sit down to read the Sunday paper, I don't want to just read articles, I want to have an experience.  Yes, I want it to be like reading the New York Times.  I want there to be options, different subject mater, formats and voices.  I want to be challenged and amused and provoked, and then I want to sit back and think about that, and then I want to move on to another article or section and do it all over again.

The current experience of reading the Palladium-Item on Sunday is about a 10-15 minute process on average, and some of that is getting all of the advertising circulars separated out and thrown away so I can tell how much "real" content is left.  That's not even enough time to get me through a cup of coffee and breakfast, let alone a lazy Sunday morning.

Okay, I know that it's unlikely the Pal-Item is going to be able to ramp up content production to NYT Sunday levels.  And I know that short of a rich uncle depositing some bags of money in your laps, you're physically limited by the number of staff you can afford to have working on that edition.  But if you have resources to expend on making the Sunday edition "special," please make sure you focus on expanding your reporting and news analysis - that would feel very special to me.

3. We want our Web site to be viewed as a primary source for breaking news in our area. How can we make that happen? What would that look like on pal-item.com?

I'll tell you exactly what it looks like: collaboration with other sources of local news to display their headlines and links to their stories on your site.  Yes, I really said that and no, I'm not kidding.  With your current staff resources, you can't expect to always be the first news organization to break a story, and so you have to position yourself to still be the place where people come to read about breaking news, even if it's not your content. If they know that if they go to Kicks96/WHON and G101.3/WKBV and Twitter and the EDC site and the Chamber site and WayNet.org and so on to find stories and information you don't have yet, then pal-item.com will always just be one stop along the way for most users, not a primary source.  You need critical mass.

The nice thing is that the pieces are all almost in place for this to happen.  If you can collaborate with other news reporting / news breaking entities to insure that RSS feeds are readily available, you can build a "breaking news portal" with little technical effort.  Yes, they might build their own breaking news portal too, but that's okay.  Really, trust me.

Also, crowdsource it.  Find trusted local readers (even if they have conflicts of interest and affiliations and biases) and give them the power to post information directly on your breaking news pages (or via their own RSS feeds, Twitter streams, etc).  Don't moderate it, don't filter it, or if you do, let other readers do the filtering and moderating along with you.  Yes I really said that, no I'm not kidding.

4. Traditionally, newspapers have had a leadership role in their communities, and that's something we would like to continue here. How would you suggest we take a greater role in that?

As I think you and your colleagues know, being in a true leadership role is not something you can necessarily choose or create, it's something that's earned over time by consistent acts that bring something to the community with integrity and perspective.  The paper has one of the loudest voices in town when it comes to shaping the thoughts and conversations of our everyday lives.  If I were running the Pal-Item, I would ask every day, "does our news product and the work of our staff use our loud voice in a way that builds up the community, informs and challenges our readers with new and different perspectives they're not getting elsewhere, and helps create or promote a vision for a sustainable, enjoyable future that can be enjoyed by all?"  If there are times when the answer is "no," make changes and move on.  If there are times when the answer is "yes," then you're serving in an important leadership role, keep it up.

I know the values implied in this question are very different from the traditional journalistic imperatives that shaped a newspaper's role in a town for so long, but times they are a changin`.

5. What can we do to improve customer service?

I've never had a negative customer service experience with the Palladium-Item.  That said, one weird thing you could resolve is the way you ask people to submit information or letters to you through your website.  There's the filling out of a form and the cramming of text into a small text box, which is totally inconvenient if you're submitting a press release that's already been prepared as a PDF or Word DOC.  It's understood that the Pal-Item staff use e-mail (and sometimes you print their addresses in the paper), so why not provide direct e-mail as an alternative to the weird form?

Also, take the lead in getting this community to use QR Codes.  Please? Thanks.

...

Thanks to Jason for asking for reader/public input on the paper's operations and future.  If you have your own thoughts on what the local paper needs to do to stay relevant, engaging, and, ahem, solvent, feel free to share here or on Jason's blog post.