Imagine a life with Donald (Trump, not Duck)...

I’m not ordinarily a political person. As a matter of fact, I hate all things politics. Perhaps you could even consider me an apolitical person. While I grew up in a staunchly-republican home, and I’ve voted republican most of my life (likely out of habit), I’ve never been one to panic or fear for my life when a democrat has been elected to an office that impacts me (unlike my parents). I’ve just lived through eight years of Mr. Obama as our president and I can’t say my life is any better or worse off than it was as Mr. Bush left office. And maybe some people I know actually have a bit better life because of some things that have happened in the last eight years. And I can even say that I thought Bill Clinton was a pretty decent president (indiscretions notwithstanding).

But now I find myself compelled to exercise my right to speak, mostly because I believe that if Donald Trump is our next president, I will have reason to fear for my life, as well as the lives of some people around me. Yes, I can understand why he has followers and believers. Things are seriously f'ed up in our government, irrespective of party. Mr. Trump has stormed in with the attitude that being a non-politician who’s willing to speak his mind and break some rules is the way to fix things. But the problem is, Mr. Trump has no clue what’s involved to running a country let alone coexist in a highly volatile world. He often seems to focus on trivial and non-critical issues, he can easily present himself as a buffoon (and sometimes a bully) in public, he seems to change his mind on what his beliefs and platforms are (sometimes on a daily basis) and he has a way of pissing off important people. OK, maybe some of us want to stand up and cheer when he says something to upset the establishment because we want to say “it’s about damned time”, but what happens when he pisses off Kim Jong Un, who’s more bat-shit crazy then anyone we can imagine holding a US office. Not sure about you, but I don’t just want to assume all the noise North Korea is making about having intercontinental nuclear ballistic capabilities is just puffed up propaganda. Let’s not test him by putting someone in the office of US president that speaks before he thinks, and then tries to change his position after it’s too late. Maybe it’s just me, but I can see that happening so quickly if Donald Trump is given the opportunity to inject his complete lack of diplomacy into some very fragile foreign affairs.

Oh, there’s more I could say, but it all boils down to the fact that in the end, Mr. Trump has no clue what he’s getting himself into, and the country will have to pay for that if he’s elected president. Yes, I’m basically a republican, but if it comes down to Donald Trump vs. either Clinton or Sanders, I believe I have three choices: 1) don’t vote at all, 2) choose an independent candidate that has no chance of winning, or 3) vote democrat. One and two are cop-outs, and I don’t think this is the time to do nothing. So yeah, Bernie or Hillary might just get my vote…

Unless of course we can stop the republican madness and prevent Trump from winning the nomination. Oh, and I think Cruz isn’t much better than Trump, but for different, divisive, manipulative and corrupt reasons. John Kasich is probably the only republican that I would feel comfortable voting for, but I’m afraid the country is too lathered up and frothing at the mouth about the government to consider the strengths that he brings to the table (yeah, maybe I’m being a bit passive aggressive).

OK, that’s the first and last of my political flaming. Get out there and Stop the Trump (and the Cruz Missle, while you’re at it).

Gay Marriage, religion, the supreme court, yadda yadda yadda

Everyone is blogging about the supreme court's decision on gay marriage, so I thought I'd join the fray. I mean, why not. I'll start out by saying that I'm fine with it, and I'm a Christian, and I'm straight, and I'm a republican, and... you get the point. There are a lot of people that fall into the same demographic that I do that have a problem with gay marriage and I want to set myself apart from them. Here's why.
1) I'm a Christian and as such I believe that God has created the human race. And, he's created ALL people; black, white, brown, straight, gay, disabled. People want to be accepted in society. They want to fit in. But people who are different for whatever reason struggle to fit in, mostly because those that are considered "normal" tend it make it difficult for those that are different. The man with black skin just wants to be treated based on his skills when he applies for a job. He can't change the color of his skin, but if he thought it might make his chances for the job better, maybe he would. The point is, he didn't choose his skin color, but in some regard, if he could, maybe he would in order to better fit in society. I believe the same goes for people that are gay. Can you honestly tell me that someone would subject themselves to the pain, heartache and depression that so many gay people experience when trying to reconcile their sexuality? Do you think that most people would put themselves though that if it was simply about a choice of the gender of the person they want to sleep with or marry? I can't subscribe to that. It's not a choice, because NOBODY would make a choice to be rejected by society and suffer through the trauma of not fitting in. People are gay because it's part of their fiber; of their being.
2) For those that want to take a religious stand, fine. It's your choice. But make it about you, not about others. You aren't being asked to be gay. From a legal perspective, you are now simply being asked to accept and respect the rights of gay marriage as they pertain to all other things granted by the institution of marriage. And for God's sake, don't discriminate because of someone's sexual orientation. For a business owner, for example, to refuse to provide a service to a gay couple is ridiculous because not only are you losing revenue to a growing demographic (and impacting your reputation in the business community), you're misplacing your religious beliefs... you're no longer making those beliefs about you. Remember, this was a legal decision, so let's stay within the law and recognize a gay couple's marriage rights!
3) If you're a Christian and you believe being gay is a sin, then you know it's not your place to judge or condemn. That will happen in due time. However, Christians do believe that Jesus created the new covenant to save us from our sins as long as we believe in Him, so IF you're a Christian, then don't judge others and let it be between Him and them..., not you!
Yeah, yeah, what about murderers and people who want to marry their dogs, and pedophiles and all the other sick, twisted people out there. God created them too, right? So let's just let the world run amok and and Jesus can sort things out when the time comes. And if that's the position you want to take when comparing with gay marriage, then there's probably not much hope in trying to reason with you anyway. There's a huge difference between two people who simply want to find love and happiness within the parameters of who they are, and a person with deranged ideas and beliefs that, when practiced, hurt other people in countless ways. As well, for the latter exmaple, there is documented and measurable proof of medical, emotional and/or psychological abnormalities in people that find themselves with these tendencies. This isn't true for gay people.
In a world full of terrorists, world hunger, declining environment, extreme poverty, gender and racial inequality, don't you think there are better places to focus our energies than trying to fight two human beings that just want to be happy and fit into our sometimes intolerant and rather exclusive society? I think so!

Racism: enough is enough!!

Today, I read an article about a black hockey player named Wayne Simmonds, who plays for the Philadelphia Flyers. It seems that in a preseason game against Detroit, played in a neutral location of London, Ontario, some fans were throwing bananas at Wayne, in an apparently racist gesture. Really? Throwing bananas at a hockey game? For God's sake, how immature can people get... and how old and tired is this entire concept of racism? Like the article said, this is 2011, not the 18th century! Wayne wants to play hockey, and if he's good enough to make it on a professional team like the Flyers, then he should be accepted by all teams and all fans as nothing more that a hockey player, irrespective or color, religion, etc. Why is that so hard to understand and accept? And if you feel the urge to throw bananas... well, that's just stupid! Who throws bananas, anyway?
Let's look at some facts (and if you're not of the Christain faith, or don't subscribe to a religion of any kind, then some of this may not be fact to you): 1) People of color can be found on every inhabited last mass on this earth. 2) For those of us who believe in God, the people on this earth were created by God in God's image. 3) As far back as you can look, this world has been made up of a diverse mix of race. So the bottom line is, having many races is nothing new, and is nothing unusual, so how can ANYONE believe that this diversity isn't intentional, and desireable? Afterall, it's God's handywork!
But I am going to probably push the envelope by saying that racism isn't just about one race hating another. It's also about one race trying to make itself more special than the others, or believing it's got some level of entitlement. If we really, truly want racial equality, then damn it, let's all ACT equal. Not only do we recognize and accept everyone as brothers and sisters, we also don't think that someone owes us something because of something that happened in the past. That kind of attitude just tends to promote racist feelings, even within the group that is feeling the entitlement. It creates an "us against them" mentality. Please understand; I'm not denying that slavery and forced segregation weren't horrible. They were just that! And the caucasian race didn't do itself any favors back then, because it's hard to forget how cruel and ignorant both of these acts were. But now, it's time to let bygones be bygones. I know, easier said than done, but I really do think it's as simple as that. Let's just be brothers and sisters, equal in God's eyes. Shouldn't that be good enough for everyone?

Employment can't be an economic benchmark... at least not now

Maybe I'm just looking at this picture too simplistically, but but I think the question of whether we are in or out of recession, or whether we can expect a double-dip recession, is a moot point if we are going to use employment as a benchmark/indicator for the state of our economy. The reality is, companies across the board have employed such principals as Lean Manufacturing, as well as other efficiency strategies, and as a result, these companies are becoming more and more healthy while requiring fewer and fewer employees. It's the new state of business.

Aside the employment figures, one of the reasons we believed we left the recession behind is due to manufacturing and retail figures. Slowly but surely, these numbers have been improving, to a point where economists felt it acceptable to report that we were no longer in recession. And with news like that, consumer sentiment improves and as a result, retail figures improve. It's all pretty self-fulfilling, isn't it? Tell people things are getting better and they will believe it, and behave accordingly. Tell people thinks suck, and again, they will act accordingly.

So yes, employment is stalled. That's primarily due to the fact that all of the companies that let the 9.2% of the people go from their jobs no longer need these people to maintain their levels of business. And in many cases, it's not that these companies are shrinking in revenues and matching employment to revenue levels. It's that they have learned how to do more things with less people. So guess what, even as these companies continue to grow, they won't be hiring in some sort of linear fashion. More with less! It's a simple equation. And the reality is, with these new efficiency programs like lean, most companies now have the headroom to absorb even more revenue without needing to hire, because their new operational and productivity systems are that efficient.

So yes, we have a 9.2% unemployment, and yes, it impacts consumer sentiment. But the reality is, we aren't going to positively impact umemployment significantly by bolstering revenues to these newly efficient companies. We need to create new companies and new business opportunities, unlike any that we've seen before. Look to the Googles and the Facebooks of the world that don't manufacture "stuff" to survive. The sky's the limit for companies like that. Also, since efficiency is the key to a healthier manufacturing sector, let's look at the businesses that help make these manufacturers more efficient... how do we grow that business sector? After all, everyone wants to be more efficient, right?

The bottom line is, the definition of business is changing with our more efficient and flattening economy, so the metrics that we use to gauge the health of the econony need to change too. Otherwise, we'll continue to fulfill the economic prophecy in the wrong direction, because consumers are just reactionary beasts. If you want the econony to improve, just find a reason to tell them it's improving and they'll find a way to make it happen.

I'm not an economist and I don't play one... anywhere. I just have an opinion and need a place to air it. so be it.

I'm a food nazi...

After reading my first two blog posts, you might get the idea that I only care about technology, but that's just not true. I have opinons about many more topics. So today, I want to talk about food and nutrition. Specifically, I want to talk about the role that nutrition plays on the immune system. First, let me start out by saying that I'm neither a nutritionist, nor a doctor (and no, I've never played either on TV). What I am is a guy with an autoimmume disorder called Crohn's Disease that causes chronic imflammation of the digestive system and so I'm really focused on the stuff that goes into my system by way of my mouth.

Interestingly, physicians who treat this disease want to use really toxic drugs to suppress the immune system in order to control the symptoms and slow the imflammation; and they are quick to say that diet isn't really the cause of the disease. And that may be very true. But I'm here to tell you that diet IS a good way to positely impact the desease WITHOUT the use of the drugs.

As you can guess I do a lot of research on the disease itself and on ways to treat it without drugs, and the number one method is to adjust diet, including supplementation, as reported from fellow sufferers. Crohn's disease affects each person differently, and is triggered by different substances and different events. Some claim stress can trigger a "flare" of the disease, while others claim paricular times of the year are worse than other. Almost all claim one type of food or another. And the symptoms can range from severe pain, to gas to diarrhea to joint and eye pain. It's all over the board.

But the point is, almost everyone can point to a food or substance that causes problems, which leads me to believe that while diet may not be the cause of the disease, it's definitely a key factor to controlling it. As a matter of fact, I've come to believe that the disease itself causes the body to develop allergies or sensitivities to certain substances that when exposed, cause inflammation in various parts of the body including the mouth, intestines and joints. And with continued exposure, the inflammation causes irreversible damage to the affected tissue... usually the intesines. And it's this damaged tissue that causes the ultimate problems, including intestinal blockages, which really suck, by the way!

Over the past 25 years of being diagnosed with Crohn's, I have identified the following foods that exacerbate the disease: caffeine, alcohol, deep fried foods, processed foods, and most recently discovered, refined sugar. Now, what's interesting is that I've known about the caffeine and the fried foods for awhile, and have kept them out of my diet, but the remaining substances, especially sugar and processed foods, I have discovered through extensive reading and testing. And the subject of processed foods, I would probably dedicate a separate blog post to, but suffice it to say, when your foods contain chemicals and substances that have been cooked and processed beyond recognition, there isn't much nutritional value left to be found. At best, they provide empty calories. At worst, they wreak havoc on the human body. (No, don't get me started on processed foods...)

What's interesting is that doctors tell us Crohn's sufferers to stay away from high fiber foods, such as veggies because it can worsen the inflammation, and this is indeed true when the disease is active. But, when the disease is under control, fresh whole foods, like veggies, fruits, lean proteins, etc. are actually good for holding the disease at bay. That's because fresh whole foods supply the body with the things it needs to maintain the immune system, and when the immune system is behaving, it can work wonders on fending off all kinds of nasty things... like Crohn's disease.

So this is why I am a food Nazi. And it shouldn't required having a digestive disease for everyone to be a food Nazi, especailly those of you with kids. Look at the list of the things I can't eat. None of them are nutritious or healthy for our bodies, even for people without digestive diseases. Our bodies were never intended to process these foods and chemicals... they're all products of the inventive human being; but thought wasn't necessarily given to what these foods could do to our systems. It was a matter of taste over health. The truth is, our bodies are engineered to eat whole, raw foods. Veggies, fruits, seeds and nuts, lean animal proteins, etc. and it's these things that will provde us with the optimum nutrition and minimize disease... and not just digestive disease like Crohn's, but also Diabetes and heart disease that stem from the stuff that we stuff our faces with.

And before someone jumps all over me about consuming animal protein, I just want to mention a couple of things. There's a reason why the meats we have today are so unhealthy for us... it's the way the animals are fed, raised and bred for taste and mass consumption. Cows, pigs and chickens were never meant to be fattened up on corn and animal-based feeds and treated with steroids and antibiotics. They were meant to feed on the land. Healthy in = healthy out. It's very difficult to find really healthy lean meats today unless you get them from an organic farmer who has grass-fed livestock. But if we were able to get ourselves back to the way livestock should be raised - off the land - then we wouldn't have so many concerns and issues about consuming animal protein. Also, if meat was actually raised in this healthy manner, then we would be able to eat it in its most healthy and natural state... raw!

Anyway, blah, blah, blah. I've rambled on enough. I am pleased to report that by staying away from these trigger foods, getting a boost of probiotics from really good yogurt and probiotic supplements, and taking a vitamin C and D for immune system health, plus running 3-4 days per week, I am off all toxic, immune system suppressing medications and am feeling better than as long as I can remember. And, since staying away from those foods, I really have lost the taste for them altogheter. Just the thought of a big hunk of cake or a chocolate chip cookie makes me feel unhealthy.

There's nothing like eating healthy and feeling healthy. It's said that 80% of the human immune system is controlled from the digestive system. So get out there and eat it raw and eat it whole! You'll be glad you did!

Hey You, Get Off My Cloud...

OK, I have to give props to my colleague Eric Zillmer for affiliating that Rolling Stones song with cloud computing, but I thought it was pretty clever, so I am reusing it (thanks Eric).



Last time, I discussed the merits and pitfalls of social networking in the business environment. As discussed, there's no doubt that social networking will have a prominent place in business, but the "build it and they will come" strategy doesn't work. Unless people are compelled to use social technologies at work, they just won't do it. It's incumbent on the business and the IT organization to work together to identify those compelling applications that will ultimately draw in the users in an enterprise.



So, now we move on to cloud computing. It too, is a technology that ultimately came to be from the consumer space from vendors like​ Google (gmail and Google Apps), Microsoft (Hotmail and MSN) and America OnLine (AOL). But, Cloud computing also has its roots in application service providers like Salesforce.com and hosting companies like Rackspace. So out of the gate, the cloud has a leg up in the business environment.



But what exactly is "the cloud"? And why should Enterprises care about it? Well, there are many definitions to be found, so let's just agree to a couple of simple ones to get everyone on the same page. Cloud computing comes in two basic flavors: public and private. Public means that all of the systems hosting the applications are owned by someone other than the private enterprise using the applications, and systems are being shared by many enterprises at one time. Private cloud means that the systems hosting the applicaitons are being used privately by a single enterprise, and may or may not be located in the enterprise's data center. Sometimes a private cloud will be employed for security or data integration reasons.



Both public and privte clouds share some common attibutes:


Both employ technologies to allow very fast server or application provisioning. That is, if a developer needs a new server to host an application, they can typically make the request at a web-based portal and have the server running in a matter of minutes. As well, the subscriber of the service can also scale the size of the service very quickly to meet demand. More memory, processor, storage, etc. are almost immediately available at the click of a mouse.


Next, both cloud types provide variable pricing. That is, the subscriber of the cloud service only pays for what they use, no matter how much hardware the vendor has in their data center.


Finally both public and private clouds tend to deliver tiers of service:

First, there's Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)... that is, a server of some type (windows, Linux, etc) that only contains an operating system, and that operating system needs to be managed by the subscriber. Of course, that server is connected to a network and some sort of file storage, but all of that is invisible to the subscriber. The the only responsibility that the vendor has is to make sure the hardware is running. The basic advantage of IaaS is quick provisioning, variable cost, and elimination of internal data center real estate. Because the subscriber is responsible for maintaining the environment, they have complete control of that server.

Next is Platform as a Service (PaaS). This service inludes everything that the Iaas includes, but also adds tools and services to facilitate application development. This is valuable, for example, when a widely distributed development team needs to have access to central system which will allow all members of the team to collaborate on the creation of an application. An example could be a system with Microsoft .NET tools, or a PHP development environment, or perhaps Ruby on Rails, all types of web or client application development systems. Like with IaaS, PaaS is typically maintained by the subscriber, but heavy customization and flexibility is available.

The final tier is Software as a Service (SaaS). This is a service where a vendor offers a discrete application to subscribers, typically with a per user, per month pricing model. These applications can range from Customer Relationship Management to Email to Work Order Management systems and a whole lot more. In most cases, flexibility and customization are not allowed. The subscriber uses the application "out of the box" rather than having the ability to change it to meet specific needs. The advantage if this type of service is the avoidance of the capital expenditures typically required to run such an application in an enterprise's data center, which can be extensive, depending on the application. Also, the cost varability mentioned in the previous service is also an advantage, especially for organizations that tend to have staff fluxuations. Also, SaaS tends to be associate with public clouds only.


By the way, there is a concept of a third cloud type, called a Hybrid cloud, but the reality is, it's not separate type of cloud provider, but rather, it's simply a combined use of public and private clouds, with a special software layer, called orchestration, that allows a subscriber to request a service (IaaS, PaaS or SaaS), and the orchestration layer decides whether to use a publicor private resource. This premise of course assumes that an enterprise has both at it's disposal and has determined the rules for the use of one over another.


So, why should Enterprises care about the cloud? Well, a couple of reasons are mentioned above. Capital cost avoidance is a big one. Any time large computer systems can be obtained as an expense rather than through capital expenditures, financial advantages can be gained. And we're not just talking about the computer hardware, networking, floor and rack space, power and air conditioning that can be expensed and variabilized. We're also talking about expensive software licensing from companies such as Microsoft and Oracle. The typical procurement model for these applicaitons requires a fixed number of users for a fixed number of years with large ongoing maintenance agreements, and allows for zero variability. Using cloud-based services can allow a company to completely escape having to enter into these handcuff agreements.

But these are just the obvious financial beneifts. Another benefit is mobility. When services, like email, business and productivity applications can be offered on the cloud, users can not only access them from anywhere, but also access them from a wide variety of devices. This not only give an enterprise's users the freedom of device and work location choice, but it also can allow an enterprise to greatly reduce the "weight" of the computing devices it provides to its users. That is, these devices can be simple internet devices that access all applications via web browsers, eliminating the need to distribute and manage local software, or even eliminating laptops or desktops running Windows or some other full operating system.

And finally, there's agility. Cloud providers have HUGE infrastructures. More server, networks, racks, and storage systems that can be imagined. And all of that infrastructure translates into an enterprise's ability to provision as little or as much infrastructure, platform or software as needed, pretty much at an instant. While not every company has huge swings in their business demands, such as retailers at Christmas, or pizza joints during the Super Bowl, but no matter what the demand curve, the cloud can provide a solution that allows an enterprise to be far more agile than when utilizing resources in their own data center.



So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Companies aren't sitting still with regards to adopting a cloud model. Some might say companies been using the cloud for years with services like expense processing, Corporate Travel services, Payroll) and others. But those are just individual decisions made to avoid certain expenditures, such as in-house infrastructure, or non-core-competency expertise. It's now time to establish a global cloud strategy and begin our great migration toward that strategy so that we can also take advantage of agility, mobility, variability, availability and all the other "abilities" that the cloud can bring. You can bet your competitors are figuring out how to use it to their advantage, and you should be doing the same. I hope that when the dust settles, my company will actually be far ahead of our competition in the Information Solutions that we provide to our users, partners and of course, our customers!

Social Networking, the cloud and Pet Rocks

OK, it's a stupid title, and maybe pet rocks don't really fit with the other two, but the point of the title is, even when you think something is just a fad that won't take off... surprise, it does anyway. I mean really, people actually paid $10 to buy a rock in a paper pet carrier? Yes, they did... lots of them!

And sometimes I ask myself the same thing about social networking... like "people really spend hours of their precious time spying on their friends personal (albeit public) lives? And of course, the answer is, they do. And I'm even guilty of of it. Facebook can be fun! And the reason I think it's so popular in our personal lives is that it scratches an itch that most of us human beings have in our personal lives... lurking. And I don't mean that in a negative way... it's human nature to want to know what's going on with friends, family and sometimes, complete strangers. It's a natural fit with the culture of our personal lives. And apparently there are at least 600 million​ lurkers in the world, and those are just the ones on Facebook.

So, the question I pose is this: just because social networking is viral in the personal space, does it mean it it should have a place in the business world? Does this need to stay connected and watch what others are doing fit the corporate culture? And more importantly, are there great things that can happen to a company that becomes social? I think the answer is undoubtedly yes, but it's a completely different paradigm than social networking in the wild. Because connecting and sharing are not natural parts of corprorate culture, especially ones that are steeped in 100 years of tradition. We can't just expect to "build it, and they will come" (to abuse an already abused cliche). Instead, social-enable applications need to be implemented that replace "the old way of doing things" so that use of the new applications is mandated. If you want to perform function X, you have to use the new social application. Otherwise, left alone, people wil naturally revert to what they are comfortable with. And for people that are entrenched with their old processes (and aren't a member of Gen Social) their primary excuse for not participating in that new social intranet is "I'm already too busy with my work tasks... I don't have time to socialize and play with new tools that don't directly support my job".

Only when these applications offer compelling content, and even mandated features will they catch on. And as much as we would like to tell the Baby Boomers to get with the program (and I'm one of them, so watch what you say), until everyone from that era has retired, and corporate America is run by the X/Y/Social, we will have to figure out how to incent these legacy employees to participate in the social enterprise. And watch out you younger generations... soon enough, you'll be seen as the old fuddy-duddies of the company, and the "Technology Implant Generation" will be pushing you to have the chip surgically installed! Don't laugh... you couldn't have told me 20 years ago that I'd be carrying a phone that's so smart it can impersonate a Bic lighter!

Next, the cloud... what is it good for? (and no, it's not "absolutely nothing" for you old people that know the song I'm referring to).