Sunday Morning Talk: Chris Christie's Culture Problem

Since I don't have anything better to do than to watch TV all day, I managed to catch Chris Christie's entire press conference where he admitted that the slowdown of traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey, was caused by people in his office as political retribution.  Then, he went through an hour-long wiggle where he stated that he is ultimately is responsible because the buck stops with him (not here?  No Truman?), but that he didn't really know, so how can you hold this against him?


The wiggle highlights a problem which I assume is larger than the New Jersey governor's office, and is probably common in politics.  How does one distance oneself from scandal, but still try to claim credit for the successes of the office isn't really what I'm thinking about.  It's the disconnect between what you say, and what is rewarded.  Sure, Christie says that he's responsible, but it's obvious that he doesn't believe that he has real responsibility for the scandal - it's someone else's fault who lied to him.  If you worked for the Christie administration, what would you take away from this?  How would this guide your actions?  It probably would lead you to believe that if you do something unethical, don't get caught.  It wasn't until the emails came to light that any punishment was meted out, as Christie wasn't really interested in what was being done. 


What this means is that there is institutional dissonance.  Christie says that people should act in one way, but punishments and rewards are not given out accordingly (I'm responsible, but don't punish me for it is a prime example of this).  I don't want to be too hard on Christie, as many organizations, political, social, and businesses alike, have these problems.  The problem stems from when people see what is truly valued in the organization, and tries to mimic these behaviors, even when they contradict the explicit wishes and statements of what one should do to get ahead.  It tends to drive these behaviors underground and into the shadows.  Is BridgeGate the first time that such unethical retaliatory behaviors have occurred in New Jersey?  I'd venture to say no.  Bridget (what a perfect name!) Kelly probably had done something similar in the past, or, someone else had been promoted for something similar.  The culture of the organization implied that such tactics would be rewarded, and while not an explicit okay was given, Christie's staffers assumed that he would approve of the outcomes and reward them.  The ends would justify the means, so long as Christie didn't find out exactly how things were accomplished.  Christie didn't probe his office too deeply, and the ease of hiding these tactics was easy... with the payoff of working as Senior staff on a Presidential campaign or administration making the decision pretty easy for the ambitious and morally ambiguous.


Christie is in a pickle now.  (Only 5 calories, and satisfies your cravings for salty food while dieting...)  He probably has a larger problem on his hands.  It's not about containment, which is what the political pundits focus on, but on culture shift.  Who has he promoted in the past for doing underhanded and unethical actions in the past?  What needs to be done to fix this?  How do you shift the culture so that people don't make the calculus of being caught vs. getting ahead in a toxic political climate?  It's not easy - he has a Machiavellian staff on his hands who assume that the results speak for themselves, regardless of the way that they were produced.  The answer may also rest with Machiavelli.  One reading of the "It is better to be feared than loved." is that instilling fear in those you rule is okay.  But in the larger context of the passage, a better path is proposed.  Rather than trying to manipulate the emotions of those you rule by trying to make them like you, why not try competence?  Machiavelli tries to convince The Prince that being an effective ruler is better than being a fool looking for emotional validation.  So for Christie, he just needs to focus on creating an environment where New Jersey just runs well, runs ethically, and runs efficiently.  People might not like him as a person, but they would respect him as a governor.  That might be enough to be elected President.  Or, it should be.

Evolving

Rand Paul mocked Barack Obama about his views on marriage "evolving".  Really?  Your views on marriage don't evolve?  Because if I still held to the beliefs that I had about marriage on the day that I got married, I would have been divorced long ago.  Of course people's beliefs evolve!  If you are in a good marriage, you understand that the only real threats to your marriage come from within the marriage, not a shadowy, mystic spectre that resides outside of the marriage.  Marriage is not a zero-sum game.  Your happiness is not dependent on the misery of others.  Rather, the more happy people you surround yourself with, the happier you are. 

So, how does gay marriage ruin my marriage exactly?

Sunday Morning Politics: Radicals!

This morning on Face the Nation, Newt Gingrich called Barack Obama "The Most Radical President in United States History." 

Are you as disturbed as I am that someone with a Ph.D. in history has never heard of either Roosevelt?

I am one who defines her politics as liberal, using the term as FDR defined it (generally, protecting the citizenry from market failures, regulating key industries to create markets where players compete on equal footing, and trying to internalize the externalities).  While I had been an avid campaigner for Obama in 2008, I will not be this year, mainly because he is NOT advocating for radical policies.  Health care did not go far enough, tax policy remains skewed in favor of the rich, and the price of education means that those without wealth cannot afford college.

"Radical" refers to those who have considered breaking with past policies to create change.  In the business world, one might call them "Innovative".  You find them on both sides of the political spectrum.  Just a quick list of "radical" presidents that I could think of in five minutes is below.  No, I don't have a Ph.D. in history, but it casts serious doubts about the doctoral program at Tulane.

Radical US Presidents:

• Thomas Jefferson
• James Madison
• James Monroe
• Andrew Jackson
• James Polk
• Abraham Lincoln
• James Garfield (although, radical policies may have cause assassination)
• William McKinley
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Woodrow Wilson
• Franklin Roosevelt
• Harry Truman
• Lyndon Johnson (I'd choose LBJ over JFK for implementation)
• Richard Nixon
• Ronald Reagan
• George W. Bush

Not a bad list to be a part of... maybe Obama should try to be the most radical president in US History.

Sunday Morning Papers: Missing the Good Ol' Days

I've never really wondered what living in a theocracy would look like, but the Santorum campaign appears to be giving me a glimpse.  He was interviewed on Face the Nation this morning (Bob Schieffer is a badass, by the way), and brought out the G word early and often.  A little snippet of how this went, after questioning whether environmentalists had bothered to read Genesis:

Santorum: "What I'm talking about is the belief that man should be in charge of the Earth and have dominion over it and be good stewards of it."
Shieffer: "I don't want to just spend the whole program on this."
Santorum: "Good!"

Let's put it this way, if Santorum would have been allowed, he would have continued to dig himself into a hole by narrowly defining Christian beliefs to the point that only Evangelical Republicans are Christians.  I'm very glad that this guy has no say in whether or not I am Saved or not.  Truthfully, if he is living the narrow path that leads to salvation, I'm thinking that I'm going to hell for not wanting to have a vengeful God of bloodlust, but following a be-sandled Hippie carpenter instead.

Santorum is appearing to be running for Preacher-In-Chief.  A rundown of his platform planks as detailed on Face the Nation this morning:

• Prenatal testing is only used to screen for disabilities that result in abortions.
• Public schools is "anachronistic".  (That's the term he used.  Probably incorrectly, but we were just given one line out of context.)
• Theologies not based on the Bible are phony.  This idea was presented in a political context, not a religious context.
• Those who want to protect the Earth and prevent Christians from extracting resources from the Earth are radical environmentalists thwarting God's will.
• Global warming is not scientifically proven.
• The environmental movement is part of a conspiracy to consolidate power in the government. 
• I concede that the President is a Christian.  It's just that his world view, policies, and outlook are not Christians.
• Free prenatal testing in every health insurance program will lead to more abortions.  It's better for a woman with a fetus who will die shortly after birth to go through the whole nine months of pregnancy and be blindsided with this defect in the delivery room vs. being able to make the decision as to whether she will CHOOSE to bring this life into the world.  (Think of the power of that CHOICE vs. having no other option.)
• Amniocentesis will be outlawed in a Santorum Administration.  It only serves to increase abortions.
• Public schools are the result of industrialization.  They are factories. 
• Federal and state governments should not offer public schools.  They have no clue what students need to be educated.  That's best left to parents and local communities, who know a lot more.
• Also, Ford builds each car custom, because no one has ever gone to a Ford dealer and bought a car off the lot.
• States can fund public schools, but they shouldn't have any say about the education that goes on in that school.
• One in three children drop out of school.  (Despite being reported as 8% by the Department of Education.  Sorry, the unnecessary bureaucracy that is probably hiding something by reporting actual statistics because they just love to waste your tax money.)
• Those who graduate from public schools do not have the values necessary to work hard and build communities.

This was only a 15 minute interview.  Could you imagine if he was given time to talk about the economy?  It's the kind of that that as a well-educated graduate of public schools and colleges, who is only here because prenatal testing discovered a problem that was easily corrected in utero, who likes science wants her head to explode rather than believe that the Republican base wants this guy to be President.  Remember what the world was like before health care, education, and technology?  If you've ever wanted to live in the 1880s, here is your chance.  Can't wait to play Russian roulette and see if I'll be the 1 in six women to die in childbirth!  Cholera epidemics for everyone!  Getting kids ready for engineering and technology jobs by having a strong science and math curriculum in schools?  F- That!  Creation-based homeschooling should be the gold standard.

This could get bad, people.

Sunday Morning Papers: Well, was it worth it, Indy?

Today's Indianapolis Star asks the question about whether last week's Super Bowl was a blip, or whether it was the beginning of a full-scale revival.  Really?  You are asking the question?  Of course it was a blip!

I don't think it's a surprise that I really do not understand why Indianapolis exists.  It was built on spec that a canal would open up trade, but unfortunately built on a non-navigable river, with a better canal built in Chicago, and a larger river running through Lafayette/Terre Haute.  What it had was a marketing campaign that declared it the state capital.  In the Midwest, it's still one of the more forgetable capitals, with Des Moines really the only competition for Most Forgetable Midwestern State Capital.  Madison, St. Paul, Lansing, and Columbus all have large universities, and Springfield has Lincoln.  Indianapolis ends up being a convention center tied to a mall by a series of skybridges.  My first trip to Indianapolis was a bit of a surprise to my mom.  I think her first reaction to the fact that I was going to Indy for the weekend was "Why?".  As she explained, it's pretty much a sprawling suburb with no real town.  I can't argue with that.  There's really no reason for this town to exist except the desire of it's residents not to admit that they are wrong.

The Indy Star article references city leaders who think that the Super Bowl is going to increase tourism and convention business to Indianapolis.  No, it's not.  With the game between Boston and New York, you are expecting people from the East Coast to say that there is something worth going to Indy for.  If you are going to get onto a plane for a two-hour flight, why Indianapolis?  Why not even Detroit?  Cincinnati?  Cleveland?  St. Louis?  What does Indy bring to the table? 

TripAdvisor lists the Top 10 Things to Do in Indianapolis as: The Mind Tripping Show (a Vegas-style show playing at the Hilton), a children's museum, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Lucas Oil Field, Victory Field (Minor League Baseball), Crown Hill Cemetery (no, seriously, a cemetery), the zoo, a museum of Native American and Western art, the Indianapolis 500 Speedway (FINALLY!  Something unique!), and the Buck Creek Winery - one of a growing number of Midwestern wineries.  What is there which is going to make me opt for Indy?  Better museums could be found in Chicago.  Better zoos are available in St. Louis and Milwaukee, and if I'm a cemetery junkie, then I'm off to DC.  The reviews themselves are suspect - almost all of them are from residents of the State of Indiana.  Could it be that the great reviews of the Buck Creek Winery are because they haven't been to Sonoma?  

Unfortunately, while hosting the Super Bowl in Indianapolis put a spotlight on Indianapolis, it also put a spotlight on Indianapolis.  Those wanting to attend the Super Bowl were locked into 4 night minimum hotel stays, which meant that they arrived in Indianapolis in the week that the legislature passed Right to Work and allowed the teaching of Creationism in science class.  If you wanted to reinforce the idea that Flyover country is populated by ignorant Bible thumping rednecks, you couldn't have orchestrated a better demonstration.  So, why come to Indy when Vegas is available?  Kudos, Indy!

Sunday Morning Papers: $10,000 Bet

In last night's debate, Mitt Romney bet $10,000 that he was right and Rick Perry was wrong.  Bad idea if you want to connect with the average voter. 

With median household income at $50K per year, Mitt just bet 20% of that like it was nothing.  If it was a rhetorical bet, why not bet a million dollars?  If it was a real bet, why not $100?  It shows that he doesn't seem to appreciate that $10,000 is that grey area where it's hard for an AVERAGE person to figure out if he's serious or not about the cash. 

I know this is the time of year where car companies like to pretend that a husband will buy a car for his wife, but if you are making $50,000 per year, you do not consent to spend $10,000 of your household's money without consulting your wife first.  I'm not sure why Perry didn't mention that.  It had to be in the back of his mind when he mentioned that he wasn't in the betting business.  Here is the major problem with the Republican field:  It's way to masculine.  There's a sense of one-upmanship when it comes to being the most macho.  If Perry were a Democrat, then he could have said that $10K was real money in his house, and he'd be sleeping on the couch if he didn't run it past his wife first.  The Democrats would accept that - the Republicans would call that being pussy whipped.  Negotiating the price down to something that would have been realistic ($20, for example) would have been unmanly.  Unfortunately, the Republican base appears to want to elect the Marlboro Man, and it doesn't appear that anyone can set up to that ideal.  The only one who came close was an actor, after all.

Sunday Morning Papers: Reporters can be stupid

Have you ever wondered about the people who majored in journalism?  I do.  At Illinois, each journalism major was required to take upper level political science classes, and those of us who were in classes with them liked to refer to them as the curve boosters.  Okay, not all of them.  However, it was seen as not having as much writing as English majors, and still without the rigorous science and math classes - just pick five, don't flunk, and you are done.

So, say you are a beat reporter in Missouri when an earthquake rattles Oklahoma.  You have a quick deadline, so why not interview the local geology professor to get a scientific perspective?  The results are not pretty.  From the story, you think that the professor is kind of a dick.  Reading the comments, it's kind of obvious what the problem is: the reporter did not understand that earthquakes happen at a particular point, and you can feel that earthquake even if the point is in another state.  Someone with no knowledge (or interest) in science doesn't go to the wikipedia page on earthquakes to brief himself before writing the questions, and then cannot understand the answers.  You can tell that the professor made that distinction - the fault system is not under our town, everytime you feel shaking doesn't mean it's an earthquake, people in Missouri are not as used to earthquakes as those in California.  The reporter can't figure out that none of these facts would indicate that you wouldn't have felt the earthquake in your town.  The professor even corrected the reporter, but the reporter still doesn't get it - he actually thinks that it's being perceived as an attack piece on those who felt the quake.  The truth is that it should be an attack on a dumb reporter.

Sunday Morning Papers: Poverty

Sunday seems to be the day for human interest stories about how difficult it is for families to make ends meet during the recession.  Coming on the heels of last week's Labor Department study that 15% of Americans now live below the poverty line, it's not surprising.   However, an article in the New York Times challenges this notion and challenges the methodology behind calculating the poverty line in the U.S. 

While the Times spends two pages splitting hairs about what constitutes poverty or not, the conservative estimate is that 4.6 million more people have slipped below the poverty line since 2006.   The new study highlights that another 44 million people live between 100 - 130%  of the poverty line, or another 15% of the population.  That's about 30% of the total population who are one bad break away from homelessnees or hunger, if they are not there already. 

Something's got to give.  I'm not a Marxist, but there is only so much poverty or near poverty that a consumer spending economy can take before there are no buyers left.  Fewer buyers... fewer manufacturers... fewer jobs... fewer buyers... downward spiral.

It's time for a good ol' Keynesian intervention right now.  I'm afraid I'm going to be telling my grandchildren about what it was like to live in the 2010's, but I can't afford to have kids anytime soon.  I'm only 3 of those buggers away from the line myself.

Sunday Morning Papers: The End of the Iraq War

Sunday Morning Papers: The End of the Iraq War

Today's papers and talk shows are filled with two things: First, the liberation of Libya, and second, the end of the Iraq War.  While conservative media sources are discussing the end of the Iraq War in terms of domestic political calculations, I tend to believe that the end of the Iraq War is completely related to the Arab Spring, of which the Libyan Civil War was a major event.

American foreign policy has always been paternalistic in nature, and if we can't trust your government to do what is in America's best interest, then we shall smack you down - take that, Grenada!  Even going back to the Monroe Doctrine, we decided that European Colonies near our shores was not good because it brought European warships nearby, so we decided to back everyone and anyone who would declare independence. It's kind of our thing to do this.  So, with the Iraqi occupation, there was always a sense that Iraq may be unduly influenced by Iran, that they'd become some type of Afghan-style theocracy, or just basically descending into a world where foreign dictators influenced internal affairs instead of us.  

However, after the Arab Spring, this gives the US hope that maybe the Middle East can self-govern.  We don't have to prop up bad governments because we're afraid of worse theocratic dictatorships.  The people can take care of themselves.  We can step back, show a little support for popular movements, and garner more good will than we could by subsidizing oil production in that state.  I don't think it is any coincidence that we announced that we will be leaving Iraq in the same week that Libya declared liberation.  We're heroes.  They're good.  Maybe some funds to hold elections and a promise to buy their oil and repair their economy is all that's needed to create a pro-US democracy.  It does not have to be an invasion and occupation.  If you are looking for the difference between the Obama and Bush administration when it comes to foreign policy, there it is.

Sunday Morning Papers: Occupy Your Town

It's been about three weeks since the Occupy Wall Street protests began, and truth be told, I'm still not exactly sure what they are all about.  Increased taxes on the top 1% of wage earners?  Dismantling of the entire capitalist system?  Stimulating the poster-board and Sharpie industries with increased demand?  Somewhere in between?

This weekend, the papers are filled with coverage of smaller Occupy Your City protests.  About 900 protesters marched in an Occupy Chicago event of two smaller rallies that somehow hooked up when they realized that there were multiple groups of angry liberals downtown.  Might I suggest that organization is key to a successful rally, and in order to parallel the New York protests, you have my blessing to call it Occupy LaSalle Street.  The Indianapolis Star reports that 1,000 protesters showed up for Occupy Indianapolis, another reason that the Occupy Chicago people should feel ashamed, drawing fewer people than Indianapolis. Between 500 to 1000 protesters appeared for Occupy Minneapolis, which was strange as the mayor was encouraging the protest.  More protests are in store for Detroit, Milwaukee, and Madison, whose protests at the state capitol in January appears to have been the first in what is looking like a trend of liberal protests throughout the country.

Why now?  And why does this remind me of the Tea Party Protests?  Both seem to have been focusing unspoken anger into popular movements without a clear plan or list of demands.  Where the Tea Party blames government, the Occupy movement blames corporations.  Neither one seems to appreciate pragmatic and practical solutions, but the Occupy movement is too new.  The Tea Party seems to be why the Republican Party has a carnival of weirdos running (plus Jon Huntsman), none of whom stand a reasonable chance to win in the general election (except Jon Huntsman).

Why the delay on the liberal front?  If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that a number of the protesters in Occupy Wall Street were Obama supporters.  He had the support of the liberal progressive wing of the party.  It wasn't until after he assumed office that he shed the progressive agenda for something that looked akin to a Republican platform from the middle of the Reagan administration.  It's my opinion that the angry liberals took longer to come out and protest because there remained some hope that Obama would still be the person they elected.  As this looked less and less likely, and Tea Party elected officials began dismantling progressive programs in states like Wisconsin, liberals just had enough, and are done with waiting for the Administration to come around.

I am one of the disillusioned.  When I first heard about Barack Obama, it was during an Anti-Iraq War rally in downtown Chicago.  He was a speaker.  It was during a similar time in which the progressive wing of the party believed that their voices and wishes were not being heard.  So... he really should have seen this coming.  It's probably too late for the Occupy movement to back a candidate for the Democratic Primary, but it does not bode well for the President to go into election season with a fractured and disenchanted base.

Sunday Morning Papers: Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Sunday Morning Papers: Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Yesterday, October 1, was the first day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, sponsored by someone to do something,  With 1 in 8 American women being diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime, it's not like we're not aware of it, or why we need to be super aware of it in October.  I'm aware of breast cancer in Mid-March, the anniversary of my Aunt's death while recovering from her double mastectomy.  Most Americans have these personal remembrances.  I usually register for the Komen Race for the Cure run at that time, and try to raise a little money for my local Komen affiliate to pay for mammograms for uninsured women.  

What I become aware of in October, is the number of breast cancer organizations, and the number of corporations who produce pink goods with a portion of the proceeds going to breast cancer research.  Who are they, and what are they doing?  I'm currently watching the Bears take on the Carolina Panthers, and all of the players are wearing pink to... um.... bring awareness, but something else?  Demonstrate that the NFL loves the ladies?  Okay - they are trying to get a message out from the American Cancer Society that annual screenings can save lives, but unless you go to the NFL website, it's a little fuzzy as to what they are doing.  While you are there, why don't you buy a $30 pink long-sleeve Bears shirt?  Somehow Reebok and the NFL are teaming up to support the ACS, but the actual percentage of that $30 purchase going to the ACS is not disclosed on the site.  

It's hard to figure out what is appropriate and what is not when it comes to exploiting the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  Companies want to be seen as caring about national causes, and yeah - some pink products aren't a bad idea if they directly raise money for charities that fully disclose where the money goes.  This is one of the reasons that I like to support the Komen Fund.  In addition to pink running wear and water bottles, they also offer training and educational materials, and the site fully discloses where your money goes and the programs that are supported.  Or... you could buy a pink martini glass from these guys, where an undisclosed portion of the proceeds will go to the Komen fund.

So this month, before you plan on buying a specially marked can of Progresso soup, please take a moment and ask what's really going on here.  Will General Mills be making a flat donation whether you buy it or not?  Who are they donating the money to?  What does that charity actually do to fight breast cancer?  Take a moment to ask questions.  Research the charities, at least looking them up on Charity Navigator, and then really think about whether buying a pink coffee maker or making a direct donation to the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund would be a better use of your money.

Sunday Morning Papers: Hurricane Irene

Sunday Morning Papers

Once again, weather dominates the Sunday Morning Papers. A hurricane formed, drifted across the Atlantic, and obviously, this is the first sign of global warming.

*Sigh*

One data point does not make a trend. It doesn't even make a line. Freak occurrences have been known to happen (Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns... which was a very valid point, and probably the only time I've agreed with the former Defense Secretary). However, this is just a hurricane. Hurricanes happen, they happen in the Atlantic, they happen in August, and they have hit New York City before. We just haven't had one for a while, but that does not make it prescient of future calamities. Between 1900 and 1996, 9 hurricanes hit New York State, or about once every decade. We were due.

This doesn't mean that I don't believe in climate change. I think the evidence for it is overwhelming, while the evidence against it pretty much doesn't exist in the scientific community. All I see is disagreement as to how rapidly the Earth is warming, not that it isn't. The EPA mentions that over the past century, sea levels have risen a minimum of 4.4 inches, and the rate of rise appears to be increasing. The EPA also mentions that if the seas rise 2 feet, 10,000 square miles of land will be lost, probably sinking New Orleans for good, and destroying existing coastal marshlands, making the new seashore more vulnerable to tropical systems than current seacoasts. Barrier islands will be gone, instead becoming sand bars until the next major storm.

There's a number of reports of what climate change could do to the New York area. (If you want to say goodbye to Giant Stadium, it's only going to take 1 meter of rise, 2 tops.) While we may lose Delaware before we lose Central Park, this weekend's hurricane should highlight some tangible problems that climate change will cause. With a rise in sea levels of ONE FOOT (the projected storm surge), New York City was forced to shut down the subway system. By noon today, the Holland Tunnel was closed for flooding. FDR Drive was flooded. If a two foot storm surge occurred (occurs? still?), then the bridges may be out of commission. One foot of flooding was enough to anticipate widespread failure of the electrical grid, causing most buildings to shut down their elevators.

So while we look at the Maldives succumbing to rising sea levels right now, and do not take action, think about what one foot of water in New York does to the infrastructure, and then wonder what's taking everyone so long to get on board with environmental legislation. South Carolina recently passed the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which allows South Carolina to remove itself from Federal bans on wasteful light bulbs. Keep that in mind, because without doing simple steps to stop climate change, Charleston and Myrtle Beach will both be gone with a 1.5 meter rise in sea level. That can't be better for the state's economy than letting a pair of light bulb manufacturers do business in the state.

Sunday Morning Papers: Indiana State Fair

While today I was completely prepared to write about the coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames, my mind is singularly focused on the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair in Indianapolis.

It's too early to assign blame for the collapse, but that's not going to stop me from trying. The biggest problem is that officials saw that there was a fast-moving line of thunderstorms approaching, a severe thunderstorm warning in place, a covered shelter adjacent to the venue, and most importantly, a break in the concert. Normally, I don't enjoy standing in the rain doing anything, and I'd assume that would work for watching stage hands set up for a band after the opening act had finished.

If I had been in charge, seeing a fast-moving line of thunderstorms that would clear the area in under an hour, I'd probably have asked those on the ground, unsheltered from the rain, to either go inside the Grandstand, the Coliseum, or under a pavilion. I would have made it clear to the crowd that the concert would start after the storms had abated. That's me - because I wouldn't want to stand in the rain, perform in the rain, generally get wet and soaked when it's 60 degrees out. Hypothermia sucks. That's all I would have done: told everyone the concert would be delayed, and hope that enough people would voluntarily evacuate the grounds so that when a mandatory evacuation would be called, there would be fewer people to move. Even without knowing that the stage would collapse, would I want to be responsible if 3,000 people (or 12,000 if the wind went sideways) were pelted with golf ball sized hail?

This is the Midwest, after all. We're used to hail storms and tornadoes, and fierce gusts of winds when they accompany violent thunderstorms. Thunderstorms in the summer with hurricane force winds? Yes... these are fairly routine occurrences. In fact, perhaps we should rate hurricane winds based on Midwestern thunderstorms. Are the winds equivalent to an EF-2 tornado or an EF-1?

So, while the news story comments are talking about how it was a freak wind gust of hurricane strength, why are people not pointing out that the stage should have been designed to withstand a strong thunderstorm, which would be a completely plausible event? This may have been a temporary venue, but perhaps we need to question whether a temporary venue poses more risks than a permanent facility. Then again, the Coliseum that was supposed to be used as a safe shelter is also the site of a propane explosion that killed 74 people in 1963. However, as stories continue to point out, stage rigging collapsing during strong thunderstorms have already happened twice this year. Just last week, I watched a Weather Channel special on the collapse of the Dallas Cowboys practice facility. It sounds eerily similar to what happened last night in Indy. Which leads me to believe that these are real concerns with real, tangible, predictable, lethal consequences which should no longer be ignored.