Punk Rock, From The Jam, and Ubiquitous Technology

Last night, my wife and I went to see From The Jam at the Blender Theatre at Gramercy. This is two-thirds of The Jam, missing only Paul Weller. I last saw The Jam in 1982 at the Aragon in Chicago, and it was a transcendent experience: Paul Weller's guitar-playing was incandescent and inspiring, Bruce Foxton's bass exploded melodically, and the thunderous drumming of Rick Buckler almost caused my knees to buckle. Last night wasn't 1982, but it was still amazing and on occasion, I was 18 again.

Before I get to the point about technology, let me mention how politics enters the picture here. The Jam was nowhere near as famous in the States as their contemporaries, The Clash, but for me, from about 1978/1979 to 1984, though I listened to other music, nearly nothing remained on my turntable as long as the The Clash, Gang of Four, and The Jam. Although I'd always been interested in politics, both in the US and abroad, it seemed that these three bands really catalyzed and gave voice to the feelings that I had, and shaped those politics to what they are today, in no small part.

As the unmistakeable riff of In The City started, and the old punk rock blood cells started to emanate from the heart into the rest of my body, I looked around the audience. A lot of grey hair, bald spots, and digital CAMERAS/CAMERAPHONES being held aloft! I just remember thinking, "Boy, do I wish I had these kind of Star-Trek-like gadgets back in the day!" Not that it marred the experience, but I would see them out very frequently, with the now ever-present flash capturing every moment of our lives, like a live blog.

This was then further brought to the fore as they began This Is The Modern World and I now found myself thinking rather than just relaxing and enjoying the show. How prescient this song was back in 1978 when it came out. And this became a theme throughout the show that was different from that 1982 show because the world was different, and the changing meaning of "modern" came up. How so:

• The thick cloud and stench of cigarette and marijuana smoke was no longer there, as it used to be concert de rigeur


• At least half the audience took pictures and crude YouTube videos with their digital cameras and iPhones, and we'll all be able to relive the show by the time this blog posts (to wit: Mary's Flickr Page)


• My ears will not be ringing for a week, even though the sound was loud, but balanced and undistorted


• That A-Bomb in Wardour St. has a very different meaning today to an American than it did then

What was the same from 1982?

• At a crossroads of political power between progressives and reactionaries


• Brits and US in two unnecessary wars (then: Argentina, Grenada; today: Iraq for both), and as sung then and now by Foxton: "It was done underneath the flag of democracy..."


• That the audience sang along and knew the words and timing as well as the band

What a weird confluence of events that brought us to this show: hanging out at the Cake Shop in LES with Mary finding a copy of Setting Sons on vinyl two weeks ago and purchasing it; then my friend John Dodge calling me last week to tell me he saw From The Jam in Chicago and that it was surprisingly good; and then seeing it also in my New Yorker's Upcoming Events section. I sometimes tire of what Mary and I call "Geezer Shows", but this one was well worth it, even without the erstwhile Paul Weller.

Here we are Down In the Tube Station at Midnight with my watch as proof!

Those Pesky Diebold Machines...

Recently, some stories have come up regarding the Diebold voting machines, this time favoring Senator Clinton against Senator Obama in the New Hampshire primary. While I believe there is a statistical rationale to being able to find wacky voting results (see Elections, U.S. Presidential, years 2000 and 2004), I did not believe that this was the case in New Hampshire. An excellent Salon Blog recently covered this topic before

I could get to it and quoted a just-completed study by two sociologists. They found that precincts that tended to use optical scan (Diebolds) were demographically different from those that did hand counts, and that was the reason for the differential between the candidates.

This is exactly what I suspected, and it only serves to prove the point that Americans have lost trust in one of our most fundamental systems--that which is supposed to ensure fair and honest elections. We need to be able to see the perils of an unbalanced voting system:

• Will our poorest precincts have lesser technology, more prone to error than the richer precincts around the country?


• Should there be a standard voting machine, so that no matter where any person might go, they'll be able to use the same machine that they're used to?


• Will standardization of back-up systems, to allow for a hand-count, for instance become the requirement of a voting machine?


• Should we work on an Internet-based voting system to maximize the number of people who vote?

Certainly that last one will be important in the future, but it will need to happen, provided the proper security is ensured. It might be at that point that we finally realize a true democracy in this country.

Technology in the World of Social Profit Organizations

If you're reading this, you've probably read my profile and see that I'm the Director, Information Systems at GMHC, which is a charitable organization. I do not like the sobriquets of "charitable" organization or "non-profit", because essentially, we are neither. We do not provide charity nor do we work for nothing. I prefer to tell people that I work in the Social-Profit sector. GMHC, and other organizations like ours generate a great deal of social profit; not only do our immediate clients benefit, but society in general most definitely profits from our work.

Since coming to GMHC, I have thought a lot about how I can measure the return on investment (ROI) of the work that my team and I contribute, in both human resource terms and purely hardware and software terms. Should I measure what our annual budget says we spend and amortize all of the hardware that was here and look at it in comparison to our revenues? Should I total the cost of running this department and create an index based on a per-hour basis that I can apply to the time saved to the end-user in our organization? I don't like any of those, because even though they have their applications in the For-[money]Profit sector, they don't truly capture what IT does in the Social-Profit sector. Or for that matter, what the true social profit is.

I am going to continue to explore this and will report my findings on this blog. Stay tuned for more Social Profit!

Math Vs. Gut in World Series Prediction (Yes, It's Boston...)

click image to enlarge

If you look at the prediction, based on season numbers, the Red Sox have an overwhelming advantage, based on runs scored, runs against and Log5. I know what many people are saying: how can the Rockies have such a low chance? Well, a season is not the last 22 games of regular season and playoffs. When someone is making a business decision, will they choose the business that has performed the best for the longest, or do they choose the team that has performed the best only for the last month? Not too many decision-makers take the temporarily hot pick, they take the reliable pick.

And that's what the numbers say: Boston is the reliable pick, and quite handily. Colorado doesn't have much of a chance, although you might like their make-up and the fact that they've managed an amazing feat to reach the playoffs and then sweep so far in the playoffs. But Math says that if the Red Sox and Rockies played 100 series, the Red Sox would win almost 70% of the time. Red Sox should win their second World Series in 4 years.

Unless you believe in Colbert logic: math is only as accurate as the gut that produces it...

(Cross-posted in Big Shoulders Sports)

A Rocky Mountain High and a Boston Tea Party

Click Image to Enlarge

I guess $200,000,000 plus payrolls just don't go as far as they used to anymore.

The probable winners in the LCS's will be the Rockies and the Red Sox. Of course, that's not to say that they will win. As I often find myself explaining to people that the statistics show the most probable world, not the way the world will be. That's also why I don't take this information and bet on it. It's entirely possible that the Cleveland Indians can stun Boston (37% chance is pretty high). But it is unlikely. It should be a good series, though, that's for sure.

And in the NL, the ratings bonanza that is two teams formed in the Nineties in the baseball mecca of this country, the D-backs certainly could overcome an incredible home field advantage that is Rockies Stadium, but it's unlikely.

On a side note, as to method: I'm still on board with log5, and the same with pythagorean, but I'm thinking the better way to slice and dice the runs is perhaps not just home and away runs/runs against, but to look at it only against teams that are better than .500. Too often in a short series, which is a crapshoot anyway, the real way to examine teams is to look at how well they performed against their real competition, rather than against the dregs of their own division. If I had the stats to do that, I would use that method instead. For instance, the Cubs totally fattened their pythagorean record on their bad division, whereas the Arizona record didn't get properly weighted for playing against basically a whole division of playoff contenders (minus San Francisco--and even they weren't pushovers!). We'll see what we can do next year...

(Editor's Note: I changed the image for two reasons from the original post: 1. there was an error in the formula for the home series in both LCSs; 2. I added the current, as of Oct. 13, changes in the odds based on the games played.)

So Sad About Us...

As The Who sang so many years ago, it fits Cubs' fans today. Even when the odds seem to favor them, the "odd" seems to take hold, and off goes another season ending to the sad refrain of "wait 'til next year..."

The Phillies Phans as well, are sad, and most likely will those of LA and NY. It's possible that all teams might sweep today--now that's a weird one (chance: 3%).

click to enlarge image

I will post LCS odds after all contenders are in.

Bronx Bombers Become Bug Bombers, Boston Brilliant

Sorry--I love alliteration.

In any case, the Yankees now have less of a chance to beat Cleveland than the Cubs do of beating the Snakes, even though they both play the next two (if there are two) at home.

A note while I watch the Red Sox play the Angels: Steve Stone is the best analyst in the game. I remember back in Chicago, and listening to him carry Harry Caray during all those years--when Caray was cute, but inarticulate. I've played baseball, as a semi-professional, and thought I was pretty knowledgeable about the game. But in almost every single game, Stone would point something out that I either didn't know, had forgotten, or didn't think of--it was educationsl and entertaining because he was a very intelligent and articulate announcer. It made me completely forget about the great Brickhouse/Boudreau years as I was growing up (and, boy, were those guys good!). Listening to him announce these games was as good as it gets--it truly puts those Faux (Fox?) announcers to shame, they sometimes seem that the more words that issue from their mouths, the more it shows how little they know about the game (thanks TM for that one).

In any case, the question to be asked is what is more accurate now? The odds from before the two losses for these teams, or the odds as they stand after them? Here are the chances for these teams to sweep the next 3 games:
Cubs, 18.4%
Yankees, 17.6%
Phillies, 10.2%
Angels, 8.6%

Now you might think: "them's not good odds"--and you'd be right. But of course, that's the same chance that the Rockies and Phillies had of winning their playoff spots a week ago...

Also, you might also be asking what are the odds that all four series would be 2-0? Of course I have the number for you: 2.9% or less than 3 out of 100 (I aim to please).

Here's the updated odds after tonight's games.

click the image to enlarge