In today’s WSJ there is an article which casts doubt, not on the nature of organic foods outright, but on the systems and controls which are charged with their identification and regulation. It would appear that both our trust and food are being contaminated.

There is little to distinguish what is “organic” from other products grown and raised with pesticides and antibiotics but for a simple label. There is heavy reliance on trust and monitoring. As a Certified Internal Auditor and Certified Fraud Examiner, I am focused on business processes, their improvement, and their vulnerabilities to fraud; making this seemingly unrelated article all the more interesting to me. So how has the US been doing in regards to product labeling in the organic space?

Article highlights:
– There are 81 “certifying agents” in the US.
– 37 of those had a complete review this year by the Department of Agriculture, and of those, 23 did not properly conduct onsite inspections.
– Since 2005, 38 of the 81 have “failed on at least one occasion to uphold basic Agriculture Department standards”.
– Over the same period, “40% of these 81 certifiers have been flagged by the USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms’ potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential commingling of organic and inorganic products”.

Let’s put these numbers in perspective. In spite of seeming small, 5% relates to the number of certifiers, not the amount of produce OR the number of farms for which they had certification responsibility. This is a point on which The Journal did not fully expound, or even truly address. In other words, it is extremely possible, even likely, that a significant amount of what is called “organic” is not, depending on the amount of product and produce covered by certifiers. Further, I suggest an increased likelihood, because additives not only increase numerical output (quantity), but also size and weight (quality?). Both of these factors translate into dollars. Further, labeling these items “organic” positively impacts the premium that a farmer could expect to receive. They would be effectively growing money on trees. And they could be.

Organic farms are not zoned exclusively, but are driven by the decision of the farmers to use or avoid pesticides and/or antibiotics. As such, run off from neighboring farms or contamination of the water table, making them susceptible to “pesticide drift”. This simply means that consumers are paying sometimes double the price for exactly the same products with different labels. When that is combined with these failed controls at certifiers, there is ample cause for worry.

Another related point not made in the article, perhaps even assumed by the article, is whether the Department of Agriculture itself has strong enough controls to thoroughly identify instances of failure at certifiers. This is possible, but not at all guaranteed. They have found some infractions, but to what extent? It should be noted that the Department is almost certainly using a sampling methodology in the selection of certifiers to test, in addition to the actual testing conducted. The problem is likely to be even larger than believed and reported – and it was reported because it was believed to be a big problem.

Irrespective, the seed of the problem (and solution) lies with the farmers. We are in effect asking farmers to decide between earnings related to a higher output, or earnings related to the “organic premium”. What makes us confident that they will all choose nobly when they can have their oranges and eat them too, when they can grow money on trees? Let’s hope that our trust is not misplaced. The WSJ analysis is a great starting point, but other serious questions blossom in a perpetual spring.

I just heard/read:
“In the end, everything will be all right. If it’s not all right, it’s not yet the end.”

I read something just yesterday about how to grow accustomed to failure, to deaden oneself to it, so as to succeed. It was in the book Creative Confidence about a guy who used to teach a juggling class. The first step for the students was not to start with two balls or even one. At that point, there was nothing to learn about timing or catching or the throw. The first step was to throw the balls in to the air and to simply let them.. watch them, hit the ground. Failure is a part of the process. Falling, failing, is a part of the process.

I was reminded of that tonight when I saw the below video on Facebook. This is what I need now. I wrote about failure last year in the blog posts “Failure – In The First Person”, “The Biggest Failures”, and “Getting Failures Under My Belt”. I need a bigger belt… and a larger appetite.

I read a WSJ article this morning that inspired the question: What is the average net worth of Americans? The question yielded two responses which are slightly more scientific than the question itself. As we probably remember from our intro to statistics, the “average” is different from the “median”. The median net worth (which generally and colloquially constitutes that of the “average” person) is $45,000. This is the point at which half of the population has more and half has less. So when such a person’s debts or liabilities are subtracted from their assets, they have a 45k surplus.

Interestingly though, when the total net worth of all Americans combined is averaged or spread out over the total numbers of Americans, that number is just over $301,000 per head. That is the true average. This gives us some insight into just how substantially skewed or heavily weighted the riches are for the rich, or how saddled in debts others are.

So, the question with which one might naturally be left from a purely mathematical perspective and free of moral or qualitative consideration, is: How do I compare to the median, and how do I compare to the average? If I have financial goals, how does my spending and saving compare to what others seem to be doing? How content am I to be wherever I am in relation to the flock?

Along these lines, I also recently read something which suggests that most people have their savings formula all wrong, if they are even saving at all. The formula should NOT be:
Savings = Income – Expenses

Instead, it should be:
Expenses = Income – Savings.

Dwell on that for a moment. What this is saying is that once we have “paid ourselves”, THEN we may live at the level at which we are afforded with the remainder. K

I blocked a couple peoples feeds last night because of incendiary remarks that were thinly veiled and coded. I didn’t “delete” them so as to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they are on very thin ice with me. Regardless, I think that these people need to educate themselves better.

When we know that something is very often broken, it’s almost impossible to have faith that it worked just because someone told us it worked this time – especially when it looks like it worked AT LEAST as poorly as usual.

Yesterday, I read an article about yet another man held in jail for something he didn’t do. Thirty nine (THIRTY NINE!!) years, the prime of his life, gone.

I read another series of articles about a Brooklyn cop who shot and killed an unarmed man in a stairwell. There was no confrontation, the man simply entered the stairwell. The cops called it “accidental”. The coroner has labeled it a “homicide” (which could be accidental, but certainly seems to be at minimum, negligent if not criminal).

In another instance, a 12 year old was shot and killed for brandishing a toy gun. Now this is exactly why parents should not give toy guns to children (that’s a whole other essay), but we know what a child looks like. A cop should know what experienced aim looks like. The person who called 911 said clearly that it was a child who was brandishing what could have been a toy. That was explicitly stated prior to the arrival of the police. They killed him anyway. They killed him while a corporate board somewhere, probably with no one on it who looks like that boy or his family, congratulate themselves on the profits from selling toy guns.

These three examples are from the past week alone. Within ONE week. And that’s not comprehensive, that’s just what came to mind and has been in mainstream news. Does that seem like a system that works, and is confidence inspiring?

I just read the first paragraph of a WSJ article entitled “Poll Sees Widening Racial Divide On de Blasio’s Performance”. It reads as follows:

“The racial divide over New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s job performance continues to widen, with more than two-thirds of black voters approving of it and half of white voters disapproving, a poll released Tuesday showed.”

This is a seemingly matter of fact statement, which in many ways it is. Even assuming that the word “widen” is comparative of the status quo to prior polls where there was perhaps greater agreement on his performance, it is still a much smaller idea than the gap itself – “widen” is merely a matter of degree, whereas the focal point is the “divide”. The early polls may have simply reflected a honeymoon period that many, if not most, politicians seem to enjoy at the outset and may not necessarily be an indication of some nefarious divide. Nevertheless, this is a reminder of how language (and percentages) can be crafted to forward a particular agenda when another could so readily be employed.

For example, the writer could have said, “with two-thirds of black voters approving of it along with half of whites”, to represent the OTHER half of whites who did not disapprove. Further, in addressing the white halves, the author cleverly juxtaposed “approve” and “DISapprove” when a “half full” approach would have easily been unifying. The word “disapprove” did not have to be used at all. Of course, that would threaten the agenda of the entire article, but it would have been just as fair. This could just as easily have been an article citing statistics as evidence of de Blasio’s appeal to New Yorkers “with two-thirds of black voters approving of (the job he’s doing) along with half of whites”. That was not the intended message.

There is little in the rest of the article to suggest that this poll is any more unusual than the norm or that this division is anymore stark than any historical predecessor. It would be rare, maybe impossible, to uncover a poll where race was treated as the line in the sand for group identification (an already divisive approach to analysis), and still find complete harmony among the groups. There is not likely to be interspersed approval and disapproval among those polled free of racial connotation. There is always a difference because policies affect these groups in different ways according to life experience and economic grouping. While these tend to have a notable racial influence, they can not so readily be used to divide. Sadly, these other lenses are seemingly avoided in favor of drama and the dull, yet incessant thud of the racial jackhammer. This is not the sole domain of this article, but it thoroughly contributes to the issue.

We must remain sensitive to this type of propagandist idea-loading (on both sides of the fence and from every source) so as not to allow unwelcomed seeds to be planted in our minds, allowing the weeds of prejudice to strangle the wheat. This is especially germane when it pertains to unity and seeing each other as friend, not foe. This article adeptly highlights that de Blasio’s performance is not alone in division.

Last night, I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel to a group of business students at a local college. It was indeed a pleasure. I am always energized by these opportunities and reminded of the good experience that I have been so fortunate to receive, even when procuring that experience may have been unpleasant, accidental, even costly in some regards. Perhaps it would be interesting, even helpful, for me to share one of the questions posed and how I responded:

Question: What would you say to someone thinking about quitting their job to start a business?

Answer: The required thinking can be nuanced, but I started by asking the group how many hours there are in a week. The group was shy, but I presume that I was not the first to tell them that there are 168. By subtracting 60 hours of sleep, which is generous at eight per weeknight and 10 on weekends; and then another 60 for work and school related tasks, they are left with almost 50 hours. Two full days. Every week. Conservatively speaking.

If we were to grant three-quarters of the remainder to necessities like eating, travel, family time, exercise, and a number of other tasks that for now we will treat as not usable for multitasking, we still have 12 hours left. That’s fully half a day, or one and a half standard work days. The question I asked is “How many of you are spending 12 hours a week on your business plans, researching, and networking?” That is way less than one-tenth of the week. The overarching thought is that only when you are busting at the seams and at the point where there is nothing left to sacrifice for extra hours would it be time to move forward with the other plan. But ONLY then, barring a few exceptions.

Going back to our other uses of time, I think back to studying for the CPA exam. I drove and listened to audio tapes on cd prepared by some guy in West Virginia. I did so when I walked my dog and when I worked out, separate from dedicated study time. When certain concepts clicked, I can recall where I was on the highway or what my dog was sniffing, and recalling those images helped me to recall concepts. It became an addiction. Only then was it a passion. I was starting to think in a West Virginian accent. I had flash cards for the CPA exam, and when I studied for the GRE. Again, I listened to Just Vocabulary podcasts on my phone. We can use our time well if we are serious, and we can make up more time. The implied question was “How well are you using your time?”. If a person is not spending more time on the train reading business journals than they spend playing Candy Crush, then they are not serious about the plan yet, certainly not anywhere near passionate enough to quit a job.

Another point that I made relates to the fact that establishing a company and bringing an idea to fruition requires capital. One of the best ways to access capital is to have a job. Jobs provide funds outright, but also access to funds since banks tend not to lend to people without jobs and no viable way of paying back the funds.. with interest. Banks cannot amortize passion, and they do not care about your mission more than they care about their money, if at all.

Finally, I challenged the group to seek “apprenticeships”. Find organizations that do something at least similar to what they want to do. Volunteer, network, perhaps even seek a job in that space so as to learn as much as possible to facilitate branching out. “Learn on someone else’s dime” is an expression that I heard once. While a bit crass, greater subtly and refinement of the concept delivers us to a very similar place – an increase in efficiency and effectiveness of our effort. The difference between an explosion and rocket propulsion is focus. Passion is not enough, especially when unbridled. We are not in the business of romantic notions and starvation. There will be plenty of risks to overcome to satisfy the desire for a good story later in life.

Still, not every panelist agreed with me. What are your thoughts?

Time passes away at an equal rate. Each day the seconds tick and the minute or the hour advances to a point of ticking up. As the numbers tick up a new line is drawn in the sand. A line not too far away – one that we approach with constant and consistent speed. Recently, the number of my age ticked up a digit drawing me ever closer to the edge of the dark water. It is unclear how many lines there are remaining between here and there.

The concept of time is preoccupying, but what if we could somehow lift the framework up and away? What would life be like then? Some societies did not have a true concept of time (google: “society without time” for some interesting reads). Just as interesting, but even more helpful is something I read yesterday (November 9 around 5pm) as I sat in a religious service. The time and date will be ironic for some of my friends in the Bahamas. The scripture was Psalms 90. Here are the verses which spoke to me most and may help provide some comfort to those in need of it:

10: The span of our life is 70 years, or 80 if one is especially strong. But they are filled with trouble and sorrow; they quickly pass by, and away we fly.

12: Teach us how to count our days so that we may acquire a heart of wisdom.

14: Satisfy us with your loyal love in the morning, so that we may shout joyfully and rejoice during all our days.

15: Make us rejoice in proportion to the days you have afflicted us, for as many years as we have experienced calamity.

16: May your servants see your activity, and may their sons see your splendor.

I just watched this outstanding video on Supply Chain Management (aka The Management of the Chain of Supplies)

If I can share only one thing of which I have been reminded recently; going TO or being AT the gym will not make one more fit or help one lose weight (or gain it depending on ones objectives). WORKING OUT (when) at the gym will help a lot more. Fitness by osmosis – trillion dollar industry – not there yet.

I have been working on a big project of late that has kept me fairly quiet (though mentally, anything but
). I also tried to post a video of a squirrel practically crawling into my lap at Union Square Park last week, but to no avail.. I couldn’t find any squirrels (kidding – video wouldn’t post)..

Until soon(er).