2010 Reading List and Commentary

In 2009 I read 38 books. In 2010, I read 22 books (less volume in 2010 partly because of one of the 22 being the Holy Bible from start to finish and also that I spent the first 5 months of the year trying to finish Wolf Hall before I finally just gave up).

Interesting fact for me was that in 2009, 42% of my books read were digital. In 2010, it was still only 45% that were digital. This may have been due to a number of the books in 2010 were loaned to me. The only books I bought in 2010 in hardback and why were:

The Road (on sale at Costco for cheaper than a digital copy)
The Glass Castle (same reason)
Racing Weight (not available digitally)
Blood Type A Diet (same)
What Technology Wants (I wanted Kevin Kelly, the author to sign it for me, which he did)

Here were my best reads of the year:

In It's Own Segment:

The Bible

Fiction:

1) Freedom
2) One Day
3) Tinkers
4) The Road
5) The Girl Who Played with Fire (favorite of the trilogy)

NonFiction:

1) What Technology Wants
2) The Glass Castle
3) Game Change


Books I Wish I Hadn't Read:

1) Wolf Hall (never finished)
2) Mastering the Marathon (nothing in the book I didn't already know)


Weirdest Juxtaposition of Reading:

Completed Freedom and went to start Decision Points by George Bush. Just couldn't do it so I had to put two books in between and carry Decision Points to 2011 (already done and I liked it a lot - surprisingly).


Best Page-turner:

The Girl Who Played with Fire


Most Challenging Read (outside of Wolf Hall):

Let the Great World Spin and What Technology Wants


Book Most Recommended to Others to Read:

What Technology Wants



Most Read Authors of 2010:

Laarson and McCarthy



2010 Reading List:


Game Change - Heilemann & Halperin

Let The Great World Spin - McCann

The Road - McCarthy

The Glass Castle - Walls

The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo - Laarson

(d) One Day - Nicholls

The End of Major Combat Operations - McDonell

The Girl Who Played With Fire - Laarson

(d) Mudbound - Jordan

(d) Await Your Reply - Chaon

(d) The Whiskey Rebels - Liss

(d) Tinkers - Harding (2009 Pulitzer Winner)

(d) Little Bee - Cleave

(d) Pearl Buck In China - Spurling

Racing Weight - Fitzgerald

The Sunset Limited - McCarthy

What Technology Wants - Kelly

Blood Type Diet A - Christiano

The Holy Bible -

(d) Freedom - Franzen

(d) Mastering the Marathon - Nix

(d) Blood Meridian - McCarthy


(d) digital version

Check Out My Weekly Posts on US News and World Report

I am now writing weekly for the US News and World Report.

Please check out my latest posts here: http://money.usnews.com/topics/author/rusty_rueff

The Other Shoe is a EEE Size for President Obama

A first shoe dropped tonight in America on President Obama with the sea change in the political environment as the House of Representatives majority moved to the GOP. Now the question is how to fill the other shoe so that is does not drop again in 2012. If I was the President I would be staring at the EEE shoe in front of me and ensure that I do nothing else over the next two years but focus on just that one shoe. The EEE size shoe is:

E = Economy
E = Education
E = Energy.

If the President could focus his staff, his party and those across the aisle on just ensuring that he can fill this large shoe over the next two years then I believe he has a chance to be reelected. If he and the administration waiver and confuse the topical and noisy for important, then we may watch in November of 2012 as to what happens with the other shoe. No one will argue about any of the EEE initiatives and certainly if the EEE's improve and then get better and better, then the President will be known as one who can fill a big shoe and that will allow Americans to give him four more years to show that yes, he can.

Incentives Need To Be Aligned To Work

An article on Friday, October 22nd in the New York Times on page A14 described a number of Governors who are running for office, or are already incumbents, who are recommending or providing tax breaks to create jobs. Frank Caprio in Rhode Island (yes, the guy who told the President yesterday to "go shove it") is recommending a Business Finder Tax Credit that would provide $1000 for a company who brings a new business to Rhode Island and both companies would share a $10,000 reward if the new business hires 20 or more people. He also wants to waive the filing fees for any new corporation that creates a new job.

The Iowa Republican candidate wants to waive state income taxes for start-ups for their first three years (this is great, but I'm not sure there is a realization that most start-ups don't make a profit in their early years so there aren't any taxes due). the recommendation also wants to waive start-ups paying sales taxes up to $50K in their first three years. That could be good on their capital purchases. but, $50K in sales tax breaks would mean that the company would have to spend a lot to get the full benefit. Costco tables and chairs, a few PCs with a 5% sales tax takes a long way to get to $50K of savings.

Other candidates in Illinois, Florida and Maryland are trying to come up with their own ideas.

In 2006, in our book; Talent Force: A New Manifesto for the Human Side of Business (can be found at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0131855239/qid=1136138630/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1629927-8463150?s=books&v=glance&n=2 ) Hank Stringer and I called for "Free Talent Zones". This is where states could attract talent and therefore would want to relocate to these states. The incentives we recommended would not be about tax breaks to companies (which one side or another seems to have a problem), but instead provide incentives to workers directly. Give them a break on state income taxes, real-estate taxes, education fees, etc. Allow a company so many of these incentives for new hiring and believe me, the talent will come and the companies will will have incentives to hire. Imagine being able to recruit telling candidates about these types of incentives.

Rather than postulate on things that don't seem to make a difference or are so small in impact, I sure wish our politicians would be bold enough to think outside of the box and focus on those things that would really make behaviors and actions change. "Cash for Clunkers" was a success because the incentives went to the buyer, not the seller. Sellers finally picked up on it and then made it into an advertising bonanza and all parties got the benefit.

Let's try and think like this for talent, employment and rhe real creation of jobs!

Update - Why Does Someone Steal My Newspaper...And Who Is It?

10/18/10 Update:

Since originally writing this post, I have done some more investigating and this week we had a breakthrough. The neighbor across the street cleared out and trimmed their bushes and these filled blue bags were found thrown deep into the bushes. As we can see, these are the quickly identifiable blue bags of the New York Times, the same paper that goes missing on any given day from my front gate. This morning's paper was stolen. It could be that any one of the bags from this picture could have been filled this morning. A better detective might have felt for the warmest of the bags, but I thought better of it. This update is to just let the culprit know that I am on to your M.O.. You steal my paper, give the dog the signal, he/she fills in close range to the house and then you walk home with Tom Friedman and All the News Fit To Print without a bag. We are circling in on you and one day, when you least expect it, you will be exposed!


Originally posted: 1/11/10


My wife and I live in an affluent neighborhood in the Bay Area of California. By virtue of this, we live in one of the more affluent neighborhoods in the country. We have a gate on our house. It's a nice place to live and one of those areas where crime is not something that is top of mind. Which makes it even more curious to me why and who steals my New York Times in the mornings? This has been occurring now for over a year and it has necessitated having the paper carrier (who has been a delight through this) to make sure the the paper gets slid under or thrown over the gate. I am befuddled as to who and why someone wants to steal my paper. So, this has me working to profile who the culprit might be:

-I think it is a man. I have no reason to know why I think this, other than I have always had a hard time seeing a woman committing crimes. I shouldn't really be so naive as I was recently conned by a woman outside of a hotel in Rochester, NY on a snowy night who needed money to buy gas to drive 50 miles. It was New Years Eve and snowing and blowing at 10 degrees. What was I supposed to do? The hotel receptionist said it is a common scam in their area. So, women do commit crimes, but would a woman really steal my newspaper? I don't think so, so for that thin reasoning, I think it is a man.

-He is either an insomniac or he goes to bed early at night. I know this because the New York Times is delivered to us between 4:30AM and 5:00AM. I go out and retrieve the paper around 5:30AM and it is already gone by then. To be out on the streets before 5AM, he must go to bed by 8:30AM to get his eight hours of sleep.

-He knows axioms and may repeat these to others. I know this because he is an early riser and he must be following the axiom that the early bird gets the worm...or in this case the stolen paper.

-He's at least a little if not well overweight. I think I know this because it doesn't happen every day. There is no rhyme or reason to the days, which tells me that he doesn't work out every day and is not consistent in his exercise routine.

-He's a walker, not a runner. Runners don't like to carry things while they are running, so unless he lives within a few hundred yards, carrying the New York Times any further is a pain.

-He's not an early technology adopter. If he was, he would already have a Kindle or some type of e-reader and be downloading the New York Times Daily.

-He's a political liberal or left-leaning moderate. I know this because, why else would he want the New York Times? Otherwise, he would be seeking out someone where he could steal the Wall Street Journal.

-He's literate. I know that because he never steals our San Francisco Chronicle that is lying right next to the New York Times.

-He doesn't do crossword puzzles. If he did, he would steal the paper everyday and he would for sure take the Sunday paper, which he never does.

-Finally, he has a clean lawn. I know this because everything we are told is that people don't read newsprint anymore and that it is a dying medium. So, if that is the case, then he must have a dog and he has a poop-free lawn. You know, those blue bags are the best!

These are the clues I have so far. If you have any ideas for us on who it might be, please pass them along to me. They don't think this is an important enough crime for that COPS or that America's Most Wanted Show, but we all watch enough CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, and Cold Case that we ought to be able to figure out this very, very serious crime.

Thank You for your help.

Is President Obama A Three Envelope Leader?

There is a story about the CEO who loses his job. On the way out of the office as the new CEO is moving in, the new CEO asks, "Do you have any advice for me?"

The departing CEO says to him, "I left you three sealed and numbered envelopes in the upper left hand corner of the desk. Use them only when you need them and use them wisely. That is the only advice I have for you".

The terminated CEO then leaves. The new CEO registers the comment and goes about settling into his new job. All is going well for him for the first few weeks but in a few short months he finds himself all alone at his desk on a Friday night at midnight staring at his management reports and realizing that things are not going well at all. All the numbers are down and the Board is starting to ask questions and customers and employees are losing faith in him. He is at wits end and doesn't know where to turn. It is then that he remembers the words of the departing CEO and he opens up the top left hand drawer of his desk and there in in the back are the three envelopes, just as he had been told they would be. Not knowing what else to do with the business, he decides to open envelope number one and he reads inside this statement, "Blame your predecessor."

The sitting CEO takes the advice and begins pointing out all of the failings of the prior CEO and claims that the mess the business is in is really all because of the prior leader and administration. This sentiment resonates with customers, employees and his Board and for a few more months the heat comes off of him and all looks good. But, again on a late Friday night a number of months later, he finds himself once again under fire and he has now been in the job long enough that he just can't blame anyone else now but himself. The business is tanking and everyone is now pointing at him. Not knowing what else to do, he reaches for envelope number two and inside he reads, "Reorganize".

This seems like a brilliant suggestion so starting the next morning the CEO begins removing his team of managers and replacing them with new people. This seems to be a terrific piece of advice as for almost the next year there is lots of energy and activity with people changing jobs and bringing in new ideas and as the CEO he spends a lot of time introducing new people to the team and explaining how the new people will be the ones to lead the company to new levels of success, etc. But, just as before, now a year after the reorganization has settled in and he doesn't have anyone left to replace, the business begins to fail again and all eyes are on him to either improve the business results or he will be the next one to be replaced. As he comes out of his most contentious Board meeting, he rushes to his office to do the only thing he knows to do and he grabs the third and final envelope and rips it open looking for the advice to save him and he reads inside, "Make three envelopes".

We are nearing the midterm of President Obama's first term and these past few weeks I have not been able to think of much else other than the story of the three envelopes. For the first year plus, the President spent much of his political time and capital blaming the Bush Administration for the mess of the country and the mess he was inheriting. There was some truth in it, but after a while it began to tire and we looked to him to not tell us the problems of the past, but give us solutions for the future. We did get some of those but not without bitter partisanship that has left a sour taste in everyone's mouth and a feeling that our government is working more poorly than before. The press began to call for the changes at the top of the President's administration to try and recover the hope of Washington working differently. There was not much movement until the announcement that Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff would step down, then Lawrence Summers, his senior economic advisor quickly followed suit, and then last week General James Jones, his head of National Security resigned. Leaks were coming from the White House that even a change with Vice-President Biden might be in the works to make room for Hillary Clinton to move out of the Secretary of State role to be Vice President. From the outside looking in, it looks like a concerted and deliberate reorganization is taking place.

Could it be that the President has reached for the first two envelopes and he is still only half way through his first term?

I am one American who certainly hopes not, but it is hard to not think that this might be the case. Soon we will know how the American people are responding to the agenda that has been set forth for us over the last two years. Much will ride on the November elections. Whether or not the President will need to reach for the third envelope, still resides with his ability to focus and deliver on the hopes, dreams and agenda that he laid out to the American people in 2008.

I still can still be optimistic and more than anything hope that he is not a three envelope leader.

"Yes, We Might!"

I am hopeful, optimistic and sometimes too forgiving. My wife, Patti, says I have too short of a memory and that because of that, I probably am too trusting and that once bitten I allow myself to get bitten again and sometimes, again. I believe, in the long run, that a positive attitude causes less stress and consternation. So, as I write this, I remain hopeful for America, for our government to work and for our President to bring about the change on which he campaigned and won. But, I may be naïve, overly optimistic and not in touch with political reality. Only time will tell, but what I feel could work would be a new approach that starts with a plain honest and non-political assessment of what is reality and then a real plan to move us from where we are now to a defined point that can be measured. From there we need a consistent message that does not drift but instead enlists each of us to the cause and makes requests of each of us that, while we may not like them, we each can contribute and feel as though we are making a difference. If we can begin to see positive changes at the granular level where we live, then we will be able to begin to feel the momentum shift and some wind at our backs. The President is out on the road now trying to bring forward the message of hope to disillusioned constituents. The message of “Yes, We Can” is falling flat because it has started to sound like hyperbole. What we need now is the honest assessment of, “Yes, We Might”, but it is going to take more than what we are doing now, and more importantly that we each get better as fellow Americans who are open, positive and willing to engage to make America work again. This starts at the top and if it does, then “Yes, We Might”, can!

A Bigger Responsibility

I am troubled by those who accept and step into leadership roles, like CEO positions, who don't feel or understand the larger responsibility they are taking. While no person is enslaved to a job in America, the role of a CEO is one where if you are going to take it, you have to understand that you have to subordinate your own desires and wants and make a sacrifice for the team and your company. When you accept the role of a leader, you take on the livelihoods, morale and to some extent, the self esteem of the employees of your company. To not recognize this is to be naive and at the worst, selfish and not suited for the position. CEO's can't just decide on Monday that they want to resign in two weeks. Of course, they can, but they really can't. They have a larger responsibility and accountability than that. That accountability is to the employees in their company who have entrusted their own jobs and family stability in the CEO's hands and are counting on her/him to be there for the company and for them. This is why the decision of Mark Hurd to take the Oracle role is so bothersome for me. Mr. Hurd may have proven in his hurried move that he is actually better as a number 2 in a company than as a CEO. After his abrupt departure at HP he could have let the emotions cool down and resurfaced a few months later and done whatever he wanted without much judgment or evaluation. Well, sure there would be evaluation, but in a few months the emotion would have been taken out of his decision. Instead, he chose to bolt up 101 to join up with Oracle and put a stick in the eye of HP's Board. The stick in the eye of the Board is damaging, but what is most hurtful is the conversation that is left around the water-coolers all over the HP world. The conversation about whether or not Hurd was ever loyal to the company or not and why would he join the competition if he ever really believed the things he said for the past five years to rally the troops and fight vigorously against Oracle and others, this is the conversation that has people wondering who really is Mark Hurd? CEO's have a bigger responsibility in that they are influencing and shaping the decisions, the values and the perceptions of corporate America and executives for the next generation. Their actions speak louder than their words and they shoulder that accountability just by virtue of the job title. Those who don't understand this and who watch out for themselves first and their company (collectively) second should think long and hard before they take the job as the ramifications of their actions are just too important to miss.

Who Jacked My Baseball Team?

I am a Cincinnati Reds fan. I have always been a Reds fan since I grew up in Southern Indiana. For the past year, I have been astounded at the number of new Reds fans all over the country. Everywhere I turn it seems someone has on a Cincinnati Reds hat. Well, not everyone, actually it is mostly kids who have the 59Fifty flat brimmed hats, are wearing tee shirts with writing on them that are too big for them or over-sized flannel shirts, with blue jeans that are falling off their hips and a foot longer than they should be, and are wearing Timberland boots that are untied. I was recently on the subway in NYC coming out of the city and heading to the Bronx. On the train with me were three guys in their teens or early twenties. One was white, the other two were African-American. All three had on their "uniform" topped off with the Cincinnati Reds hat. My first inclination was to slide down the subway car to them and start talking about the good old days of the "Big Red Machine" and wax on about Dave Concepcion, George Foster, Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, and Sparky Anderson. Or maybe they wouldn't know much of 1973, but surely they would know something about the 1990 World Series Sweep and how exciting it was to win the big one that way and hear Marty Brennaman say, "And this one belongs to the Reds...". Or I wondered how they thought Dusty Baker was doing as a Manager and could they pull out a post season appearance this year? But, I hesitated because they just didn't look like they were in the mood to talk baseball. Yesterday in San Francisco, on Market Street I saw a few Reds fans too. It seems like we are all over and we are taking over from where the Yankees once were America's Team! Truth be told, sadly, none of these guys are really Reds fans, but somewhere there are some marketing people who are trying to capitalize on the fashion that the Reds have become. I had to laugh because in Olympia Sports in Westerly, Rhode Island, in the clearance bin are a bunch of gray colored Cincinnati Reds hats that never sold. That marketing person clearly doesn't understand and thinks like, the naive person I would like to be, that everyone has become a Reds fan! I will tell you that I will be glad when the fad fades, so I can get back to wearing my own Reds hats and not worry about someone thinking I am treading on their turf.

The Most Un-American Statement...

Warning, this post is a bit of a rant but because the topic has bothered me deeply since I read about it yesterday morning in the New York Times, woke me in the middle of the night and has had me tied up inside all morning, I felt I needed to get it out of me.

First of all, I don't want or need to get into why anyone wants to build a mosque in the area of the former World Trade Center. I actually don't care about that any more than if a shopping mall or a condo complex was being built there. It has been confirmed that the mosque meets all zoning and legal requirements of the city of New York and that is all that matters to me.

What I am troubled by are the statements that came specifically from former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. There was a time when I was a Newt Gingrich supporter and while my political views have moved one way, while his have moved in a different direction, I always felt that Mr. Gingrich has the best for the country in his heart and that his opinions were rooted in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But yesterday, Mr. Gingrich crossed a line that has me befuddled, bothered and made me a little afraid for what is happening to our country. These were Mr. Ginrich's statements as reported by the New York times and not refuted by Mr. Gingrich:

"Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

“It’s profoundly and terribly wrong,” he said."

What I am appalled by is the small minded thinking that would cause Mr. Gingrich to associate a world-wide religion with the political Nazi party and think that it okay, under our Constitution to limit the rights for Americans to worship in whatever law-abiding way they choose. I have to ask, does Mr. Gingrich really think that all people who practice Islam were involved and support the terrorist acts of 9/11? Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should we also restrict the building of a Catholic Church in Oklahoma City?

The only appropriate reference and comparison to Nazi Germany that I can think of in this situation is that it was this type of segregationist, closed-minded thinking that Mr. Gingrich espouses that gave Adolph Hitler the platform to single out and eradicate the Jewish population of Germany and Eastern Europe. We are also not innocent as a country as this same type of thinking put Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II.

We have vowed as a country to never allow ourselves to return to that type of thinking, so please Mr. Gingrich, do not try and use your platform to sway people to return to a place where any American's religious beliefs, color of their skin or national origin, in any way restricts their American rights and their pursuit of happiness.