I'm watching a show in the History Channel,
which has a segment on MCM Management demolition
company. I am a "fan" of CDI (Controlled Demolition Inc.,
Phoenix Maryland), but as Chairman Mao said: Let a
thousand demolition contractors blossom. [Aside:
The way I watched "911" was hearing the voice of
Mark(?) Loizeaux on WABC explaining how the terrorists
hit the building in the place he would have
set charges to bring it down -- what a
brilliant presence of mind and background somebody
at WABC had to get the head of CDI on the phone as
the WTC was coming down!] But back to MCM Mgmt
on The History Channel today....
And I had a thought -- actually 2 thoughts.
(1) We see the consequencess of having an oil extractor
in the White House. I think we would perhaps do
better to have a demolition contractor in the
White House.
(2) We could have a durability tax (actually it would not
be a tax but a law requiring every product to come with
a paid-up insurance policy for the costs of its removal from
the world). Every product
would have added to its price the cost of its recycling
(which, in many cases, would include its demolition).
Something that was built to last forever would have a
zero charge added, for the obvious reason. But a
piece of junk, ~shoddy ~ -- excuse me: something built not to
last, would have a high surcharge
due to the early expectation of having to recycle it.
Even the rich might find something to like in this,
since clearly the deconstruction assessment on a Yugo
would be much hither than on a Mercedes-Benz. Anything
which appreciates in value as it gets older would
just have to settle for no tax -- so there would be
a "progressive" rate penalty, although I would not
object to the government actually subsidizing
things that incresase in value as they get older -->
which could lead to persons being paid to own
things of quality --L leading to a condition of such
ownership being a contract of trusteeship, which
would be fulfilled, in part, by the prospect beneficiary
purchasing a surety bond for the value of the product
to be entrusted to them, which would provide more
work for actuaries, notaries, etc.
Demolition means progress.
(--MCM Mangement)
Or as I used to say in IBM System Product Devision development:
The programmer who eliminates lines of code
(i.e., who has a negative linse-of-code-per-man-
month productivity number) may be far more productive
than the person who produces many lines of code
(thus creating many opportunities for "bugs" and
cost of other programmers to maintain the code in future).
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
