Joel Thomas

With Syracuse and Dayton sliding out of the top 25, it seems there is a role reversal going on between the Big East and the ACC.  At the beginning of the season, the ACC was labled “strong at the top” while the Big East was heralded the deepest conference in the USA.  Now, the Big East has FIVE teams in the top ten, including the number 1 and 2 spots while the ACC can only boast two in the top ten.  Their records back up the rankings too:  the top five teams in the Big East are 116 and 18.  Meanwhile, the top five teams in the ACC are 107 and 23.  Impressive for the Big East.  But there is a B story going on here.  After the Big Five, the Big East has zero teams in the top 25.  They are now “Strong at the top.”  Meanwhile, the ACC also has five top twenty-five teams, with Maryland, BC and Virginia Tech knocking at the door.  It is possible that the ACC will enter more teams into the Big Dance than the Big East.  This would truly signal a role reversal, with the Big East ‘strong at the top’ and the ACC claiming the most depth.  Time will tell.  At this point, the Big East could win on both accounts.

The third, and arguably most important metric is the number of final four teams each can boast.  Pitt and UConn are looking dangerous, but we won’t truly know how dangerous until they match up against Duke and UNC.  If Duke finds themselves playing either of those teams, I might just have to root for them.  I won’t really know unless the moment arrives.

Back in 2007, a few StartingBloc fellows sat around a table and decided to advance social entrepreneurship at the undergraduate level.  Today, SEEDS is working hard to fill this niche.  We are green, but we’re moving.

Take a look at the new website to learn more, and join our Facebook group!

On Thursday, January 15, I went to listen to Nathan S. Lewis, a professor from the California Institute of Technology, speak about climate change, and solar energy’s role in the process.

What struck me about the talk was that Lewis spent an entire hour talking about the sheer physics and options of the energy challenge before even mentioning solar.  For the full run down, you’ll have to listen to Lewis speak; however, you can learn more about him and the overview he gave here.

I took the following from Lewis’ talk:

• Oil and coal are not going to run out any time soon.  Scientists at the USGS (US Geological Survey) can predict with 50% confidence that oil will not peak for another 50-150 years.
• The last time we destabilized the earth’s climate by releasing methane pockets underneath permafrost, the temperature increased 6 degrees centigrade, killing 95% of the planet’s species.  It took the earth 3,000 years to return to where it was before.
• For the solution, go where the energy is:  the sun!

Do you agree with this assessment?  Is solar the way to go?  If not, what alternative path(s) should we take?  If solar is the answer, do you you think it’s possible to develop the technology in time?  We’re running out of time as we speak.

A couple weeks ago, I made some pretty grand claims that the ACC could compete with the Big East as the best basketball conference in the NCAA.  This week, I have three new insights on the matter.  Number one, the ACC teams continue to surprise us with upsets and depth.  Number two, the Big East has four more universities than the ACC.  Number three, the bottom quarter of the Big East is downright godawful.

Let’s take a look at the rankings from the top (AP):

ACC Big East

Wake Forest #2                                       Pitt #1

Duke #3                                                  UConn #4

UNC #5                                                   Syracuse #8

Clemson #10                                          Notre Dame #12

As far as the top 10 go, the ACC is on top.  Close, but the ACC ekes it out.  Let’s look at the rest of the top 25

Top 25 contd

Georgetown #13

Marquette #14

Louisville #20

Villanova #23

Ouch.  Ok, they have more depth in the top 25.  But remember, the Big East has four more teams than the ACC.  Meanwhile, FSU and BC are on the bubble from the ACC.  If they shift into the 25, Big East dominance could falter.  And strength has the Big East demonstrated outside of their conference?  Pitt has one, I repeat ONE win against a ranked opponent!!  And that was Georgetown!  Meanwhile, their 2nd closest game was against FSU of the ACC.

As for the ACC, Clemson and Wake Forest remain undefeated, and each have vanquished ranked opponents.

I love the ACC, and have for years.  Yes, I will even swallow a Duke victory so that the ACC can be a stronger conference.  Some consider that sacrilege.  But that’s just how much I love our conference.

In recent years, the ACC has clearly been the frontrunning conference of NCAA basketball; however, this year is different.  The Big East, with 8 ranked teams, stands above the rest.  Or so it would seem…

My love for the ACC may bring a little bias, but let’s consider how these two conferences really stack up.  First, let’s look at the top 6:

ACC Big East

UNC #1                                                   Pitt #2

Duke #3                                                  Georgetown #4

Wake Forest #5                                       UConn #6

Hm.  The two juggernauts literally alternate 1 x 1 for each spot.  Notice, however, that the ACC has the one-up.  At least at the top, the ACC is…on top.

But let’s dig further.  The top 25 tells a slightly different story:

ACC Big East

Clemson #11                                          Syracuse #9

Notre Dame #12

West Virginia #18

Marquette #21

Villanova #23

Ok, ok, the Big East is stronger this year.  At least at the moment.  But the year is long.  UVA plays Xavier today, and if UVA wins, they could move close to being ranked.  Villanova has slipped from #13 to #23 and could fall out of the top 25.  Meanwhile, NCSU has a 9-2 record, with both losses coming in close games with ranked teams.  They lost to Marquette by 3.    Maryland is 10-2.  While VaTech as four losses, the total margin of loss was 8 points in those games.  Granted, the border ACC teams need to start closing games with ranked teams, but there are four teams on the border of being ranked.  Let’s see what happens!

I’ve found myself in multiple energy debates over the past three years, and I’ve noticed that, while the conversations are fun and stimulating, they fall short in developing any sort of consensus or steps forward.  Normally, each discussion participant pontificates for a few minutes by pitching in the few bits of knowledge they have.  Someone says “We have plenty of oil,” and someone retorts by saying, “That’s not true.”  We do not cite literature, and we certainly do not give any ground.  Rather than form a collaborative dialog, the dialog becomes one in which each person attempts to prove their point.  But what is the point of these dialogs?  Is it to prove a point?

Rather than state an answer, and then try to back it up, I would like to integrate a new paradigm into my energy dialogs.  Quite simply, I would like to utilize a collaborative approach rather than a competitive one.  Don’t get me wrong:  I love competition.  However, when it comes to energy discussions, how useful can the competitive conversation be when we have little time and little expertise?  The fact is that we are in a learning stage and should begin our conversations with a question, not an answer.  Because let’s face it:  we have more questions than answers.

Over the next few months, I plan to dive into energy literature.  Before I jump in, however, I think it’s important to write out why energy is so important.  To master the issue, you need to read reams of literature over an extended period of time.  The stamina for such a task only comes with having the right mission and motivation.  We also need to be clear about our strategic goals.  What do we (humanity) hope to accomplish by wielding energy?

Why Study Energy

Energy is the foundation of human society.  Fire enabled us to cook food, which created the free time for our brains to evolve (chewing uncooked food takes 6 hours / day - cooking allows us to do it in 1 hour).  We owe our humanity to our ability to wield energy.  Energy is how we eat, how we survive the elements, how we move between locations, and how we drive the manufacturing of all of the things that we use.  Today, with 6.6 billion inhabitants, we require more energy than ever.  If we rely too heavily on immediately finite supplies, we will leave ourselves, our children, or their children with no easily available energy sources.  Additionally, too much burning of fossil fuels leads to increased climate change, which is the equivalent of playing russian roulette with the world’s ability to support human life.

As of this moment, we are not prepared to transition from a fossil fuel economy to one based on any other combination of energy sources.  It might not be critical for this year, or even the next few decades, but one can be relatively sure that it will be critical within the next 100 years.  That’s 5 generations of scientists, politicians and businessmen.  If we don’t do it, then who?

Goals

Mine are simple.  They stem from my core desire to maximize opportunity for the greatest number of humans.  I would like to:

1.  Avoid long term climate change

2.  Ensure affordable energy supply for all of the earth’s inhabitants, including present and future

What are your goals?  Do you care about energy?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

In future posts, I will discuss tactics for achieving these goals.  Your input is welcome throughout the process.

Last night, I had the pleasure of speaking on a panel about global social entrepreneurship with Jim Johnson, Ryan Allis, Jim Thomas and Kari Leech.  The moderator, Dennis Whittle, founded Global Giving, a social venture which he has truly taken to scale.  About one hundred people attended for a lively conversation.

The power of the conversation did not center around defining social entrepreneurship, but rather the stories that each panelist had accumulated along their journeys.  Each could point to glorious successes and equally important massive debacles.  Strong currents emerged from the conversation:

Entrepreneurship is about not folding your tent.  Ryan didn’t quit when his burn rate was $1500/month, and he only had $10,000 in the bank.

It is about innovation:  we can’t just describe social injustices.  We need to find pragmatic solutions.  Kari Leech is designing a point-of-use water purifier.  It is no easy feat just to build the prototype, and when that is done, she will need to conduct field trials.  After that, a team will need to figure out the sales and distribution model.

Social Entrepreneurship requires a strong sense of social currency.  Jim Thomas of Africa Rising understands that a frameshift needs to happen in the way Americans view Africa.  Africa is a vibrant continent with vibrant resources.  The West’s role is as a catalyst, not the director of Africa’s development.

Social Entrepreneurship requires scale.  If you want to change the world, go to the root and change the pattern of production.  Nourish International has set out to engage the millennial generation in the issue of global poverty.  Any issue as big as global poverty will not budge with anything less than this kind of pattern changing move.

One woman in the audience asked if social entrepreneurship was new.

The answer is quite clear.  Social Entrepreneurs have existed throughout history.  Gandhi transformed the relationship between Britain and the entire Indian subcontinent into a more equitable one.  Susan B. Anthony ushered in women’s suffrage within the United States.  These were innovators who did not fold their tents and go home.  They understood social currency.  They understood scale!

So social entreprneurs have been around.  But the term, and the field that goes with it, is something new. The term was first used ~1980.  The field around it has since grown enormously, inerting itself in academic curricula around the US and world.  Indeed, I just had a friend return from study abroad in Brazil, where he studied social entrepreneurship at PUC-Rio university.  Crazy.

So what value does social entreprneurship offer?  And what IS it, Really?  For starters, I think it provides a framework for individuals to operate within.  There is comradery amongst commercial entrepreneurs.  There are also rules of trade and business, along with best practices which have build industries.  Social entrepreneurship hopes to achieve the same thing, but with a focus on building a more socially equitable world.  I have begun to define the framework that social entrepreneurship provides in a series of blogposts in the category, social entrepreneurship.  It wil be a fun, trailblazing journey, as the field has not yet fully defined itself.

There are plenty of social entrepreneurship organizations, and zillions of slightly different definitions zinging around universities, conferences and academic forums.  This is my first semi-formal attempt to consolidate the field conceptually.  The field already endeavors to consolidate and define itself (that’s what Ashoka, CASE and Stanford CSI are all trying to do).  My goal is to track what they and others are saying along the way and try to make a little sense of it all.  These posts will be stored in the Social Entrepreneurship on the right side of my blog.  I expect this will take quite a long time; however, I am excited to start!  Here is my general plan:

Step 1:  Identify the dominant schools of thought and categorize them.

Step 2: Identify the primary organizations associated with each school of thought

Step 3:  Encourage players in the field to accurately classify their activities.

Do you have any thoughts in this process?

Feel free to make suggestions to the process in general, or provide specific advice and/or research along the way.  In the meantime, I will begin by writing posts related to step 1 until I am satisfied with the major trends in the field.

My current strategy is to google ’social entrepreneurship’ and analyze the first 50 definitions I come across.  My assumption is that Google’s algorithm will correctly prioritize the most influential social entrepreneurship thought centers.  My concern around this is that it may exclude thought centers where English is not the primary language.  I may need to search for social entrepreneurship in other languages.  Thoughts?

I plan to implement a process check at 50.  If more research is needed, I will analyze more definitions.  If the definitions are consolidated within 2 schools of thought or less, I will move on.  If 3 or more schools of thought emerge, I will conduct more research.

We traditionally think of Republicans as proponents of small government and Democrats supporters of big government.  I did some number crunching of the budget increases introduced over the 4 year terms of our last four presidents.  Needless to say, I was a bit flummoxed by the results:

What does this mean?    Should we measure a government’s size by how much it taxes, or how much it spends?  Was Reagan a phony small government proponent?

Full data on government spending can be found here.  A synopsis can be found here.

Obama is ahead in just about every poll.  Red states are turning into battleground states, and battleground states are turning into blue states.  Obama has been scored higher in debates by Republican pundits.

But there is the ever dreaded Bradley Effect.  Although Obama is up in every poll, there is a concern that voters will still be unable to elect a black man.

Do you think the Bradley Effect will play a role in this election?

If so, do you think it will tilt the election towards McCain?