If it weren't for sports, many kids wouldn't know what a millionaire looked like.

Donkey Cart?

I drove up to the outlet mall this afternoon to get athletic/running shoes to replace the worn out and filthy pair I've kept wearing too long. Interesting trip.

I met two guys from Canada ("eh?") who are into hot rods. They had the shirts. I chatted them up because that's a great way to learn, and learn I did. A company in Texas, Vintage Air, sells air conditioning kits that can be put in any car with an engine big enough to drive the compressor and an engine compartment big enough to hold the equipment and permit sufficient air flow. Good news!

I ended up buying a pair of Nike running shoes at their discount store. Some of the shoe box logos have a "+" sign inside the swoosh. I asked an employee what that means. Turns out those shoes are equipped with a sensor that will sync with an iPhone or similar device, or with a device worn on the wrist like a watch. It will give feedback on your distance and calories burned based on the data it records as you run. Not coincidentally they sell those wrist devices. She was wearing one, but based on her size and shape I'm pretty sure it was a sales tactic not a lifestyle behavior.

I'm old school. I don't need a chip in my shoe to tell me if I'm getting exercise or if I'm putting out an appropriate effort.
Back in the day it went like this: if you're running/riding/climbing/etc. hard enough that carrying on a conversation would be difficult or impossible you're getting vigorous aerobic exercise. If you could easily converse with someone alongside you you're still burning calories, just don't call it strenuous. Mix 'em up, do some of both, and you'll be in good shape.

So I found a pair of discontinued Nike's for a cheap price that have buried somewhere inside them a chip I don't need and will never use. Oh well. They'll still work for exercising.
Maybe I should get a shirt that says, "I have a chip in my shoes." Would that tell people I'm cool?

Spent most of the day working on my stuff for Sunday so I can go to Barrett-Jackson and Russo-Steele Thursday and Friday, respectively. Made good progress.

I had to take a detour on my way up to the outlet mall. The intersection in front of the WalMart shopping center a mile from our house was barricaded. Turns out a gunman killed two people and wounded a third in a smoke shop in that center and they've got the whole area cordoned off while they look for him. They think he's in one of the stores. A medivac helicopter is still hovering overhead two hours later.

(cont'd from last night's post)
Because the bottom line is powerful and determinative for both non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses (notice the change in nouns, also reflected in their different domain name extensions) both pay a lot of attention to that number. The business needs it to be black so that, after paying salaries and expenses the owner(s) or stock holders get the income they expect. The organization needs it to be at least a zero so they can, after paying all salaries and expenses, continue to do their work.

Some (for-profit) businesses struggle along, rising and falling relative to the profit line. Unless they're too big to fail, an extended period of time in the red will do them in. We expect businesses to make money.
We don't expect organizations to make money. We tend to assume any black ink will be turned back into their mission, building up and improving their efforts. Of course it doesn't work like that, as a look at the mansions and vehicle fleets of too many mega-pastors demonstrates. Just like businesses fall persistently into the red, some organizations accumulate a lot of black. The distinctions between the two can get very blurry.

Question: are colleges and universities businesses or organizations?
Answer: yes.
This country has always had a number of private colleges and universities. Lately a growing number of them are businesses (for-profit). Stanford University is a private, non-profit institution. There is no owner's group taking any black ink for themselves. Phoenix University is a business, a for-profit corporation that has made its owners a lot of money. Arizona State University is a public institution, run by the state. In that regard it's unlike Stanford. But it doesn't exist to make a profit (good thing!) so it's not like Phoenix University, either. In terms of the bottom line that means Phoenix Univ. needs black ink or it will eventually fold. Stanford needs a zero or it will eventually fold. (Both could survive for a while by cutting expenses and raising fees, but red ink can't be sustained indefinitely.) ASU needs a zero or it will - after cutting expenses and raising fees - get more money from the state budget. State universities are a lot like General Motors, too big to fail. Neither fish nor fowl, they are assumed to be essential to society and are therefore allowed to drink at the watering trough of public funding without end.
Note: this does not bode will for financial responsibility and oversight.

So in higher education there's private for-profit and private not-for-profit schools, and public schools.
(to be cont'd)