• "Gyym" - Have a treadmill, stationary bike, or elliptical machine currently serving as a hanger for clothes?  My app will connect you to unused workout machines in the area for a small fee.   Why spend significant dollars at a high-priced gym only to encounter some juiced-up monster glaring at you.  Workout in peace without the pressure.
• "Musyc" - Have a piano gathering dust, or a guitar gathering dust in its case.  My app will connect you to unused musical instruments in the area for a small fee.  Why spend big money for an instrument for your child that will only go silent after only a few months?
• "SylverWare" - Bought a huge amount of plastic ware, cups, and plates for a birthday party, dinner, or other event, only to have inventory left over?  With our app, we can match your unused good to those throwing a party in the future.
• "Bulbz" - Heading off on vacation for two weeks, and shutting off all your lamps?  Shed some light on other people's darkness, by loaning out your light bulbs while they lay dormant.

One characteristic distinguishes the long-term unemployed from the rest of America’s jobless. It isn’t how many hours they worked at their old job, or what industry they came from, or even their level of education.

It’s bad timing.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis shows that by far the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be out of work for a year or more is the state of the economy when he or she loses his or her job.¹ Over the past 15 years, a period spanning two recessions, a one-point increase in the unemployment rate increased an individual’s odds of remaining unemployed for at least a year by about 35 percent. No other characteristic — age, sex, race, marital status, education or occupation, among others — had even close to that big an effect.

Americans who had the misfortune of losing their jobs during the height of the most recent recession in 2009 were more than four times as likely to end up out of work for a year or longer than those who lost their jobs during the comparatively good economy of 2007. Extended unemployment benefits, which are often cited as a driver of the persistently high levels of long-term joblessness, don’t appear to be a major cause of the pattern.

1. How do you not hedge (i.e. if you pick MSU to win it all against Michigan) by placing a bet on Michigan just in case?  Would your mortgage your house?   What kind of loan could you possibly get to bet against your pick (just to be safe)?  1 million? 5 million? 10 million? More?
2. Would you offer every player on Michigan several million dollars to throw the game?

So, Arizona Senate Bill 1062 was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer last night, under pressure from businesses, strong voices on the Left, and even members of her own party.

The purpose of SB1062, and others that all seemingly came up at the same time around the nation (I see you ALEC), is to "guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith."  Further, the bill would have expanded the definition of the free exercise of religion, allowing a faithful person to adhere to his or her beliefs in practice. It would have also expanded the definition of "person" to include any business, association and corporation.

Part of me is disappointed it was vetoed.

Not because I think the bill was a good piece of legislation, but because it provided one practical piece of information to me as a consumer - transparency.

We live in a world of crowdsourcing.    When I hand back an exam in class, students compare scores to see how they did.   We turn to Yelp or Urbanspoon to see if a restaurant is worthwhile.  We click on TripAdvisor.com to check the ratings on a particular hotel.  We join Angie's List to find a handyman.  We read the reviews on Amazon.com to see if a product is worth buying.  Glassdoor has made its name on employee reviews of the company at which they work.  We check consumerreports.org before buying a new car.  We turn to our friends for their opinion on a movie we'd like to see.  We want as much information as possible so we can minimize the likelihood of buyer's remorse.

What might occur if SB1062 (or bills like it) had passed?

Imagine the first instance where a wedding photographer denies service to a same-sex couple,a mattress company refuses to sell a bed to a same-sex couple, or a hotel clerk denies a room, all under the protection of religious freedom.

Will this likely be swept under the rug?  More likely, the following would occur:
*The couple would post the interaction on "The Knot"
*There would be Facebook posts, both on the couple's individual page, as well as that of the photographer or mattress company.
*Comments might be left on the company website.
*Someone's Twitter feed might light up.
*The complaint might appear at Consumerist.com

Forget about lessons learned from Jim Crow laws, or lunch counter sit-ins, look to the Susan G. Komen controversy regarding Planned Parenthood.  Or, look at the strong response this week to Kelly Blazek, head of the Cleveland Jobs Bank and her unfortunate scathing e-mail to a potential job seeker.  

Would not a similar firestorm erupt when that baker claims religious liberty when he or she refuses to put a same-sex topper on the wedding cake?

In the end, legislation such as SB1062 gives me yet another piece of information about the merchant and whether I have the desire and freedom, religious or not, to spend my money with him or her.

So what difference does it make?
so what difference does it make?
it makes none, but now you have gone
and your prejudice won't keep you warm tonight

Yesterday, my good friend Trish McFarlane was lamenting the poor state of HR Technology understanding amongst practitioners

Why is #HR technology the weakest area for practitioners? Any ideas #hrevolution ? #hcmworld
— Trish McFarlane (@TrishMcFarlane) February 5, 2014