Kumar Patel left retirement to be an entrepreneur. He's remained confident, though he's had to be flexible

This could not happen in a command or corporatist economy. Only in a free market can entrepreneurs have the opportunity to provide society with something entirely unexpected.

Los Angeles Times
January 26, 2009

At 70, Celebrated Inventor's Start-Up Makes Progress With Pentagon

C. Kumar Patel left retirement to be an entrepreneur. He's remained confident, though he's had to be flexible.

By Peter Pae

Yet at a time when others would have retired and rested on their laurels, Patel left the relative comfort of academia, tapped his life savings and started a tiny technology company in Santa Monica that had no product or market.

After trying times when Patel had to pull out money from his savings to pay employees, the company, which makes laser devices, broke even and last year generated $6 million in revenue.

Patel believes that could double in 18 months. The company is targeting new markets that he acknowledges he could not have imagined when he started it in 2000.

The company, Pranalytica Inc., started as a developer of sensors for analyzing human breath for disease, but is now leading the quest to make small lasers that can knock down antiaircraft missiles. The company's name comes from the Sanskrit word for "breath."

"One thing I learned is that a small company has to be very agile with respect to market opportunities," said Patel, now 70. "You can't create new science all of a sudden, but you can fill in the gaps in terms of where the needs are."

Patel figured his initial idea of developing and marketing sensors that could detect potential diseases in the breath would be particularly useful for hospitals.

But with limited resources, Patel said he could not commercialize the technology in a way that could make it more available and affordable.

Having hit a barrier typically encountered by start-ups, he shifted the focus of the technology's application to detecting minute pollutants in fabricating semiconductors. But that business was waylaid by the dot-com bust, which dried up venture capital.

Adjusting once more, Patel found that the technology could be useful for environmental research, particularly in detecting and measuring pollutants in the air. That's when the company piqued the Pentagon's interest.

Amid the rising concern about terrorists using chemical weapons, the Pentagon began looking for reliable, portable devices that could be used to detect chemical agents and explosives. Patel's technology looked promising. In 2004, the Defense Department awarded the company a $13-million grant.

As Patel and his engineers -- many of them recent graduates of Harvey Mudd College in Pomona -- began developing the sensor, they discovered that the laser could be "powered up" to a level enabling it to disable electronic equipment.

Last year, the company demonstrated the technology to Pentagon researchers, who in turn alerted military contractors, including Northrop Grumman Corp., which was developing missile defense systems for commercial airplanes.

The "quantum cascade" laser could help fix a vexing problem in developing an affordable, lightweight system, officials with the military companies said.

The laser, about the size of a matchbox, blinds the guidance system of an antiaircraft missile even when it is miles away. The entire system could fit in a shoe box. The laser system currently being tested by Northrop fits in a 6-foot device shaped like a canoe and attached to the belly of an airliner.

"It's no secret that everyone would like to have the capabilities that this technology promises," said Jack Pledger, director of business development for Northrop's infrared countermeasures systems. "Everybody is watching them closely."

Chemical weapon sensors are slated for field testing in the next few months, and the anti-missile laser could be tested on aircraft within the year.

With federal grant money and brisk sales of its sensors for environmental research, "we don't have to worry month to month about paying the bill," Patel said. Since that 2008 breakthrough with the anti-missile laser, Pranalytica has grown to 15 employees.

In a year or two, Patel sees the company merging with a larger player, "not because of money, but because we need access to a larger market." It would also need a larger workforce to service the devices.

If that happens, Patel said, he plans to start another company. "I have other ideas," he said with a chuckle.

Perfect Juxtaposition

"A wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him." --Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

"We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free." --Ronald Reagan http://www.patriotpost.us/

It doesn't take a political scientist to figure out which book Obama-Pelosi-Reid are reading from.

BTW, if anyone ever reads this blog, the most valuable thing they will take away with them is the url to the Patriot Post: www.patriotpost.us

Go there, explore the web site, sign up for their newsletter.

I agree with Bruce Bartlett half the time

1. This is very bad:
Conservatives must adapt to welfare state By BRUCE BARTLETT | 1/26/09 4:41 AM EST http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17936.html

Bruce Bartlett's counsel is fatally flawed. He may be correct that Reagan saw the opportunity to grow the economy faster than the government could grow. But 20 years later, conditions have changed. 2 successive bubbles and otherwise anemic growth lead me to conclude the stuff necessary for real economic growth is missing. What does the US produce for export? Which industries are poised to grow? Government is the only one that comes presently to mind. At the same time, Mr. Bartlett mentions the impending exponential growth in government spending that will accompany the Baby Boomer retirement wave. So, we have the economy growing slowly if at all and government spending growing increasingly fast. And how high can taxes go before they severely limit economic growth? Europe gives us a vision of our future 5 or 10 years hence. No growth, crumbling social services, people dying of heat or cold, unrest caused by unemployment. If Bartlett thinks Republicans must sign on to this encroaching Socialism in order to return to and stay in power. But it begs the question, why would anyone desire to preside over the collapse of country?

If, over the course of the next couple of years, the Republican Party decides to follow this path of accommodation to ruinous policies that are anathema to the Conservative principles upon which this country was founded and rose to greatness, I will not have left the Republican Party, it will have left me.

2. This is very good:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/stimulus-keynes-taxes-oped-cx_bb_0123bartlett.html

"Eventually, economists came to understand that vast numbers of individuals and businesses throughout the economy don't make exactly the same mistakes simultaneously unless something has changed the rules of the game. Government isn't always responsible--bubbles can occur on their own, as they have over the centuries--but systemic errors usually result from government policy."

"The Federal Reserve, our nation's central bank, is the institution mainly responsible for altering the terms of trade. That is because it has the power to change the value of the currency, which is the intermediary in every single economic transaction, and also to alter the terms of every intertemporal transaction--those between the present and future, such as saving today to consume tomorrow--by raising or lowering the interest rate.

No one today believes that the Great Depression just happened or dragged on as long as it did because the private sector kept making mistake after mistake after mistake. It only made them and continued to do so because government interfered with the normal operations of the market and prevented readjustment from taking place."

Nancy Pelosi is crazy

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Developing... http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

I see what she's thinking. More Freakonomics - 'nits make lice'. Poor girls get pregnant and have children and both the child-mother and the mother's child become wards of the state. Pump the breeders full of norplant and half of the problem goes away. But it's hard to deny the brazen Utilitarian POV, the objectification and commoditization of human life. To Pelosi's mind, a new child is a fiscal burden - a 'cost to the states and federal government' -period.

An actual devout Catholic once said: It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Teresa

Nancy Pelosi's poverty is evident. And her 'argument' is also impovrished. As best I can tell, it goes like this: 'contraception 'reduces costs'. Pretty convincing.

A better one is attributed to President Obama: 'I won.'

Another reminder that, "The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they must accept." Live with it - unless you are the unborn child of a poor young woman.

John Murtha's 'close links' to a defense contractor

Here's a surprise...

Investigators Still Mum On Raids On Two Contractors
(Washington Times)...Shaun Waterman, United Press International
Federal investigators remained tight-lipped Sunday about what was behind the searches carried out last week at Windber, Penn.-based defense contractors Kuchera Defense Systems and Kuchera Industries.

Windber, PA is outside Johnstown, in Rep Murtha's district. Big surprise. "The raids have drawn attention in Washington, because of the firms' close links to their local congressman, Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee." "Over the weekend, the paper, citing multiple but unnamed sources "close to the investigation," said part of the probe is looking into the financing of the LBK Game Ranch, a 161-acre hunting range operated as a private business by William Kuchera.

The ranch often is used to entertain clients and suppliers. Last fall, the paper said, it "was the site of a high-end fundraiser" for Mr. Murtha's campaign, which raised more than $100,000.

Employees and officers of the two companies have made at least $60,000 in donations to Mr. Murtha's campaigns and political action committees since 2002, according to Federal Election Commission records." "The Kuchera corporation has received millions of dollars in earmarked federal spending at Mr. Murtha´s behest. Last year, according to WJAC-TV, $8.2 million in earmarks requested by the congressman went to Kuchera."

BrainyQuote of the Day

Courtesy of Lord Acton

There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.
Lord Acton

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
Lord Acton

The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
Lord Acton

Walk Friendly and Carry a big Candy Heart

Here is a curious thing. I scanned the whitehouse.gov website for Defense, which at this early date remains a lightly edited version of 'change.gov', the official web site of the Office of the President Elect, which was itself a lightly edited version the website of the Obama campaign. As an aside, this is one more data-point leading to the conclusion that we have entered the era of the perpetual campaign; something that at other times, in reference to other national governments was call propaganda. But I digress...

I searched the website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/) for the word, "defense". I expected it to occur fairly frequently as a noun; as in, "President Obama is committed to a strong military to ensure the defense of the American people and their National Interests." Nope. That line isn't there. Not counting the 3 occurrences in sitemaps and 3 in headings, the word, "defense" appears 3 times and only once as a noun: "missile defense", while promising that any missile defense program that might survive "does not divert resources from other national security priorities" like universal healthcare. The other 3 times, the word is used as an adjective. President Obama promises "a review of each major defense program" The last time any similar undertaking resulted in a stronger Military was 1980. And finally, as a bit of red meat thrown to the Bush-haters, he alludes to "corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense contracting." Corruption and cost overruns in other departments will have to wait until his 3rd or 4th term...

Well, well. Certainly you want to avoid over-use of a word. No need to be repetitive. That must be why the word, "defend" doesn't exist at all on the web page. Wouldn't want to belabor the point that the primary mission of the Military and the most important responsibility of the president is to defend the Nation against attacks and threats of attack or that defending National Interests is something the Military may have to do.

I suppose a president committed to changing the World's opinion of America may want to avoid sounding too belligerent. We are, I'm told, entering an era of 'soft power'. So, we don't want to belabor the point that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines might occasionally be called upon to WIN WARS. No such thing: "We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces can succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations." The only other use of the word, 'war': "oversight for war funds." I don't think we have to worry about scaring anyone with our belligerence.

The only thing Obama-Biden intend to win is hearts and minds: "Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need: The Obama-Biden Administration will expand humanitarian activities that build friendships and attract allies at the regional and local level (such as during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia), and win hearts and minds in the process."

The one-time community organizer wants to be the Global Organizer in Chief. Buying friends in Chicago politics doesn't work. I don't know why he thinks it will work in global politics. People only stay bought until a better deal comes along. Ask Blago. Ask Carter, Clinton and Bush.

We (who take such things seriously) know that there will always be wars and rumors of wars, and that we will always have enemies until the Second Coming. Certainly, Obama-Biden are committed to defeating our enemies when building friendships fails, right? Well, would you believe: "maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed." and "preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors"

I see Obama-Biden are committed, more or less, to maintaining an advantage over 'threats' and to defeating 'competitors'. No mention anywhere on the site of the words, 'enemy' or 'enemies'.

I sure hope they have success with the "hearts and minds" thing...

One way to reduce Abortion worldwide

Before the Mall could be cleaned of the 130 tons of garbage left by Obamabots, the new president started his pay-back to PPFA, NOW, NARAL, Emily's List and the rest of the anti-life crowd by recinding the Mexico City Policy. Candidate Obama claimed he wanted to try 'new ways' of reducing Abortion. Spending federal foreign aid tax dollars promoting Abortion seems like an odd way of accomplishing that. On the other hand, if he wanted to funnel additional millions of dollars to PPFA, who did some heavy lifting for him during the campaign, this is a great way to do it.

Energy Independence

Energy independence is clearly a National Security issue.

This bit from David Pryce-Jones on NRO highlights one angle:

"Russia has built into its armory the new weapon of natural gas. This may not have the immediate clear-your-mind impact of the former SS-20 inter-ballistic missiles, but it will do to be going on with. The Russians have only to cut off the supplies to their customers, and watch them come begging to heel....The intention is to punish Ukraine for its independence, its application to join NATO, its parting of the ways with Mother Russia, the rightful overlord of that country in the view of people like Putin....Don't forget Germany, which depends on Russia for about a third of its gas."
http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTBiNTVhMzM2YTBlNGM4ZjlhNDc3OTRlYzY0MTUyNTg=

Now, we have a fair amount of untapped natural gas in this country.

We also have gobs of oil sitting under our continental shelf and in shale oil. But instead of tapping it, and perhaps becoming a net exporter of energy, we import oil - making us dependent on Venezuelan and Middle Eastern satraps. We also export our wealth to those unfriendly countries and sell China our debt. We have become dependent on the least reliable, least friendly countries in the industrialized world. Hardly a path to national strength and security.

Americans on the West Coast breath Chinese smog. Americans on the West and Gulf coasts will eventually see the tar of Chinese oil spills as China pumps our oil from off our shores and sells weapons to unfriendly neighbors:

"China has been making extensive efforts to penetrate the Middle East and Africa, especially by trading arms for oil. In recent years China has also stepped up its efforts to acquire oil from Central and South America, again offering weapons in exchange, as well as space technology. Its top targets are Venezuela and Brazil."
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/10/31/china_seeks_oil_for_arms_in_latin_america/6217/

Americans working at American wells and refineries compliant with reasonable environmental requirements would reduce global pollution and American environmental security; would create good-paying American jobs that could not be exported; generate American tax revenue that could reduce our foreign debt and fund infrastructure and research into alternative energy; reverse American dependence on unreliable foreign states and rectify our trade imbalance; enhance American national security; and degrade the influence of American enemies by drying up their access to American wealth. Eventually, American ingenuity would increase the efficiency and 'greenness' of energy production until finally, American engineers and manufacturers create viable alternatives to American oil - which would give us HUGE leverage over our foreign friends and enemies.

No doubt, that's why we'll do this instead:

http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/

"Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future."

If they are $3,000/year jobs... Will we see Five-Year Plans for the National Economy with production goals and other hold-overs from the good old Supreme Soviet days?

"Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined."

Well, we are on our way now, with the current recession. For plans on deepening and lengthening the current economic contraction in order to save more oil see: change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda

See also: "I have turned the thermostat down in the White House and have ordered it reduced in all Government buildings. And I ask everyone in the country to cooperate so that no one will have to go without crucial heat." - Jimmy Carter http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7167

"Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America."

Does the Transition Team include someone on the verge of a breakthrough in battery technology? Or do they know 1,000,000 dupes who will buy an electric Smart Car because Dear Leader asked them to? Oh, right. They know 65M... And how will they make sure the life-sized RC cars are built in the US? How will they keep Honda or Kia from importing low-price, high-quality, non-union go-karts from Asia? Smoot-Hawley 2.0? It'll work to help us save more oil than we currently import...

"Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025."

Wind mills off Cape Cod? Over Ted Kennedy's d.... wait, that would be in poor taste. But what are we going to do between now and 2025 while all of these non-existent technologies are being discovered? See: economy_agenda.

"Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."

Yes, taxing and regulating production will certainly increase capital available for R&D into alternative energy and efficiency. Not in any real economy, but maybe when the unicorns feed on the White House Lawn and Excalibur hangs above the Resolute desk.

"Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation."

Who is smart enough to discern what is 'excessive' and what is necessary energy speculation? I'm sure they all think they are and everyone believes The One is. Perhaps he has a Palantir?

"Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices."

Never worked before - its a drop in the bucket - unless he wants to really suck it dry - which would be dangerous to our National Security and damaging to those Americans involved in the production of new oil. I think he'll have more luck Cutting Prices with his economic agenda.

"Increase Fuel Economy Standards."

Why not direct that all automakers will make the Trabant 2.0 according to Party specification and all citizens will buy the Trabant 2.0.

"Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015."

Trabant 2.0?

Sometimes prayers do get answered

Sometime prayers do get answered:

Rev Wright, "God Damn America"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/03/13/could-mccain-be-candidate-pastor-obamas-god-damn-america-wright

http://change.gov/agenda/

Presidential DEMographics

Some insightful analysis from Mark Alexander about who voted for The One:

"Some 136.6 million Americans voted -- a 64.1 percent turnout and the highest since 1908. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote (53 percent) since Jimmy Carter. By sex, BHO's support was 49 percent male and 56 percent female. By ethnic group, his support comprised 41 percent of Whites, 61 percent of Asians, 75 percent of Latinos and 95 percent of Blacks. By age, BHO's largest support demographic was 66 percent of voters under the age of 30. By income, 52 percent of voters with more than $200,000 in annual income voted for Obama. By education, his support came from those without a college degree and those with a post-graduate degree.

So, his victory was largely due to support from non-whites, from those under 30, from those with the lowest income and education, and from a small number of voters at the other end of those spectrums, while those of middle age, income and education tended to support John McCain.

BHO received 76 percent of atheist and agnostic voters.

The Barna Research Group looked at some other interesting characteristics of Obama voters: 57 percent of those who consider themselves "lonely or isolated," 59 percent of those affected by the economic decline in "a major way," and 61 percent of those who claim they are "stressed out" supported BHO."

http://patriotpost.us/

You can get a clearer picture of typical Obama supporters here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html

One thing that is very sad is this statistic from the Patriot Post: "Obama received support from 56 percent of Catholic voters"

Not coincidentally, that inversely corresponds almost perfectly with regular Mass attendance, I believe. In other words, and I think I've seen the statistics that support this, practicing Catholics who attend Mass regularly did not vote for Obama. Those who do not take their faith seriously did vote for him.

"Tax Havens"

Report: Over 8 in 10 corporations have tax havens

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090116/D95OHIB80.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Eighty-three of the nation's 100 largest corporations, including Citigroup, Bank of America and News Corp., had subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2007, and some of the companies received federal bailout funding, a government watchdog said Friday.

"Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who requested the report, have pushed for tougher laws to fight offshore tax havens around the globe. Levin, who leads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, has estimated abusive tax havens and offshore accounts cost the U.S. government at least $100 billion a year in lost taxes.

""I think we should take action to shut down these tax dodgers and we will be introducing legislation to do just that," Dorgan said."

Doesn't make much sense to me to 'shut down these tax dodgers' right after you've given them $700B. But then, I'm not a senator. Maybe I don't understand how these things work.

"The GAO said the subsidiaries could be established in the countries "for a variety of nontax business reasons" and said having a business unit in one of the countries "does not signify that a corporation or federal contractor established that subsidiary for the purpose of reducing its tax burden.""

But the oracular Dorgan and Levin know, because they are oh so more wise. But of course they knew before they both enthusiastically supported the $700B giveaway to the corporations to prop them up before they shut them down. Certainly, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world is Delphic.

Are they surprised that corporate governors look for ways to increase their business around the world or that they take advantage of opportunities to reduce their tax burden - that is they seek to reduce their overall cost of doing business. Isn't that why we all want them to decrease their executive salaries - so they can lower their overhead costs?

"Several major corporations have announced plans to leave Bermuda, a leading offshore business center, amid the global financial crisis and fears of tighter tax rules. Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, and Foster Wheeler Ltd., an engineering and construction company, are reincorporating in Switzerland - which has a tax treaty with the U.S. - for tax and other reasons. Covidien Ltd., a health care products company, is heading to Ireland."

Admittedly, I'm not of the same intellectual power as Senators Dorgan and Levin, but it seems to me that if they LOWERED the corporate tax rate to one competitive with Ireland, Luxembourg and Switzerland they might recoup the greater part - or more - of the $100B they think they aren't collecting now. But they really aren't that bright. We all know they will try to INCREASE corporate taxes, add penalties for earnings made overseas, make accounting more burdensome and drive more corporations farther overseas.

Who's side is Bush on?

Bush Prepares to Ask for Second Tranche of Bailout Funds

If Congress Fails to Approve Request, Administration May Use Veto Power

By David Cho and Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 9, 2009; 6:35 PM

In a move being coordinated with the Obama transition team, senior Bush administration officials are preparing to ask lawmakers for the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package, despite intense opposition in Congress, sources familiar with the matter said.

The initiative, if it goes ahead, could create an unusual political straddle between the Bush and Obama administrations. If Congress were to vote down the measure, either President Bush or Obama might have to exercise a veto in order to get the money. While Obama officials prefer that current administration issue a veto, the White House is declining to address that question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010902846.html?hpid=topnews

I am at a loss. I'm sure Obama would prefer that the current administration issue the veto. I'm sure Obama would prefer to not have his fingerprints on this flushing of national wealth down the drain. What I'm entirely at a loss over is that Bush is willing to veto congressional legislation that would block Obama's opportunity to spend $350B of taxpayer money - so Obama doesn't have to. In so doing, he will be stabbing his party in the back without doing one bit of good for anyone but Obama. The inauguration is less than 2 weeks away. Moving next week will have no effect on expediting the flow of money into the black hole over $200B has already disappeared into. Bush will get no credit. He pulls the rug out from any Conservative Republican attempt to affect Obama's projected $1T 'stimulus package' plan. And he saves Obama from having to spend any political capital or suffer any criticism. It's like he's throwing his squad mate on a grenade to save an enemy combatant.