This week is a busy travel week, but I’m thankfully staying put. Particularly in light of the media firestorm and passenger reactions over TSA’s full-body scanners and pat down procedures. The centrepiece of all of this is the “don’t touch my junk” meme::

Last year, I blogged about Jeffrey Goldberg going after TSA’s policies, dubbing them security theatre. He wrote an article in The Atlantic about how he snuck contraband on flights, going on The Colbert Report showing what he was able to sneak through en route to the taping.

The problem with security theatre is that it might make passengers feel safer, but it does little to thwart terrorism. Take the liquids ban for example. If liquids are found by TSA screening, which isn’t a 100% probability, it’s just pitched into a pile that goes into a landfill. None of the liquids are tested before the flight, so there’s no way to know if there was a real threat. What does this tell terrorists? It’s a numbers game. Getting caught and the discovery of an actual terror plot is a matter of probability.

It’s not feasible to test all liquids, but it insults the intelligence of passengers to think that security measures are effective. Plus, security is only as good as the weakest link in the security chain. If a passenger clears security in Amsterdam and if they’re on a suspected terrorist list and this isn’t communicated between airports and security agencies, that’s a gaping hole in security.

Another issue is security with respect to cargo and freight. Also of note is that the recent package threat from Yemen wasn’t found by chance, but by counter-terrorism intel. What I’ve been reading on the issue is that its the intel, not the security theatre that matters.

On CNN a few minutes ago, there was a story on the issue and mention of a GAO report calling into question the effectiveness of the full-body scanners. Moreover, there is another report that alleges that the scanners do a poor job at detecting things without edges. So, if you have a pancake-shaped flat explosive, it would be hard to catch. An ASU researcher, Peter Rez, found that the probability of dying from a terror strike and from radiation emitted from the scanners is the same. His concern::

“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t.”

It’s apples and oranges to compare this technology to X-rays, given that TSA employees aren’t healthcare professionals and X-ray machines don’t get the throughput of an airport.  I cannot find evidence that there’s proper training and failsafes to prevent accidents. My take is that the technology is offering little security benefits above existing measures {which may be doing precious little in terms of thwarting real terrorism}, at added cost, and added health risks.

Public opinion is turning on the TSA, as we approach the 10 year anniversary of 9/11. I think the public has a sense that this is being sprung on them, which is possibly a TSA communication failure. If it turns out that the GAO report {CNN could not obtain a copy} and Rez’s work starts to foster doubts with the media, the public, and policymakers, the TSA will be on the firing line. While John Pistole, TSA head is trying to spin that they’re trying to balance security and privacy, it’s clear that their policies are evolving and that the agency is rolling out technologies and procedures that aren’t passing muster::

“Yes, what we have done is go back to those entities such as the GAO (Government Accountability Office) and the inspector general who have done covert testing to show that we are not being thorough enough in our screening because they’re able to get through the screening, gone back to them and to say, OK, how can we be better informed if we modify our screening then what are the risks we deal with, so that’s what we’re dealing with.”

The scanners cost $130,000—$160,000 and are part of an increasing US tendency to move towards technological solutions in matters of security. I’m getting a sense that the deployment of the full body scanners is a boondoggle and that the Obama administration should review TSA policies and perhaps make an example out of them in order to show an interest in eliminating wasteful spending.  Overhauling an unpopular agency, cleaning house, and cutting costs, well, that seems like low-hanging fruit to me.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thanksgiving approaches w/TSA pwned for costly scanners & invasive patdowns. Will Obama administration clean house? @ThickCulture @Prof_K

I was talking to a colleague of mine who has travelled quite a bit to México since he was a kid. His take on the increasing violence of the border towns tend to just affect those involved in criminal activities or tourists doing things they have no business doing.

Lately, the violence of the cartels has been resembling scenes from Breaking Bad. One of the things going on in Nuevo Laredo, the terminus of I-35 and a key port of entry between the US and México is a feud between rivalling factions that were once allies, the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. President Felipe Calderón and the Mexican army has been deployed. The WSJ reports corruption and a state of anarchy in northern México, while gunfire from street battles reaches US soil over in El Paso and a collapse of tourism in many border towns further erodes the economy amidst a lingering recession. {While there is increased violence, the reality for tourists is that 70 Americans have been killed as “innocent bystanders“ since 2004. Nevertheless,the US State Department has issues a travel warning and has pulled consulate employees.}

While Hilary and Barack might disagree on whether México resembles Colombia of years past, the White House is increasingly concerned about the violence and is likely to be spending more on combatting it.

This isn’t a clear cut case of good guys and bad guys, making US policy dicey to say the least. It’s one thing to talk about a war on drug trafficking and addressing issues of corruption, but there’s no scorecard and no clear cut way to know who can be trusted and citizens are better off keeping their mouths shut. Last year, The Atlantic’s article, “The Fall of Mexico”, made this clear with how civil rights are going out the window with Calderón’s militarization::

“Meanwhile, human-rights groups have accused the military of unleashing a reign of terror—carrying out forced disappearances, illegal detentions, acts of torture, and assassinations—not only to fight organized crime but also to suppress dissidents and other political troublemakers. What began as a war on drug trafficking has evolved into a low-intensity civil war with more than two sides and no white hats, only shades of black. The ordinary Mexican citizen—never sure who is on what side, or who is fighting whom and for what reason—retreats into a private world where he becomes willfully blind, deaf, and above all, dumb.”

Quibbling over comparing México to Colombia 20 years ago fails has implications for US policy in that it determines how much US drug policy is contributing to the strength of the cartels and the violence over turf. Three ex-Presidents, of Brasil, Colombia, and México, wrote a report titled “Drugs and Democracy: Towards a Paradigm Shift” [pdf-English], emphasizing a public health approach to dealing with the problem and curbs demand. I feel this excerpt is worth quoting::

“The European Union policy focusing on the reduction of the damages caused by drugs as a matter of public health, through the provision of treatment to drug users, has proved more humane and efficient. However, by not giving appropriate emphasis to the reduction of domestic consumption in the belief that the focus on harm reduction minimizes the social dimension of the problem, the policy of the European Union fails to curb the demand for illicit drugs that stimulates its production and exportation from other parts of the world.

The long-term solution for the drug problem is to reduce drastically the demand for drugs in the main consumer countries. The question is not to find guilty countries and allocate blame for this or that action or inaction, but to reiterate that the United States and the European Union share responsibility for the problems faced by our countries, insofar as their domestic markets are the main consumers of the drugs produced in Latin America.”

A prohibition/criminal approach to drug enforcement hasn’t been effective. The report cites statistics::

The report cites that increased expenditures on the “War on Drugs” hasn’t affected demand or price. On the other hand, depenalization of consumption {which isn’t the same as decriminalization, but a move towards a more humane approach to drug enforcement and addiction} in both North America and the EU hasn’t resulted in increased demand.

The problem being is that the current state of drug enforcement has created a highly lucrative black market for drugs by organized crime cartels, much akin to the US experience with the prohibition of alcohol.

I don’t get a sense that the Obama administration and the Attorney General’s office are really open to moving towards a public health/depenalization approach to the drug trade. AG Eric Holder stated he was strongly against California’s Prop. 19, which would have permitted distribution of marijuana subject to local regulation and taxes. His concerns? That it would impede going after traffickers of pot and harder drugs like cocaine. Paradigm shifts are tough, but one would hope that there would a more holistic approach to dealing with the drug problem and how its market is fostering crime, corruption, and violence.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Violence & the drug wars in northern México. US policy implications for @whitehouse, Obama, Clinton, & Holder @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Last week, I blogged about a perceived lack of coverage of Haiti following the outbreak of cholera, Hurricane Tomas sideswiping the island nation, and the continuing misery of 1.3 million displaced persons subsisting in refugee camps in and around Port-au-Prince.

Sunday night, 60 Minutes stepped up with a segment on the status of post-quake Haiti.  The segment, titled “Haiti: Frustration and Anger,” was significant in that 60 Minutes is the long-running news magazine and one of the staples of the number one U.S. broadcast network.  According to the TV ratings website, Zap2it.com, 60 Minutes took second place to a Fox football broadcast at the 7 PM hour.

Starting out with an interview with the mayor of Carrefour, a town adjacent to Port-au-Prince, Byron Pitts took viewers on an investigation about the slow pace of recovery and the failure of 5 billion dollars in aid to reach people on the ground.  Carrefour is home to a refugee camp on the median of a busy thoroughfare.  The battle to contain the cholera outbreak, rubble removal and reconstruction delays, and the political environment all made it into the story, which ran 12 minutes.

President Bill Clinton and the prime minister of Haiti, Jean-Max Bellerive were the key interviewees.  Given the huge proportion of the population in tent camps, housing is the biggest problem.  The fact that a show with the 12 million viewers of 60 Minutes, a key to CBS ratings success, should draw needed attention to the lack of progress in resolving this and other problems following the tragic disaster in Haiti.

Last week, I blogged about a perceived lack of coverage of Haiti following the outbreak of cholera, Hurricane Tomas sideswiping the island nation, and the continuing misery of 1.3 million displaced persons subsisting in refugee camps in and around Port-au-Prince.

Sunday night, 60 Minutes stepped up with a segment on the status of post-quake Haiti.  The segment, titled “Haiti: Frustration and Anger,” was significant in that 60 Minutes is the long-running news magazine and one of the staples of the number one U.S. broadcast network.  According to the TV ratings website, Zap2it.com, 60 Minutes took second place to a Fox football broadcast at the 7 PM hour.

Starting out with an interview with the mayor of Carrefour, a town adjacent to Port-au-Prince, Byron Pitts took viewers on an investigation about the slow pace of recovery and the failure of 5 billion dollars in aid to reach people on the ground.  Carrefour is home to a refugee camp on the median of a busy thoroughfare.  The battle to contain the cholera outbreak, rubble removal and reconstruction delays, and the political environment all made it into the story, which ran 12 minutes.

President Bill Clinton and the prime minister of Haiti, Jean-Max Bellerive were the key interviewees.  Given the huge proportion of the population in tent camps, housing is the biggest problem.  The fact that a show with the 12 million viewers of 60 Minutes, a key to CBS ratings success, should draw needed attention to the lack of progress in resolving this and other problems following the tragic disaster in Haiti.

This Chronicle of Higher Education article, “The Shadow Scholar”, was posted to a friend’s Facebook wall yesterday and I’ve been enjoying the fracas in the comments {I personally love the grammar pedants}, which are more interesting than the article itself. The article does know its audience and how to extract the most emotion and righteous indignation from those in the ivory tower and the blowback from those who realize that the institution of higher learning is what it is—increasingly, a business.

The article is written in half-sneer {hint:: all part of the formula} that chronicles an academic mercenary’s career path and his work of crafting prose and poetry for those with ambitions beyond their abilities. Perhaps this is part of a trajectory of a more egalitarian system that is open not just to those with pedigrees, but to those who, let’s face it…can navigate the system. The article describes the clients who are desperate and willing to pay to get through their academic hurdles, from admissions essays to doctoral dissertations. He points the finger squarely at acadème itself, which is bound to raise hackles. He takes direct aim on the field of education::

“I, who have no name, no opinions, and no style, have written so many papers at this point, including legal briefs, military-strategy assessments, poems, lab reports, and, yes, even papers on academic integrity, that it’s hard to determine which course of study is most infested with cheating. But I’d say education is the worst. I’ve written papers for students in elementary-education programs, special-education majors, and ESL-training courses. I’ve written lesson plans for aspiring high-school teachers, and I’ve synthesized reports from notes that customers have taken during classroom observations. I’ve written essays for those studying to become school administrators, and I’ve completed theses for those on course to become principals. In the enormous conspiracy that is student cheating, the frontline intelligence community is infiltrated by double agents. (Future educators of America, I know who you are.)”

Then, there’s this wry observation::

“The 75-page paper on business ethics ultimately expanded into a 160-page graduate thesis, every word of which was written by me. I can’t remember the name of my client, but it’s her name on my work. We collaborated for months. As with so many other topics I tackle, the connection between unethical business practices and trade liberalization became a subtext to my everyday life.”

I think many in acadème have stories of know of less than honourable behaviour by colleagues and acquaintances. I know of a Masters of Healthcare Administration student, at a large public university in California, who graduated after submitting a thesis with statistical analyses he outsourced but was clueless with respect to what the printouts meant. More disconcerting was the fact that he didn’t have a clue on what consisted of an interesting research question, let alone how one would go about crafting a research design. His advisor gave him comments, but the student quickly deleted them off of his Blackberry—a combination of “who cares, I passed” and a gnawing sense of inadequacy, as this student wasn’t accustomed to receiving anything but high praise for his work and knew he just “got by”. The advisor could have held up his degree, but that would just mean more work and I’m sure he his plate was full.

Regarding academic scholarship, I know of questionable tactics regarding authorship played by those navigating the tenure game. Grad students get shafted, coauthors get dumped. I think it would be naïve to believe that there aren’t mercenaries out there helping the ambitious get tenure and promotion, ghostwriting books, chapters, and solo-authored articles.

Is higher education broken and, if so, why?

Well, higher education is a business, but it also is one of the last, enduring feudal systems. I feel this combination is a recipe for disaster in these late-modern times. Being a business, colleges and universities need to profit maximize, but are also tied to a more feudal tradition, with concepts like honour and mentorship are regarded highly. I recall being in a business faculty meeting and we were discussing ethics and cheating in the classroom. Talk was circulated on how Chinese students often see “cheating” as part of business and defended their actions as learning how to game the system. Well, if you think about it, gaming the system in varying degrees is what we’re all being taught—it’s what’s rewarded in our everyday lives.

Entrepreneurs are often celebrated in our culture, as risk taking mavericks that innovate and create new paradigms, Schumpeterian growth, and wealth. Take a look at this TED talk with entrepreneur Cameron Herold::

About 5 minutes in, he freely admits to cheating and having others do his accounting assignments at Carleton. His take is that entrepreneurs don’t do accounting, they hire accountants. It’s all about figuring out the system and gaming it. Sounds like those accounts of what the Chinese students were allegedly saying. Getting back to the original article, one commenter {3. skaking} makes a good point about whether the author’s services are in less demand where there’s an emphasis on education, not evaluation. Getting back to business side, the question is whether or not there’s a market for truly “educated” students versus “evaluated” ones. I’m not so sure there is, but I hope one can be developed. It should be a charge of higher education to make this happen.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Commentary on “The Shadow Scholar” article in The Chronicle of Higher Educ. Plagiarism, feudalism, & capitalism http://url.ie/86an @ThickCulture @Prof_K

I was forwarded this Michael Geist article {h/t:: LQ} in the TO Star on lawful access legislation being tabled by the Conservatives here in Canada::

“The push for new Internet surveillance capabilities goes back to 1999, when government officials began crafting proposals to institute new surveillance technologies within Canadian networks along with additional legal powers to access surveillance and subscriber information.

The so-called lawful access initiatives stalled in recent years, but earlier this month the government tabled its latest proposal with three bills that received only limited attention despite their potential to fundamentally reshape the Internet in Canada.

The bills contain a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.”

The “trifecta” of bills are listed here and here are links to the first reading versions {C-50, C-51, C-52}. Last year, Geist blogged about Parliamentary reactions to the last round of lawful access bills, with the Liberals taking a stand of “what took you so long?”, while the NDP and the Bloc supported moving the bill {c-46} to committee, but expressed concerns about balancing privacy and security. Earlier in 2009, Impolitical warned of the implications of lawful access granting increased police powers::

“The dangers of such powers being placed with law enforcement and the potential for abuses have been made abundantly clear by the experience Americans have had with the Bush administration and the revelations from whistleblowers in the last year.”

I’m still reading up on the issue, but my immediate concerns, as one in the trenches with Web 3.0 projects, is the implications of warrantless surveillance and data mining, which may not be immediately evident by Parliamentarians or the general public. Algorithms already can mine data to determine the identities of people in social networks despite privacy settings on sites like Facebook.

The telcos are expressing concerns about the costs of compliance with the proposed surveillance, as compensation schemes aren’t well-defined.

While surveillance can sound good in the abstract or the theoretical, the devil is in the details and its implementation. While Google’s Eric Schmidt has a rather unenlightened view of privacy as it concerns “wrongdoing” online, a “don’t be evil” stance, the reality is that breaches of privacy of non-illegal activity can have real and dire consequences and it assumes a benign stance of law enforcement and police powers—without judicial oversight.

Twitterversion:: [blog] “Lawful access” bills in #Canada proposing increased Internet surveillance in emerging era of Web 3.0. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Bad ones shouldn’t.

I recently read an embarrassingly naïve blog post by an economist criticizing the Obama administration and Tim Geithner of the Treasury for their export strategy of doubling strategy over the next 5 years. The blogger’s take was that you cannot increase exports without softening the dollar {making exports relatively cheaper}, at least in the short run, and that that makes no sense to him. Huh?

Well, I’m no fan of Geithner and his policies, but I’m also not a fan of handwaving economics that makes observations at the 50,000 foot level and ignore complexity and the role of organizations and strategy.

First off, I tend to agree with Fortune reporter Nin-Hai Tseng, who says that devaluing the dollar is a bad idea and that the problem with the dollar these days is its volatility. Travelling in Canada with an Visa card with a US-based bank, Wells Fargo, I got to see first hand how volatile the US dollar can be with respect to its northern counterpart. Such volatility makes business decisions riskier and much of my doctoral dissertation way back when demonstrated how at the organizational level, operational volatility has a negative effect on brands, accounting profits, and stock price.

This week, one of this big G20 concerns is currency wars, particularly in the wake of the “quantitative easing” plans by the US Federal Reserve that is pumping $600B into the economy over the next 8 months. Well, the idea is in the short run to stimulate exports, although with a “currency war”, other nations attempt to devalue their currencies to do the same. What’s the bottom line, in terms of what’s going on now? Tseng reports::

“Who knows how low the dollar might fall, but so far the drop of its value has accelerated with the second round of quantitative easing. After reaching a one-year high on June 7, the dollar weakened 7.5% against a basket of major currencies through the end October, and a whopping 18% against the euro.

All the while, the outlook for U.S. exports looks strong as household incomes grow in emerging economics including China, India and Brazil grow. In September, U.S. exports climbed to the highest level in two years, increasing by 0.3% to $154.1 billion, the US Commerce Department reported Wednesday. This helped narrow the trade deficit by 5.3% to $44 billion.

It’s true that exports only make up about 12% of the US economy, but with GDP growth so anemic, the trend in exports might actually add to growth in the short-run.”

A big issue is increased protectionism, although it should be noted that the “quantitative easing” is a form of trade barrier in that it devalues the US dollar, and increased tariffs and protectionist policies that inhibit trade could erase any export gains and cause the economy to slump further. A weakened dollar also makes imports more expensive, which could allow for increased import substitution, where buyers buy {and hire} domestically {as opposed to outsourcing}.

From an organizational point of view, a critical factor in an international business strategy is the delivery of value in global markets. Sure, currency devaluation helps, but it’s not the only factor, which is my beef with overly-generalized statements by economists. I feel that North American competitiveness, given relatively high wages and standard of living, is contingent on developing markets that leverage distinctive competencies and exports of new innovations and technologies. Rather that quibble with the South Koreans about allowing gas-guzzling US-manufactured vehicles to be exported, I’d much rather see increased focus and spending on the development and market development of US innovations. I’d like to see Canada do the same, increasingly shifting from natural resources towards increased value-added, technology, and innovation, using alliances and networks to jumpstart competitiveness, particularly in areas such as medical {red} biotech.

In the short-run, the “quantitative easing” might allow exports to pump some much-needed growth into the economy and at this point, anything helps. Does this make no sense? I think it actually does make sense, but I doubt if the Obama administration expects to fuel a doubling of exports with a weak dollar strategy for years and years.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Economist criticizes Obama/Geithner for export and dollar devaluation policies. Dismal science or dismal intellect? @Prof_K

Social media have been getting employees in hot water {remember the Cisco Fatty meme and the suspension of a professor for Facebook updates expressing frustration} and even candidates for office cannot escape the wayback machine glimpse into one’s past. I don’t think the “culture of optics” is a good thing and while before the advent of social media it was easier to control content, that is no longer the case without having a chilling effect on free speech.

The National Labor Relations Board has now ruled that a the Connecticut firm, American Medical Response, illegally fired an employee, Dawnmarie Souza, for criticizing her supervisor on Facebook, engaging in online conversations with others workers. Acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon , for the board announced::

“It’s the same as talking at the water cooler…The point is that employees have protection under the law to talk to each other about conditions at work.”

While many of the finger-waggers might think Souza et al. were engaging in a workplace facepalm moment and should expect negative consequences, the fact of the matter is that labour laws protect workers when discussing their jobs and working conditions, whether unionized or not. While Malcolm Gladwell may disagree, social media may provide an avenue for increased activism, including labour activism, which may be an issue if the economy remains in the doldrums and high unemployment creates a “buyers market” for labour.

Social media creates challenges for organizations to maintain their brand in an era of instantaneous and decentralized communications that can foster multiple dialogues outside of the control of the organization. These dialogues make the organization more transparent and can increase goodwill and trust. In fact, I would argue that the challenge of many organizations is to communicate both trust and competence with their stakeholders and social media can foster both.

What I think is going to happen is that organizations are going to continue surveillance of employees and focus on more rigorous screening at hiring. This won’t eliminate the thorny issue of what to do when social media fosters conversations that the organization doesn’t want to have or isn’t prepared for…which is why transparency’s a bitch.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thoughts on NLRB ruling stating worker complaining about supervisor on Facebook was illegally fired. @ThickCulture @Prof_K

Last weekend’s passage of Hurricane Tomas, left Port-au-Prince relatively unscathed and despite the continuing deadly outbreak of cholera that has reached the capital, stories about the double disaster hardly flooded U.S. broadcast and cable outlets.

I don’t mean that networks like ABC didn’t carry the stories – both ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and Good Morning America have carried stories over the last 72 hours.  CNN did a story on the links between uncollected garbage that has mushroomed since the earthquake and the cholera epidemic.  CNN also ran a story occasioned by the landfall of Tomas last weekend titled Haiti’s trifecta of disaster attempted to provide a context for the persons displaced by the Jan. 12 earthquake.  The story featured an interview with a spokesperson from the Haitian Red Cross who talked about lack of investment in infrastructure and disaster preparation.  She predicted it would take years to make headway against this legacy of neglect.

It is stories last this last one that try to take viewers to a vantage point where they can get a perspective about the swirl of factors that make it hard for outsiders to make sense of what’s going on in the hemisphere’s first black republic.  These rare stories approach the job done by print and multimedia journalists such as Ansel Herz who details the choice aid groups are forced to make, surveying damage after Tomas while displaced families wait for shelter.

While poignant, photos and footage of patients sick with cholera, can’t compete with the “disaster porn” of hurricane-driven rain and wind lashing reporters and flood waters washing away shelter.  Ironically, the time bomb of epidemics set in motion by the January earthquake offers a grim opportunity for the spotlight to be turned on the stalled disaster recovery.  Given the glancing blow by Tomas, sensational video didn’t emerge from the island nation.  Despite this blip on the radar screen of world attention, it’s not clear that even a raging cholera epidemic centered in crowded Port-au-Prince will bring the sustained awareness that could lead to an outcry about the slow pace of solutions being implemented.  

Last weekend’s passage of Hurricane Tomas, left Port-au-Prince relatively unscathed and despite the continuing deadly outbreak of cholera that has reached the capital, stories about the double disaster hardly flooded U.S. broadcast and cable outlets.

I don’t mean that networks like ABC didn’t carry the stories – both ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and Good Morning America have carried stories over the last 72 hours.  CNN did a story on the links between uncollected garbage that has mushroomed since the earthquake and the cholera epidemic.  CNN also ran a story occasioned by the landfall of Tomas last weekend titled Haiti’s trifecta of disaster attempted to provide a context for the persons displaced by the Jan. 12 earthquake.  The story featured an interview with a spokesperson from the Haitian Red Cross who talked about lack of investment in infrastructure and disaster preparation.  She predicted it would take years to make headway against this legacy of neglect.

It is stories last this last one that try to take viewers to a vantage point where they can get a perspective about the swirl of factors that make it hard for outsiders to make sense of what’s going on in the hemisphere’s first black republic.  These rare stories approach the job done by print and multimedia journalists such as Ansel Herz who details the choice aid groups are forced to make, surveying damage after Tomas while displaced families wait for shelter.

While poignant, photos and footage of patients sick with cholera, can’t compete with the “disaster porn” of hurricane-driven rain and wind lashing reporters and flood waters washing away shelter.  Ironically, the time bomb of epidemics set in motion by the January earthquake offers a grim opportunity for the spotlight to be turned on the stalled disaster recovery.  Given the glancing blow by Tomas, sensational video didn’t emerge from the island nation.  Despite this blip on the radar screen of world attention, it’s not clear that even a raging cholera epidemic centered in crowded Port-au-Prince will bring the sustained awareness that could lead to an outcry about the slow pace of solutions being implemented.