In Lehmann's Terms

Blogus Interuptus

I'm headed out to San Diego for the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' fall conference, so expect little-to-no blogging until I get back next Monday. But before I go, in light of news that the folks who brought you Smallville have green(and orange)-lighted a new series about the adventures of a young Aquaman, I urge everyone to enjoy the hilarity that is Seanbaby's Super Friends Page. 

I can think of ONE way to quell the French riots

Since it's become quite clear that neither the curfews nor the self-imposed media blackouts are getting the job done -- with the newest skirmishes spreading from the suburbs to urban areas like Lyon -- I'd like to suggest a more radical solution:

Turn on all of the nation's televisions, and give Mélissa Theuriau -- the 27-year-old host of Paris-based LCI's morning show, "LCI Matin," and travel show, "Voyages" -- her own 24-hour news channel. That ought settle the boys down.

At least, she certainly has that effect on me. Just a few moments gazing at those sultry green eyes and listening her honey-smooth voice, and I'm as mesmerized as an infant with a shiny set of keys dangling in his face.

And I don't even know what the hell she's saying.

Peter F. Drucker, 1910-2005

Peter F. Drucker -- the Austrian-born management svengali who successfully incorporated the Misesian emphasis on the primacy of the entrepreneur, the Hayekian notion of distributed information networks, and, most of all, Schumpeterian concept of "creative destruction" into an overarching theory of organizational behavior that proved to be one of the most influential intellectual developments of the 20th Century -- has died at age 95.

For some time now, it has been fashionable in some quarters to denigrate Drucker's contributions as, at best, self-evidently intuitive psycho-babble (which raises the at least equally self-evident question of why so few of the underlying principles he championed were evident in the structures of mid-20th century businesses) or, at worst, as propaganda that has served primarily to enable a parasitic caste of consultants.

It is not doubt true that, with or without a Drucker to popularize the concepts of "privatization" and "outsourcing," decentralization -- both in the public and private spheres -- would nonetheless have progressed as the unavoidable unwinding of command-and-control decision structures that grown positively sclerotic in their inability to react to change. Similarly, the "information economy" would have become ascendant, even if Drucker hadn't thought to give it a name. And, of course, the transition to objectives-based management was arguably already underway in many firms even before Drucker had developed the concepts of "benchmarking" or "mission statements" that would later provide invaluable fodder for a huge number of Dilbert strips.

But then, this probably misses the most important point about the man. As Drucker himself put it in this 1984 interview with the Claremont Review of Books, "I'm clearly not a scholar, I am a writer. I've never pretended to be a scholar." And as a writer focused mostly keenly on chronicling the human animal -- his many strengths and foibles -- Drucker was without parallel.  His was the kind of wit that could respond off-the-cuff, as he does in the Claremont Review article:

CR: Your interests seem to range everywhere, and one question is, how are these interests organized?
PD: You make an assumption that I'm organized, which totally lacks any evidence.

In tribute, then, I urge you, fair reader, to experience Drucker for yourself by perusing this brief guide to his original pieces on the web:

• "Modern Prophets: Schumpeter and Keynes?"
• "The Age of Social Transformation," from the November 1994 issue of Atlantic Monthly
• "The New Pluralism," from the Fall 1999 issue of Leader to Leader
• "What Business Can Learn From Non-Profits," from the July-August 1989 issue of Harvard Business Review
• "Management's New Paradigms," from the Oct. 5, 1998 issue of Forbes

Or, alternatively, just enjoy this sampling of some of my favorite Druckerisms:

• Quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the customer gets out and is willing to pay for. A product is not quality because it is hard to make and costs a lot of money, as manufacturers typically believe. This is incompetence. Customers pay only for what is of use to them and gives them value. Nothing else constitutes quality.
• So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work.
• Suppliers, and especially manufacturers, have market power because they have information about a product or a service that the customer does not and cannot have, and does not need if he can trust the brand. This explains the profitability of brands.
• Too many mergers resemble the marriage of two cripples who become twice as old, twice as bureaucratic and twice as undynamic.
• Teamwork is neither 'good' nor 'desirable'. It is a fact. Wherever people work together or play together they do so as a team. Which team to use for what purpose is a crucial, difficult and risky decision that is even harder to unmake. Managements have yet to learn how to make it.
• No decision has been made unless carrying it out in specific steps has become someone’s work assignment and responsibility.
• Management means, in the last analysis, the substitution of thought for brawn and muscle, of knowledge for folkways and superstition, and of cooperation for force. It means the substitution of responsibility for obedience to rank, and of authority of performance for the authority of rank.
• There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

Rest in peace, Mr. Drucker.

Meet Don Yahweh, the God(father)

Once again, Pat Robertson shows he's one crazy-assed cracker:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

..."I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

In other words, while God is a God of peace, he is also a superstitious God. And if some unlucky accident should befall the citizens of Dover - If they should get shot in the head by police officers, or if they should hang themselves in their jail cells - or if they're struck by bolts of lightning, then he's going to blame some of the people who went to the polls.

Crazy-Assed Cracker continues:

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

"You found paradise in America, had a good trade, made a good living. The police protected you; and there were courts of law. And you didn't need a friend like me. But uh, now you come to me and you say -- "Don Yahweh, give me justice." -- But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me God(father).

Bonasera... Bonasera... What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? Had you come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your board of education would be suffering this very day.  And that by chance if honest voters such as yourselves should make enemies, then they would become my enemies.  And then they would fear you."

It's leaked internal memos week

In comparison to the Wal-Mart health insurance memo, this one from Microsoft Chief Technology Office Ray Ozzie is far less likely to inspire Congressional inquiries or self-righteous invective on the nation's editorial pages. But as a glimpse inside the thought processes of a major titan of U.S. industry finding itself at a crucial crossroads, it makes similarly fascinating reading for those trying to read the tea leaves on whether it can remain the dominant force it has been.

Ozzie on where Microsoft has gone wrong (IOW...."gentlemen, we've been scooped"):

We should’ve been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of AJAX, following our pioneering work in OWA. We knew search would be important, but through Google’s focus they’ve gained a tremendously strong position. RSS is the internet’s answer to the notification scenarios we’ve discussed and worked on for some time, and is filling a role as ‘the UNIX pipe of the internet’ as people use it to connect data and systems in unanticipated ways. For all its tremendous innovation and its embracing of HTML and XML, Office is not yet the source of key web data formats – surely not to the level of PDF. While we’ve led with great capabilities in Messenger & Communicator, it was Skype, not us, who made VoIP broadly popular and created a new category. We have long understood the importance of mobile messaging scenarios and have made significant investment in device software, yet only now are we surpassing the Blackberry.

Ozzie on where Microsoft need not go (IOW..."know your enemies from your potential partners"):

Google is obviously the most visible here, although given the hype level it is difficult to ascertain which of their myriad initiatives are simply adjuncts intended to drive scale for their advertising business, or which might ultimately grow to substantively challenge our offerings. Although Yahoo also has significant communications assets that combine software and services, they are more of a media company and – with the notable exception of their advertising platform – they seem to be utilizing their platform capabilities largely as an internal asset. The same is true of Apple, which has done an enviable job integrating hardware, software and services into a seamless experience with dotMac, iPod and iTunes, but seems less focused on enabling developers to build substantial products and businesses.

Ozzie on where it's all heading (IOW..."hold on to your butts"):

Only a few years ago I’d have pointed to the Weblog and the Wiki as significant emerging trends; by now they’re mainstream and have moved into the enterprise. Flickr and others have done innovative work around community sharing and tagging based on simple data formats and metadata. GoToMyPC and GoToMeeting are very popular low-end solutions to remote PC access and online meetings. A number of startups have built interesting solutions for cross-device file and remote media access. VoIP seems on the verge of exploding – not just in Skype, but also as indicated by things such as the Asterisk soft-PBX. Innovations abound from small developers – from RAD frameworks to lightweight project management services and solutions.

Many startups treat the ‘raw’ internet as their platform. At the grassroots level, such projects actively use standards such as vCards and iCal for sharing contacts and calendars. Most all use RSS in one way or another for data sharing. Remixing and mashing of multiple web applications using XML, REST and WS is common; interesting mash-ups range from combining maps with apartment listings, to others that place RSS feeds on top of systems and data not originally intended for remixing. Developers needing tools and libraries to do their work just search the internet, download, develop & integrate, deploy, refine. Speed, simplicity and loose coupling are paramount.

To what extent Messrs. Gates and Balmer (or the company's board) are ready to embrace this comprehensive transition to a services-based model, I wouldn't pretend to know. And, of course, the Google-led brain drain may render many of Ozzie's more grandiose visions unpracticable. The company may just simply not have the human capital they need to make it happen. But I certainly wouldn't bet against them.

A 'super-lefty' shrugged

The state – government – politicians and their henchmen and toadies – strangers specializing in duping the masses into believing that these same duplicitous strangers are capable of superhuman feats of beneficence – are ruled by a U.S. court of appeals to have a "legitimate" reason to interfere with parents’ decisions about how to expose children to "sexual matters."

That's Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux again, this time responding to an appellate decision in Fields, et al. v. Palmdale School District, a case brought by a group of elementary school parents who were deeply offended when their children were asked questions -- such as how often they thought about sex -- as part of a study of psychological barriers to learning. In particular, Boudreaux asks readers to note these closing sentences:

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

Much as I do love to get my anti-state dander up, I have to give the big shrug to this one. I can't say I see how Boudreaux's reaction follows from what seems to me some fairly unremarkable verbiage.

The final sentence provides Boudreaux the title of his post, so presumably, he is taking umbrage with the notion that the actions in question could be considered a "legitimate state purpose." Since the purpose being asserted is the statutory reponsibility of districts to provide a "thorough and efficient public education" (or whatever equivalent bullshit phraseology California's Constitution uses to justify erection of human sausage factories) then, sure, I'm all with ya, Don. But that you or I may not think public education a "legitimate state purpose" doesn't magically render the question a matter of controversy in the courts. Sorry to say, this is pretty well-established law at this point.

The second-to-last sentence would appear even less noteworthy. It just restates similarly well-established immunity provisions for school districts. Boards of education have standing to dictate public school curricula. Individual parents do not. Parents who wish to protest board decisions can run for office, lobby the board, or exercise the right of exit provided by home-schooling and private schools.

School districts, therefore, cannot be named tort feasors simply for implementing and carrying out a board-approved educational program that some parents within the district may not like. Reverse this doctrine, and you'd see a few hundred thousand frivolous lawsuits filed against school boards across the country faster than you can say the words "Discovery Institute."

Which leaves only one sentence, and one really big question: Could Boudreaux really believe that parents actually DO have a "fundamental right...to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children"?!?

If so, then my parents really ought serve notice to Hugh Hefner, the makers of the movie Bachelor Party, and one particularly bold prepubescent vixen called Bridgette, because they each provided me in my youth with FAR more "information regarding sexual matters" than my parents ever did. If they hurry, they just might get in under the statute of limitations.

So, finally, to answer Professor Boudreaux's rhetorical question:

Is this ruling not deeply offensive to all who love liberty?

Ummm, well, hmmm.....deeply? I gotta go with a "no" on that one. I guess, just like Judge Rheinhardt, I must be a "super-lefty" as well. Who woulda thunk it?

Is the Ivory Tower a non-conforming use?

I'm usually skeptical of the popular conception of academia as an "ivory tower," whose denizens occupy a completely insular universe that cuts them off from the cares, concerns, and causes of the common man. I've known many academics in my life and while, sure, there are a few flakey professors out there (hell, I've got some in my own family) I find most are not nearly so different from the hoi polloi as the popular stereotypes would suggest.

But then, every once in a while, you'll find an academic trying to do his impression of a populist, and in the process, making it that much harder for me to defend my position. Bryan Caplan, bless his anarchist heart, is the latest offending party:

How about this: A populist movement to drastically reduce the price of housing by slashing the regulatory barriers to new construction? Uh oh, it still sounds like an egghead is talking. Real populism means sound bytes. My best shot so far: Free to Build. 

Everyone from Paul Krugman to Ed Glaeser now highlights the fact that an array of regulations make housing needlessly expensive. A simple populist response: Gut the regulations so we can build more houses that are affordable for the average family. If a private party owns some land, let him develop it. If the government owns some land, let them sell it to the highest bidder, then use the proceeds to cut property taxes.

Simplistic? Sure. If it weren't simplistic, it wouldn't be populism, and wouldn't have a chance of becoming popular. But of course that's only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. The big question is: Could a majority embrace the cause of Free to Build?

Clearly, Bryan hasn't spent much time at local planning and zoning board meetings. Unfortunately, having spent years toiling away in the doldrums of community newspapers...I have. If he'd seen what I've seen, he'd know the only reasonable answer to his question is -- are you nuts? No, really.....are you friggin' NUTS?!?

Bryan contemplates that vastly expanding the supply of habitable housing would bring down prices of the existing stock of homes, but he reasons that "people generally favor policies because they think they are right, not because they help their bottom line."

All well and good, but believe me, there is NO support out there for the proposition that unfettered land development is right, just, or proper. In contrast, the vagaries of the tax code and the consumerist bent of American culture have combined to ensure that citizens invest wildly disproportionate amounts of their savings in the undiversified asset of home ownership. Anything -- and I do mean anything -- that threatens this nest egg is anathema to the common American.

Moreover, to the extent that those at the grass roots do think about property rights, their notion of what that term means INCLUDES both prevailing market values, and the quality of life they associate with holding the resource in question. If an interloper from the outside -- whether it be a private developer or the state -- contributes to the diminished value of their property, the "populist" reaction is that THAT is a violation of their rights.

Similarly, when a new construction project contributes -- as it nearly always does -- to more traffic, more noise, more overcrowding in the public schools, more teenagers loitering on the streets, and so on, those property owners that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo band together precisely BECAUSE they feel it's only "right" that the quality of their lives not be disturbed.

I applaud the premise that libertarians, if we want to make a dent in the social fabric, need to focus on causes that can be sold using effective populist rhetoric. I just can't possibly imagine a LESS likely candidate for success than this one.

Who's house? T's house

T pity the fool what don't respect his momma.  Link courtesy of the Mighty, Mighty C.K.

For T-related nostalgia of slightly more recent vintage (but nonetheless rapidly fading into the nether regions of collective memory), I offer the original gold standard in sites about human testicle consumption.

I almost forgot!

Remember, remember the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, twas his intent
To blow up king and parliament.
Three score barrels were laid below
To prove old England's overthrow.

A moment of silence for a splendid idea that, unfortunately, just didn't go off as planned...

Oliver Klozoff and I.P. Freely could not be reached for comment

On to journalistic sources of an entirely different variety...

Back in April 2003, a reporter named James Scott of The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier was dispatched to Augusta, Ga. to cover the fracass that had broken out ahead of the Masters Tournament between Augusta National Chairman Hootie Johnson and Martha Burk, then-chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations.

For those who've forgotten the dust-up, Burk had spent months decrying the venerable golf club's men-only policy, and so, was met with throngs of both supporters and detractors when she arrived to launch her own protest during one of the PGA's most high-profile events. Recounting the scene in an article in the Sunday, April 13, 2003 edition of The P&C, Scott noted:

Throughout the morning, law enforcement officers stood on the perimeter of the five-acre field. At no point did the protest turn violent, though officers escorted Heywood Jablome away after he held up a sign directly in front of Burk that read "Make me dinner" before shouting "Oprah rules."

Within a week's time, Scott -- who was apparently unfamiliar with Mr. Jablome's prominent role in telephone pranks since time immemorial -- realized he'd been had, and wrote a column for the April 20 issue describing what it felt like to be made a national laughingstock and the butt of late-night jokes (for slipping up while doing a job that must have paid him, tops, $25,000 a year.)

I went to Augusta last week to cover protests at The Masters golf tournament and, along with several other reporters, fell for a media prankster's trick..I'm a legend -- and it only took two words to make me one...A man talked with about a dozen reporters and identified himself by a bogus name, a name that, while appearing innocuous enough on paper, refers to a sex act when sounded out. Unfortunately, I never actually heard the protestor's name pronounced, just caught him spelling it out for others and jotted it down in my notepad...I wrote the story for Sunday's paper, tucked the quote down near the bottom, filed it to my editors in Charleston and blithely went about my life, unaware that this one name was about to make my own name known around the country...While it's certainly funny -- believe me, my wife won't quit hassling me about it -- the episode has taught me a lesson: Trust no one.  My confidence in people is now tarnished, and that may be the thing that bothers me the most.  People complain that reporters are jaded. Well, now you know one reason why.

That sounds pretty awful. And if the immediate embarrassment weren't enough, the fact that the incident has earned a place in still-distributed e-mail chains (I was inspired to write after getting one just yesterday) and a permanent entry on the Urban Legends Reference Pages certainly couldn't have helped. And, hell, I'm obviously not above applying a little salt to the wound myself.

Of course, playing a little game I like to call "Fun With Lexis/Nexis," I don't actually see any evidence to back up Scott's claim that other reporters at Augusta were fooled by this charade. The only other piece that seems to mention the incident, appearing April 14 in Canada's National Post, made it sound like most got the joke:

In the middle of Burk's third or fourth turn at the microphone, a man stood in the middle of her small knot of supporters and raised a bright orange cardboard sign: "MAKE ME DINNER!" On the back, which he obligingly turned for Burk to see, it read: "IRON MY SHIRTS."

Burk stopped in mid-sentence and laughed: "All right, all right, I've seen it. You can take it down now."

Reporters immediately swarmed to the man, who gave his name, and spelled it out: "Haywood Jablome." A few seconds elapsed, and reporters began shaking their heads and scratching out the name.

But I do have good news for Mr. Scott. Dig a little further in the Nexis archive, and it turns out the ubiquitous Mr. Jablome is actually a widely quoted source, holding forth on all manner of issues.

In the Tuesday, May 1, 2001 edition of the New York Post, "Pulse" section reporter Neil Graves caught up with Mr. Jablome at the opening of the trendy E*Trade Center web cafe at Madison Ave. and 54th St.

With subdued lighting, plush lounges and a cafe for discriminating palates on the top floor, E*Trade yesterday had everything - except customers.

"I pop in there to check out my stocks, but I never see the place crowded," said David Sirk, 44, a waiter.

"If I didn't work a block away, I wouldn't go in. People who want to trade can do it from their laptop or hand-held device."

Heywood Jablome, 41, a Manhattan real estate agent, agreed.

"This is a nice-looking store, but I don't see people coming in here to trade," he said. "Not the aesuits' who work up here. No way!"

A few months later, Jablome spoke to reporter Sherri Williams in the July 21, 2001 edition of The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger about the forced resignation of University of Southern Mississippi President Horace Fleming Jr., mostly for his perceived failure to improve the school's athletics department.

Fleming said Thursday that board members and critics talked about his leadership style and approach.

Haywood Jablome, a senior computer science major from Florence, said Fleming's detractors who want more support for sports should be more concerned about the school's academic reputation and not its sports ranking.

"They are the ones putting a fast food title on a USM degree and I don't like it one bit," said Jablome, 27. "They seem to be geared toward keeping sports records because that attracts people. But the funding and the focus needs to be on education."

Of course, one might conclude the prevalence of 27-year-old seniors could be suggestive of even bigger problems but, hey...it's Mississippi.

And finally, showing Mr. Jablome also has an appreciation for the arts, in the June 2, 2000 edition of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, AJC staffers caught up with him coming out of a screening of Mission Impossible 2, took his photo, and used his comments as part of a man-on-the-street movie review round-up.

His verdict?

"Excellent action and amazing plot twists. Tom Cruise looks better than ever. Thandie Newton is absolutely radiant." -- Haywood Jablome, Atlanta

Now that's testimony just screaming to be used in trailers!