What's Right with the World?

The Anchoress asks her readers an intriguing question, "What's Wrong with the World?" and answers with the words of G. K. Chesterton:

About 100 years ago, a British paper invited many writers to answer the same question, What�s Wrong With the World? They extended the invitation to G. K. Chesterton who wrote back,

Dear Sirs;

I am.

Sincerely,
G.K. Chesterton

I will take his answer for my own. Have at it.

My answer to that question is to answer it with a more important question: "What's Right with the World?"

So many times, people use negativity to describe the world and their place in it. Believe it or not, I do this myself--alot. But if you actually look at the world around us, much of it is amazing--including people.

As a psychologist, I find it fascinating that people have so many different ways of viewing the world and so many different rationales for why things should be a certain way. One could get angry that we are all so different and want different things, particularly in the area of politics and how governments should behave. But perhaps there is an ebb and flow to the way that people are that help us balance each other out. Those who believe 100% in personal responsibility may tend to overlook when circumstances leave someone unable to care for themselves and they need a helping hand, whereas those who believe that the government should be the helping hand at all times may overlook the damage they are doing by not teaching people to solve their own problems. In the end, maybe we need different types of people to provide our society with different ways of viewing the world--maybe, like hybrid vigor, this is how the world improves.

Maybe much is right with the world.

No Waiting Necessary

I just got back from my annual check-up with my cardiologist--for those of you who like this blog, my heart is doing great, for those who don't like it--tough, I'm going to live to antagonize you another day! I always drag a book or other reading material with me to occupy my time in case there is a wait. Since we're heading into tax time, I took It's Never Too Late to Get Rich: The Nine Secrets to Building a Nest Egg at Any Age thinking I could read about municipal bonds or how to save on taxes but I never got a chance to pull the book out. Instead, I was whisked from the waiting room into the examining room within a few minutes and given an EKG, had my blood pressure taken, my heart listened to and an exam in a timely and efficient manner.

Since I didn't have any big complaints, I shot the breeze with the doctor for a bit and told him how nice it was to be seen so quickly and the conversation turned to socialized medicine. He expressed concern that heart patients, especially those who needed to be seen quickly for emergencies would not be seen in the timely manner they are seen now should universal care come to pass. "I was recently at a medical convention of cardiologists," he stated, "and ran into a cardiologist from England. He said that the waiting list over there was for a period of months for those with heart problems and even those with emergencies such as heart by-pass were not being seen quickly. Somehow, those with the most moolah were ending up getting treatment, while everyone else waited."

Many people who clamour for universal healthcare have never been sick or involved in the healthcare system--right now, care is generally available for various illnesses, not 100% of the time, but a good portion of the time. The current system may not be perfect by any means but those who have emergencies at least have the emergency room, lower fee clinics and other means of getting care--sometimes for free from doctors who volunteer their time. Imagine being on a waiting list for heart bypass or another emergency for months or having others with more cash or connections go in front of you. A universal system seems ripe for corruption. It sounds more fair, but often, like so many other government-run organizations, those with the most clout rise to the top and the rest of us sit and wait....

Collective inertia � if you don�t join them, you can beat them!

Ever wondered why newspapers always had this ridiculously large, uncontrollable size? Perhaps when you were trying to read one in your garden on a sunny yet windy afternoon, forcing you to peel the pages of your face every annoying three seconds? Or while reading one on the train, smashing your elbow in a nodding neighbour�s face when turning the page? I did. Not smashing my elbow in anyone�s face, but wondering why these pages had to be so bloody large.

I simply assumed that it was much cheaper to print on large pages than small ones. Turns out I was wrong.

To my surprise, I found out that printing on large pages is actually more expensive than on smaller ones�?! Why did they do it then; are these Times, Guardian and Daily Telegraph people closet sadists, finding secret joy in giving us a daily struggle with inky pages? Here�s what happened:

In 1712 British newspapers came to be taxed on the number of pages published. Editors then decided to print the news on enormous pages, and fewer of them, creating the broadsheet format. The original tax disappeared in 1855 but, despite being considerably more expensive, the format persisted.

As you may remember (if you�re from London), a couple of years ago, after the free newspaper �Metro� entered the industry, the Independent was the first to abandon the broadsheet and �go tabloid�. Their sales figures surged. Soon The Times followed, and later also the Guardian, all to their benefit. But why did it take so long � centuries!? Had no-one ever conceived the idea of printing newspapers on smaller (and cheaper!) pages?

Sure they had. Many times over the years someone would bring it up; �shouldn�t we print on smaller pages?� But they would always dismiss the idea: �no-one is doing it� and, mostly, �the customer would not want it�� Yes we did!

I call this �collective inertia�. Every existing player in the industry was afraid to break the mould and take the plunge. I have also learned, studying many firms in many different lines of business, that most industries have such a slightly strange, idiosyncratic convention that everybody adheres to but nobody really remembers why we�re doing it that way.

But hardly anyone dares to challenge it. And that is where the business opportunity lies. If you�re the first one to spot the silly convention (just to name a few candidates: buy-back guarantees in book publishing, detailing in the pharmaceutical industry, insane working hours in investment banking) and do it differently, it might just make you a heck of a lot of money.

And it would save many of us customers from a daily elbow in the face.

Comeback Liberalism

John Hawkins has an interview up with David Frum, author of
Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again. Frankly, after reading the interview, I couldn't tell many of Frum's supposedly conservative responses from that of a liberal Democrat--don't worry about cutting taxes, give even more government handouts to low income groups, etc.

It seems that eventually politics gravitates towards the liberal side of the aisle. I think it's because in our society there are so many rewards for thinking like a Democrat--mainly because of the media--and coming up with liberal solutions to problems, and so few rewards for being in the conservative camp. Even Bill Gates, after making all of his billions, has drifted from being a capitalist to sounding like a socialist on many of the issues. Of course, it's always easier to use the system you're mocking to make your own cash and then to want to deny that method to other citizens once you're set. And then you can preach from on high about what a noble philanthropist you are!

The Carnival of Homeschooling is up.

Invasion of the TV People

I spent part of the morning helping our local production company with a new pilot they are doing for a cable station. They needed an expert to talk about drug problems, addiction and how a difficult childhood could affect a person's tendency to abuse drugs. It was a lot of fun--but what I am most amazed by was how fast and efficiently they turned my podcast studio into a TV studio. Take a look!

The Unethical "Ethicist"

I don't know about you, but I rarely read and rarely agree with The New York Times' Randy Cohen, aka "The Ethicist." He is so stuck in being PC that his responses are often dripping with condescension, immorality, and reverse discrimination. Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess pickes up on his questionable ethics in a recent post:

The New York Times' Randy Cohen, aka "The Ethicist," argues for affirmative discrimination (and made me feel like I needed a shower after reading his reply).

Personally, I don't believe you resolve discrimination by discriminating. Furthermore, "minority candidates" who are qualified must find it pretty insulting to be assumed to be "affirmative action" hires. Here's the question:

Go over and read the question and answer at the Advice Goddess's place while I go take a shower.

It is ok to get lucky � even for a top manager

Let me tell you a story. A story of a company called Hornby. If you�re British, you�ll know them. You might even be feeling slightly nostalgic merely thinking about them. Hornby makes little model trains, and has been doing so for a very, very long time.



Ten years ago the company was nearly bankrupt. In an attempt to save costs they decided to outsource production to China. However, much to their surprise, they discovered the Chinese not only produced much cheaper, they also delivered superb quality. Therefore, middle managers could not resist spending all the money that they were saving through the outsourcing on adding additional quality in their product designs and, most of all, a lot of extra detail: a working light on every table in the restaurant carriage, windscreen wipers on the locomotive, a bit of dirt (painted) on the bottom of the carriages, etc. Their products became perfect scale models.

Then, as much to their surprise as to their joy, they noticed sales increasing substantially. When it persisted, they started talking to their vendors to figure out what on earth was happening?! They discovered that it was no longer fathers buying model trains for their children, but buying them for themselves (and in the process spending quite a bit more money on themselves than on their children�). Inadvertently Hornby had moved out of the toy market into the hobby market, producing for collectors rather than children.

Not long thereafter, Hornby was outperforming the FTSE dramatically, seeing its share price rise from 35 to 250 in just a few years.

But what can we learn from a story like Hornby's? Isn�t their smart change in strategy simply due to sheer, unintended luck!? Well, partly, but that�s perhaps the first lesson. I find that many successful companies with great innovative strategies (e.g. Southwest Airlines, Zara, CNN) experienced some significant element of serendipity at their inception. But we (and often they) post-rationalise things as if it was all planned as such from the get-go.

But why? There is no shame in getting lucky. A great manager (such as Hornby�s Frank Martin) does not necessarily come up with the strategy, but is superb at recognising the opportunity when it comes knocking on the company's door, while subsequently carefully adding all the other necessary strategic elements (marketing, investor relations, distribution, etc.) to take advantage of the opportunity. Just recognise the importance of luck - rather than deny it - and make sure you gratefully take advantage of it.

Finding Missing Items: A Relationship RorschachTest?

After reading the Dear Prudence letter and response here, did you wonder if the saying "Honesty is the best policy" was becoming a thing of the past? Well, apparently, it's not as evidenced by this charming story out of New York (Thanks JG):

At dusk on New Year's Eve, Erika Gunderson got into a taxi in New York City and entered a digital-age mystery. Sitting on the back seat was a nice Canon digital camera. Gunderson asked the driver which previous passenger might have left it, but the cabbie didn't seem to care. So Gunderson brought it home and showed it to her fiance, Brian Ascher. They decided that the only right thing to do was to find the owner.

Compare this woman's actions to the sneaky thief in the Dr. Prudence column and how she dealt with her boyfriend. I think the camera-finding couple have a better future, don't you?

"A man is a sperm bank, a meal ticket, a handyman and an early retirement plan,..."

Reaons heterosexual men are staying single and "fabulous" according to this Seattle Times article by The Associated Press (Thanks Dan). However, when you read the article, you will wonder why these guys feel so fabulous. It seems that discrimination against single men is prevalent:

Experts say society still favors married men over their single counterparts, though. The most common complaints come from the workplace, where many say they are discriminated against.

"Especially as you approach your mid-30s and 40s and all your colleagues around you are married, there's a lot of unsaid words that go on and feelings of inadequacy at work," says Sherri Langburt, founder of the new Web site SingleEdition.com, an online community for happy singles.

Those include speculation about a single man's sexual preferences and, concomitantly, a difficulty in making friends with heterosexual co-workers because colleagues might question his motives.

Single men often say they are asked to work on holidays, put in longer hours or travel more for business. Employers often assume that without a spouse, unwed workers have extra time to spare, says Nicky Grist, executive director of the Alternatives to Marriage Project. That organization is for people who choose not to marry or cannot legally marry.

Particularly in the powerful worlds of business and politics, it's often all about appearances and presenting oneself as a stable man with a solid foundation, Grist says.

Perhaps as more men stay single, these stereotypes will change.

Management consultants � pin-striped pigeons

Now, having said all that, they [management consultants] are a bit like rats. Or, to put it more kindly, pigeons (also referred to by London mayor Ken Livingstone as �rats with wings�). They spread diseases � allow me to explain.

I have been working on a large research project which analyses the spread of harmful management practices (a dodgy type of control system, faulty financial instrument, counterproductive management technique, etc.). One could conjecture that harmful management practices never see the light of day (wrong) or that if they accidentally do, they will always quickly die out and disappear (wrong again). Perhaps I will bore you with the findings of this project some other time but for now let me dwell on how these harmful practices actually spread across firms.

Yep, that�s where the pin-striped pigeons come in � ok, some of them rats. Harmful management practices spread much like a virus. Actually, the patterns of how they spread among firms can be modelled successfully using techniques from social anthropology on the diffusion of harmful cultural practices (such as footbinding in China, female circumcision, etc.), which not coincidentally have been adopted from epidemiology.

A virus survives � like the flu � by spreading to a new host, preferably before the old one dies. Often, there are some creatures (e.g. rats) that facilitate the spread amongst the creatures of another species (e.g. humans). That�s much of what management consultants do, even knowingly: picking up practices in one industry or country and recommending and applying them in others. Just like viruses or bacteria, some of these practices are not very helpful to say the least (although harmful effects may only manifest themselves in the long run), others may have been useful in the original setting (e.g. industry) but completely inappropriate in the new one.

Unintentionally � again, just like the poor pigeons in Trafalgar Square � management consultants promote the spread and persistence of the harmful practice. According to Mayor Livingstone, they�re best banned and starved to death.

Ask Dr. Helen

My PJM column is up:

Middle-aged virgins are not necessarily the stuff of comedy. Choosing to wait is just fine, writes Dr. Helen Smith � unless past sexual abuse or a debilitating lack of confidence is making the choice for you.

Go take a look and drop a line if you have something to add.

The Irrational Atheist

I spent part of the day reading Vox Day's new book, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. You might know Vox Day from his blog and interesting take on feminist issues--he always has something provocative to add to that particular conversation and his book proves to be just as stimulating in regards to religion and faith. The Irrational Atheist is described as follows (from the inside cover):

The Irrational Atheist is not a theological work nor is it a conventional religious defense of faith. It contains no arguments for the existence of God and the supernatural, nor is it concerned with evolution, creationism, the age of Earth, or intelligent design. This book contains no arguments from Scripture. In attacking the arguments, assertions, and conclusions of the New Atheists, Vox Day's only weapons are the secular tools of reason, logic and historically documented, independently verifiable fact. The Irrational Atheist is not a book about God, but about those who seek to replace Him....

Day takes on the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and seeks to demonstrate that they and other "New Atheists" are no champions of reason. For example, Day discusses one argument made by Harris where Harris questions the correlation between Christian conservatism and social health:

If there was a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and social health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the 25 cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in "blue" [Democrat] states and 38% are in "red" [Republican] states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the US are in the pious state of Texas.

Interestingly, though, Day found that "red-state" crime is primarily committed by "blue counties" within those states and has a nice chart to show the stats on this. It seems that Harris was looking at states such as Texas that had more crime and called the states "red" but conveniently omitted the part where the counties where the crimes were committed tended to be "blue."

Other myth busters include the notion that religion causes the majority of war as some atheists profess, Day provides evidence to the contrary--he found that more than 93% of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion. In the twentieth century, in fact, he states that atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined.

The book is definitely thought provoking and worth a read if you are interested in the topic!

The Carnival of Homeschooling is up!

"Some of us still believe that the worth of a CEO should be determined by stockholders rather than the President of the United States."

David Harsanyi, author of The Nanny State, is worried about the expanded role of government that Hillary Clinton proposes:

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton says that if she becomes president the federal government will take a more active role in the economy �to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.� Scary stuff for anyone who still believes in the free market.

I agree--scary stuff. What's next? Holding wages down on those people she deems make too much money, taxing the daylights out of those who are successful? What will become of a country that rewards doing poorly with tax rebates and penalizes those who are successful with higher taxes? You get more of what you reward. But then, isn't that the idea? Remember the lyrics to the the old Rainmaker's song, Government Cheese:

They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese ....

Perhaps that should be the new slogan for the Hillary campaign.

What Would MLK , Jr. have Thought?

An interesting article at PJM: Identity Politics: Not What Martin Luther King Was About:

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. have thought of today�s �sorry national burlesque in which ovaries and melanin are all but exit poll determinants?� Michael Weiss doesn�t think the great exemplar of universalism would be too impressed.

Go take a look.

Management consultants � happy slapping

Is it just me or is it getting increasingly fashionable to dislike management consultants (but hire them anyway)? Now, I wouldn�t say it is an entirely new fashion but the loathing of the pin-striped mercenaries seems to be reaching new and unprecedented heights of late.

A short while ago, I was talking to three members in the top team of a British company (which will remain blissfully anonymous but which you will know) who showed me the three main conclusions of their team�s recent �strategy retreat� and, believe it or not, one of the three was �no more consultants!�

Now, what have these poor people done to deserve such a bad reputation anyway, �eh?! Well�

It is an unprotected profession and every idiot can call and list himself as a management consultant (and many do � I guess the remainder become professors). Yet, the reputable firms also seem to provoke a fair share of grunting, ground-spitting, and a wide array of hand gestures. Is it pure envy? Surely there must be some of that; being seen walking hand-in-hand with the CEO on way to an expensive restaurant for a powerpoint presentation between the fifth and sixth course while overtly charging a couple thousand quid might do that to you.

Yet, there must be something more. Perhaps it is the fact the accountability of the consultant is knowingly nil; it is not that we withhold payment till the effects of the recommended strategy have become apparent in ten years time (even if that were measurable).

Perhaps it is because everything they recommend has such a high value of deja-vu � �didn�t I say that at our last away-day?�

Or perhaps it is because management consultants en masse recommended corporate diversification in the 1970s, a refocus on core activities in the 1990s, told �old economy� firms to keep their �new economy� activities as strictly separate entities during the dotcom bubble but lately advise them to carefully integrate clicks and bricks, urged IT firms to get into consulting while currently stealthily de-merging them, etc.?

Who knows, but let�s not pretend we knew better. Surely you have both bad and good consultants. Just as you have bad and good clients. Some (if not many�) executives seem to use consultants expecting them to say what they wanted to hear anyway.

Consultants are undoubtedly more useful if you are genuinely open to hear what they have to say about your strategy. For example, ample academic research has suggested that bringing in an outsider�s view can seriously improve the quality of decision-making (be it often at the price of slowing it down). Yet, hiring a consultant is of course no reason to stop thinking for yourself. As Richard Dawkins said, �it is good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brain falls out�.

Is Morality Important in a Partner?

"Dear Prudence" at Slate says a one time moral blunder is okay, I say it's a warning sign. "Mr. Goody Two Shoes" writes Prudence, concerned that his girlfriend is a thief:

The other day my girlfriend of three years told me that she found a wallet with over $200 inside. When I asked her what she was going to do with it, she said she was going to keep the cash. When I asked her why, she responded that she "needed the money." While I can understand finding that much money just laying on the ground doesn't happen often, I am somewhat disappointed and shocked by the lack of ethics in her final decision (even though we are both pretty broke at the moment). I even had to plead with her to anonymously mail back the person's driver's license and other contents of the wallet because it was a generous thing to do. Part of me just wants to forget the whole thing ever happened, while another part of me tries to make her feel guilty for being so misanthropic. Are opposing moral views something I should just accept within our relationship, or is this a sign of a deeper issue?

Prudie's response?

...... But your next move should not be to try to make her feel guilty, but to get her to understand why you were so disturbed by this incident. Tell her you don't want to keep flogging this, and after this discussion you will not bring it up again, but what nags at you about the whole thing is how out of character it was for her, because she is a thoughtful, considerate person. You can add that you know that if she accidentally left her wallet somewhere, she'd hope the person who found it would return it intact. Obviously, you're looking for her to say that you're right, and that she realizes she made a mistake. She may feel so defensive that she can't do that now, but maybe after mulling it, she will. Keep your promise that you will then let this drop. You've known her for three years, so unless other evidence presents itself, consider it a one-time lapse.

Hello? The girlfriend should feel guilty, she took someone else's money and then had no qualms about never returning the wallet. This is not a one-time lapse, it is a window into how the girlfriend ticks. Understanding how someone operates when under stress or when no one else is watching is important. It tells you how they will treat you under the same circumstances. The girlfriend said she took the money because she needed it, what if this couple gets married and this woman needs money or something else in the future, will she just take it out of your joint account when you're not watching even if you don't want her too? If she gets desperate enough, what else will she do? Perhaps this guy doesn't know this woman as well as he should.

I would tell him to take this behavior as a warning sign and to keep it forefront in his mind. Does he plan on marrying her at some point? If so, I would tell him to have a looooonnnng engagement because watching how she responds to that stress might tell him even more about what kind of person she is, or isn't. It's better that he find out about her lack of morals now before he is sitting in divorce court, or worse, in a loveless marriage wondering how he missed the warning signs when they were right in front of him all along.

It's Payback Time for that Damn Dustbuster!

Glenn Sacks wonders about a USA Today financial colunm that blames men for retiring early:

USA Today financial columnist Sandra Block's column below all but comes right out and says that men are selfish for retiring at retirement age. Instead, men should continue to work, work, work while--guess what?--women should retire earlier.

The opening paragraph of the article gives a clue as to the bias the writer feels towards men:

Here's some advice for married men who will turn 62 this year: If you want to make up for all the times you came home with beer on your breath, left your socks on the bathroom floor or gave your wife a DustBuster for Valentine's Day, hold off on filing for your Social Security benefits.

Yes, those troublesome men. They die earlier than women and therefore should work longer to provide for their merry widow in retirement. Shouldn't it be the other way around? It seems to me that if you are going to die sooner, you will have a shorter retirement to enjoy and therefore, you should retire sooner, not later. But, naturally, the writer looks at what is best for women, so guys, get back to work so your wife won't have to.

Or on the other hand, maybe someone should suggest to wives that since their husbands will be supporting them long after they're gone, maybe the wives should try to make the few years their husbands have remaining a bit more pleasant. Think you'll see that article any time soon?

John Hawkins interviews Jonah Goldberg about his book Liberal Fascism which was at #1 on Amazon yesterday and now is sitting at #2.

Early Voting in Knoxville

Glenn and I went to early voting yesterday in Knoxville and heard that the turnout had been outstanding, partly because Fred Thompson is on the Presidential ticket. The local news stated that 1195 people voted yesterday when we did--just 400 voted on the first day in the last Presidential primary and 70,000 are expected in total. There was also mention that many of the voters were first time voters or people who are not regular voters.

I happened to catch the local news at WATE this afternoon and noticed that they caught pictures of both Glenn and me voting. Watch the video and see if you can catch us (it's very brief). You will have to scroll down and click on the camera icon next to "early voting" under "6 News video" in the middle of the page. Hint--I have on the brown jacket that you see to the left and you can hopefully recognize Glenn.

Has anyone else done early voting in their town? How is the turnout?

I was very saddened to read that actor Brad Renfro died; he was a Knoxville native:

Actor Brad Renfro is dead, the Los Angeles County Coroner confirmed to Access Hollywood.

Renfro's body was discovered at his home in the Wilshire area of Los Angeles, by his girlfriend, authorities told the LA Times.

He was declared dead at 9 AM, a coroner�s spokesperson told the paper....

The talented actor found himself in frequent trouble with the law beginning in the late �90s in his hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee.

In 1998 he was charged with cocaine and marijuana possession but managed to skip out on jail time by making a plea deal.

Three years later, Renfro made headlines again, this time in Florida, when he was charged with trying to steal a yacht in Fort Lauderdale.

I believe his family still has a business here in Knoxville --Renfro Interiors. I can't imagine the grief they must feel.

Update: Here is a round-up of blog posts and news stories on the Knoxville born actor.

�Over the hill and far away, top managers are here to stay�

Well, at least Dutch top managers are.

When do top managers generally decide that it is time to move on and �seek other challenges�? Well, one prominent reason is of course that they are about to get the boot (because their firm�s performance is in dire straits). Yet, that appears to not be the only case. Academic research on American executives � among others by Professor Wagner from Michigan State University � has shown that top managers are not only leaving when the performance of their companies is rock bottom (undoubtedly with a good poke by their board if not a kick in the backside) but also when firm performance is relatively high. Wagner speculated that this happens because then they�re hot stuff on the job market and able to find themselves a nice new green pasture.

Now, although this will hardly be anyone (else)�s idea of �fun�, it so happened I had a database available on a couple of hundred Dutch top managers and was curious whether the same might be true for these guys (yes, all of them guys�). And you know what, after a good chunk of statistical analysis it appeared that Dutch top managers also leave when their firm�s performance is at a high. Yet, they�re not walking at all when it�s low�?! Apparently, Dutch top managers don�t get the sack even if their firms are underperforming.

Interestingly though, these top managers not only left when their firm�s performance was relatively high, but when it was also just starting to (rapidly) decrease. I guess it is all about picking your moment; what better time to get out than when you�re just �over the hill�, and your house of cards is about to come tumbling down!

What's Homeschooling got to do with it?

The NYT's had an article out yesterday entitled "Lack of Supervision Noted in Deaths of Home-Schooled" (Hat Tip: Lunablog.net). The article looks at the Washington D.C. case where four girls were killed allegedly by their mother, and concludes that homeschooling "kills" or at least is dangerous.

Why? Because abusive parents can stay home and abuse their kids instead of keeping them under the watchful eye of the state. Sorry, I don't buy this, kids fall through the cracks at school everyday (they even get abused in DCS custody!) and the D.C. case had little to do with homeschooling and more to do with finding an excuse to keep the police out of the house:

The oldest girl, Brittany Jacks, stopped attending classes in early March. A social worker from the Booker T. Washington Public Charter School went to the home April 30 and called police after she was denied entry, Fenty said.

The social worker reported that after speaking to Jacks she appeared to have mental health issues and �that she was possibly holding Brittany hostage by refusing to allow her to attend school,� Fenty said. A police officer who responded also was denied entry, but Jacks told him she was home-schooling the children.

If someone is possibly being held hostage, do the police always give up so easily if they hear a good excuse? I sure hope not.

I think that A Brief History blog has the right take on the Time's article:

Read the story and see if there is any sign that these kids were home schooled. The animosity of the left wing to home schooling is just amazing. Here is the real beef the Times has:

Once against the law in all but five states, home schooling is now legal throughout the country and highly regulated in just six states, New York among them. About 1.1 million of the 50 million school age children were home schooled in 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics says.

What do you think the murder rate among home schoolers is ? Just think, 1.1 million kids escaping the clutches of the teacher's unions.

Perhaps the real story here is the animosity of the Times to homeschoolers and the need for more supervision of state agencies like DCS.

Update: Ace: "The NYT has a lot of problems with the most basic sort of comparative statistics, doesn't it? At least when it comes to the military and home-schoolers and other Undesirables."

Carnival of Homeschooling

The Carnival of Homeschooling is up. Be sure to check out this post on homeschooling and child abuse that asks the question: "Should we increase requirements?"

Appliance Woes

Do you ever have one of those periods where every appliance in your house starts to break down? I had one of those this month and am just recovering from the bill handed to me by the Sears repair guy for my front loader washing machine. Last month, it was the dishwasher, prior to that, the stove and refrigerator. I remember one of my colleagues muttering to me once about his appliance woes, saying that his strategy is that when the refrigerator breaks and/or needs to be cleaned out, it's time to move. I laughed at the time but I'm starting to see the wisdom of his words. I could really kick myself for not buying the warranty with all of these appliances but I have never had good luck with doing so. It seems like I never use them, there is a deductible that is equivalent to the service charge, or they are just too expensive to make purchasing them worth it.

And it's not just about the money, the time it takes to wait around for the service people is insane. "We'll be there Tuesday between 1 and 5." Great, I love being trapped at home for hours on end. It could be worse, it's often 8 to 5, as if none of us have anything better to do then sit at home all day, hoping that the call is closer to 8 than 5 and knowing that whatever time it is, it will be the most inconvenient, i.e. when you dash out for five minutes at 3:15 to pick up a kid or go to the store. When I lived in NYC, I did my wash in a dirty laundry mat at the end of the street, it was sort of fun, and at least I didn't have to wait for the repairman, just for the next empty washing machine.

Update: Megan McArdle says that warranties are a bad deal for consumers--that makes me feel a little better.

I read this story the other day and wanted to mention it, it's quite sad:

A woman found in her home with the decomposing bodies of her four daughters was suspected by a social worker of holding one of the girls hostage as early as April, city officials said Friday.

An investigation into the family was closed because child and family welfare officials thought the family had moved to Maryland � even though authorities there couldn't locate the family.

�It's completely unclear why they made that determination,� said Carrie Brooks, spokeswoman for Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. The city is continuing to investigate.

It is sometimes the case that real victims of abuse are not followed through with very well by welfare agencies and on the other hand, the authorities go overboard in cases where no real abuse is occurring. The key is to be able to tell the difference and follow through in real abuse cases and back off in those cases where a child is not in danger.

Update: Here is more on the case.

Podcast: Rudy Giuliani on Domestic Issues, Hillary's Economic Advisor

We caught up with Mayor Giuliani who had a few minutes (eight to be exact) to talk to us about his position on the Second Amdendment, health care, energy and the current campaign.

Next we turn to Hillary Clinton's senior economic advisor, Gene Sperling. Sperling is the author of The Pro-Growth Progressive: An Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity, whose main theme is that empowering people directly rather than by trying to protect them by restricting or impeding markets is important for economic success. Mr. Sperling discusses Hillary's new aggressive $70 billion stimulus package, (who will be paying for that?), a possible recession and health care.

You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure at by clicking right here. You can get a lo-fi version suitable for cellphones, Treos, and dialup connections by going here and clicking "lo fi." And, of course, you can always get a free subscription via iTunes. Free! Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.

�Today�s fast-changing business environment�? � same as it ever was

�Today�s business environment is characterised by increasingly high levels of uncertainty and change� � ever read a business article that starts with a sentence like that? My guess is you have. It seems like every other management article I read starts with such a sentence. And it annoys me. Deeply.

�In today�s fast changing business world��, �many industries are increasingly characterised by rapid change��, �high velocity environments�, �increasing hypercompetition�, and so forth and so forth, bla bla, bla bla.

I know, it is slightly pathetic that something like this annoys me but it does. I guess it annoys me because people simply accept it as a given; as the truth. But is the current business environment really so much more turbulent than 15 years ago when the world computerised, or when the Berlin Wall came down, or when electricity was invented? Somehow, I doubt it. But still, people always say that �the world of business is becoming increasingly volatile� (without showing me any evidence).

Fortunately, my fellow strategy professor Gerry McNamara, from Michigan State University, and two of his colleagues were equally annoyed but (in contrast to myself) did something about it. They analysed the financial performance of about 5700 companies over a period of more then two decades, looking at measures such as performance stability, market stability, abnormal business returns, industry dynamism, munificence, etc. And they found the following: Nothing. Absolutely zilch.

Analysing 114,191 observations, starting from the late 1970s, they found that some industries may be turbulent, but no more turbulent than before. Or, as they say, �our results suggest that managers today face markets no more dynamic and opportunities to gain and sustain competitive advantage no more challenging than in the past�.

So please stop telling me that �the world of business is increasingly changing fast�. It is not. It is the same as it ever was.

Maggie's Farm: Then and Now: this stuff would be funny if it wasn't so true.

"I Feel your Pain"

Jonah Goldberg makes some good points in his article, Voting in the age of Dr. Phil:

What Americans really want when they look into a politician's eyes is to see their own images reflected back, like in Narcissus' pool. The presidency in particular has become the highest ground in the culture war. Americans want a candidate who validates them personally. "I'm voting for him because he's a hunter like me." "I'm backing her because she's a woman too." "I'm for that guy because he's angry like me." Such sentiments have colored the presidential contest for so long, they've saturated it like stain into wood.

"Authenticity" -- on which voters supposedly place such a premium -- is really just a label put on self-validation. Bill Clinton infamously promised he felt our pain. Hillary Clinton similarly sold her 2000 bid for the Senate by arguing that she was more concerned about the issues that concern New Yorkers than was her competitor.

.....In a sense, this is populism updated for the age of "Oprah" and "Dr. Phil." Principles and policy details take a back seat to the need to say "there, there -- I understand" to voters. As Willie Stark, the populist protagonist of "All the King's Men," bellows to the insatiably needy crowds: "Your will is my strength, and your need is my justice."

Choosing understanding and false empathy over policy and hard decisions is not the way to choose a president.

Update: I see that Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism is up to #8 6 4 3 on Amazon and is now #1 in Politics.

Ask Dr. Helen: Should Men be Kicked out of the Church Nursery?

My PJM column is up:

There�s a double standard in our society when it comes to sexual abuse, writes Dr. Helen Smith, who reminds readers what the PC books won�t: women also commit sexual offenses against children.

Go take a look and let me know if you think that men should be barred from volunteering at places, like the church nursery, that have children present.

Serial Killers: Up Close and Personal

Yesterday, I had the chance to read an advance copy of criminologist Jack Levin's new book, Serial Killers and Sadistic Murderers - Up Close and Personal. Levin has specialized in the study of murder over the past twenty-five years and in the introduction, shares the toll this line of work has taken on his life (I can relate!):

...I must confess, from the outset, that I have also paid a high personal price for my work in analyzing the most depraved of murderers. Over the years, I have received death threats from the fans of killers about whom I have written. I have gotten nasty letters and phone calls from strangers who judge me based only on a short quote (or misquote) in a newspaper article they've read. I have received letters from numerous prisoners who believe I might get them a new trial or a reduced sentence, mistakenly believing that I am am an attorney rather than a criminologist. Mobsters have visited my office. Psychotics have stalked me. . ...To this day, it remains difficult to get a good night's sleep.

Living with murder has not always been easy. Yet by analyzing and better understanding--not justifying--the thoughts and actions of serial killers and other murderers, we can hopefully develop strategies that will thwart them and therefore benefit society. To the extent that we are successful, my experiences with murder will have been totally worthwhile.

So if bloggers get bent out of shape over real or imagined threats over the internet, think how this guy must feel dealing with this type of potential risk on a fairly constant basis from face-to-face killers and their fans--although honestly, for the most part, the killers themselves are not terribly interested in experts, they have their own agenda when it comes to the type of victim they are looking for. But intimidation for them is often amusing.

Levin gives some background on serial killers, indicating that they are rare--less than 1% of murders constitute this type of killing in the US with about 200 victims per year spread among around 20 killers. Serial killers, as opposed to spree killers or mass murderers kill a number of people with a cooling off period in-between. He has had some real face-to-face time with many of these killers and their families and provides a good description of his interactions with them. There is an interesting chapter entitled, "Threatening to Kill" where Levin describes some of the threats he and others have received over the years. His experience leads him to this conclusion:

I realize now that some people make a career of threatening others. They usually do not follow through. Instead, they get tremendous satisfaction from causing pain and anxiety in the lives of the people they hate. Their threatening messages are in and of themselves a form of revenge.

I would rate the book as fair to pretty good, I didn't learn anything new here, but it was worth reading, although you will have to overlook the PC overtones--Levin seems to sympathize with gun control, yet mentions that serial killers only use a gun as a last resort, offers no indignation when mentioning that colleagues want to shoot people who are "biased" up with anti-psychotic drugs, and uses case examples that are politically correct for the most part without showing the other side. If you want more in-depth psychological analysis, I suggest Serial Killers by Joel Norris. Although it was written in 1988, Norris asks some great questions and has some terrific insight into what makes this type of killer tick.

Study Subjects Needed

I have been informed of a new study on domestic violence against men and am passing it along to readers:

The Men's Experiences with Partner Aggression Project is a research study at Clark University and is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Denise A.Hines, Ph.D., Clark University Department of Psychology, is the lead researcher on this project.

She is conducting this project in conjunction with Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D., Bridgewater State College Department of Social Work, the Survey Center at the University of Southern Maine, and the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women.

Our goal is to better understand the experiences of men who are in relationships with women who use violence. Extensive research has shown that men are at risk for sustaining partner violence in their relationships, yet few studies have investigated their experiences, and there are few resources available to such men. This is an under-recognized problem in the United States, and by conducting this research project, we hope to provide much needed information on these men, their relationships, and their needs.

If you are a man between the ages of 18 and 59 and you have been physically assaulted at least one time in the last 12 months by a current or former intimate female partner you may be eligible to participate in this study.

If you are interested in participating, please call the DAHMW at 1-888-743-5754 or email dahmwagency@gmail.com for information about the study and directions for participating. For more information about DAHMW visit their website:
http://www.dahmw.org/.

It's about time.

Vox Day has an in-depth interview up with Jonah Goldberg on his new book, Liberal Fascism. Take a look.

Deal-eager executives � tribal instincts

Why is it that top managers often seem to become so gung-ho on acquisitions? Take Ahold�s �fallen-from-grace� ex-CEO (now corporate convict) Cees van der Hoeven. Ahold actually started out with quite a careful approach to doing take-over deals, but over the years acquired itself completely out of control, like a Faliraki girl with a credit card in a Gucci store.

My guess is there are two causes of deal-eager executives. It is the type of person who becomes CEO and it is the type of person we make them. Let me discuss the first one with you.

An interesting line of research in social anthropology analysed what type of person is more likely to rise through the ranks to become the headman of a tribe. Often, this would be the most fierce, ambitious and aggressive warrior, who would be willing to take on all his opponents in the quest for leadership.

Yet, interestingly, although characteristics such as fierceness and ambition would be helpful in becoming tribe leader, these characteristics were not necessarily positive for the future of the settlement, since these type of leaders were prone to take the tribe to war. This would ultimately take its toll on the size, strength and survival chances of the tribe. Thus, the same characteristics that would make people more likely to become the headman, were likely to get the tribe in to trouble.

CEOs might not be all that different. Those people who are ambitious, risk-seeking and aggressive enough to be able to rise to the ultimate spot of CEO, just might be the same people who, once they�re there, take their firm on a conquest.

Acquisitions offer the thrill of the chase. You select a target, mobilise resources and lead the attack. Sometimes there are others eyeing your prey but skilful manoeuvring and a fierce battle will make you come out victorious again. And another victory means pictures in the newspapers, popping champagne, and a larger tribe to rule and command.

Giuliani on the War and Energy Independence

Roger Simon and Claudia Rosett at Pajamas Media have an interesting conversation with Rudy Giuliani on the war and energy independence. There is great video and a transcript for those of you who would rather read than watch. I hope that Giuliani has taken a look at Bob Zubrin's work or maybe he can listen to our podcast with Zubrin here to get some ideas on alternative energy.

The Carnival of the Insanities is up at Dr. Sanity's place. Be sure to check out this post on what men want to know. It's rather humorous and the comment section is a hoot.

Deadly Advice, Speed Dating and Murder

Yesterday afternoon, I got a chance to read a mystery, Deadly Advice, sent to me by author Roberta Isleib. Surprisingly, Isleib is a clinical psychologist and the main character of the book is Dr. Rebbecca Butterman, a psychologist who also writes an online advice column. It sounded rather familiar so I figured it was worth a read. It was.

The storyline starts out with Butterman's neighbor dying from what looks like a suicide intiitally but turns into a murder investigation. Dr. Butterman gets involved with trying to find the killer and finds out that her neighbor was involved in a seedy underworld of speed dating and erotic parties. Okay, I added the seedy part about the speed dating--some of you out there might have tried it and found it okay. The neighbor apparently was screwing at various parties and then putting the information along with pictures up on a website for the world to see.

Anyway, the descriptions of this uptight psychologist trying to delve into this underworld and her lack of confidence in herself are pretty interesting. Dr. Butterman spends much of the book second-guessing her looks and determining that she is some type of old maid at the age of 38. The online advice column she writes is not bad, but leaves her feeling rather unfullfilled since she gives silly flippant advice to women about the most intricate aspects of their lives. She seems for the most part, to be one of those types who think that "psychological complexity" is the mark of a higher status of being, when in reality, it is often a sign of a royal pain in the ass.

I won't ruin the plot line for you should you ever read the book, but it makes for a fun afternoon of reading if you like this genre.

Is Senator Obama a Rorschach Test?

Dick Meyers at CBS News has an interesting piece on voters' projections of the Democratic Candidates (Hat tip: Anchoress ). He says of Obama:

Sen. Obama is a Rorschach test. I see hope! I see brains! I see a whole new kind of politician! I see an amazing life story! I see an orator! I see a natural! I see a hero!

Well, real people aren't Rorschach tests. They aren't blank slates. And by January 2008, Senator Blank Slate, D-Ill., will be a messy chalkboard. He may well be a fabulous chalkboard with cool stuff all over it. But more likely, he'll be pretty much like an American politician, though perhaps one who is a great guy, with a big brain and a powerful voice.

When I listen to people talk about Obama, I hear nothing but vague ideals mentioned such as "change, new ideas, something different than the mainstream, fresh voices," yada yada yada. But one thing I don't hear a lot about are his views on policy. What is his stand on Israel? How is he going to fund Universal Health care for everyone without cutting back on the quality of care and/or sacrificing research & development? If he cuts out taxes for 7 million seniors, how does this square with his belief that "everyone should pay their fair share," or does this only apply to corporations? How do you negotiate with terrorists? I have a lot more questions that I hope will be answered prior to the election, because we need more in a President than a breath of fresh air.

Are Extroverts Better Liars?

I occasionally find something of interest in my trade magazine--Monitor on Psychology--that is worth sharing. In a section entitled "Science Watch," I found an informative article entitled, "Liar, liar, neurons fire" about how as we get older, we often learn to lie more convincingly. The article also points out that extroverts and the socially adroit are better liars:

Gombos found that lying places a high cognitive load on a person's executive functioning, especially working memory and decision-making. Just as Sam Rayburn implied, if you tell a lie, you have to keep careful track of what you say. But some people are naturally better at this than others. Gombos cites some earlier research by British psychologist Aldert Vrij that shows that "socially adroit" people make better liars.

"People who are natural actors are especially good at lying because of their abilities at social control and role-playing," Gombos says. "And extroverts lie more often�and better�than shy people."

Gombos thinks it may have something to do with people's ability to mentally detach themselves from the truth while telling the lie.

"If they believe the lie, it's easier to be convincing," Gombos says. "I think it really underscores just how complex lying can be."

What I find puzzling is that our society often rewards those who are extroverts who are good at manipulating people over those who are shy but honest. Think about it, a good looking man or woman who is an extrovert gets away with a lot more than the rest of us who are average looking and more reserved. It should be the reverse.

GM Roper has some thoughts on Universal Health Care.

Most acquisitions fail � really!

Here come the stats on M&A again � you may have seen them before, but since I am sure you (still) don�t believe them, here they are once more:

70-80% of acquisitions fail, in terms of creating stock market value. Three overview studies in the prestigious Strategic Management Journal showed that on average share prices of acquiring companies fall between .34% - 1% in the ten days following the announcement of an acquisition. And this is a result consistent over a period of 75 years of stock market data!

�But that�s only 10 days�, you might say, �these acquisitions might still create value in the long run, right?� Nope; wrong. Research in the Journal of Finance concluded that acquiring firms experience a wealth loss of 10% over the five years after the merger completion.

�Perhaps the stock market initially is too pessimistic?� Actually, quite the opposite: A study on a 131 big deals (over $500million) indicated that in 59% of the cases, market-adjusted return went down on announcement. Hence, the stock market was positive about 41% of the deals. Not an awful lot, but it could have been worse. Or could it�

After 12 months, 71% of all those deals had negative consequences! That is, of the 41% of cases where market value went up on announcement because the stock market was optimistic about their potential to create value, only 55% still had positive returns the year after! Thus, even the stock market initially had been way too optimistic. Even more deals ended up destroying value than they first had expected.

Yet, every time I show these statistics to a group of executives they frown and proclaim, �we know this, but it is not true for our company�. Often followed by, �we analysed all our deals and 2/3 of them was a success� (not sure why it is always 2/3, but it always is). Yeah right.

But what really is the �analysis� that most of them performed? They have asked people in the relevant BU�s whether they thought the deal was a success. Now, if these people already overtly say �no�, I am pretty sure the acquisition was a disaster.

Of all the deals conducted, this leaves 2/3 of �non-disasters�, which is not the same as a success. Perhaps another 1/3 did not cause major problems as the integration went alright, but that does not mean that the (usually very expensive) deal actually created value � at least beyond the take-over premium that was paid. You might have been better off not having done it at all, despite having avoided a disaster.

So, believe me, 2/3 of acquisitions fail � yes, really.

Interview: Bob Zubrin on Alternative Fuel

Today, we interview aerospace engineer and author, Bob Zubrin, about his new book, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil. Zubrin has a surprisingly simple plan for reducing the power of OPEC and keeping dollars out of the hands of terrorists and their supporters, all while reducing greenhouse emissions. He discusses whether or not Congress will pass flexfuel legislation, why dependence on foreign oil puts America at risk, and why he is a critic of hydrogen fuel. You can read more about his work at EnergyVictory.net.

You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure at by clicking right here. You can get a lo-fi version suitable for cellphones, Treos, and dialup connections by going here and clicking "lo fi." And, of course, you can always get a free subscription via iTunes. Free! Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com. Zubrin's website is at EnergyVictory.net

This podcast brought to you by Volvo Automobiles. Music is "Indistinguishable from Magic" by Mobius Dick.

The Improper Use of a Weapon

A law student and beauty queen has been indicted for torturing her boyfriend --sorry registration seems to be required (Hat tip: Fred Ray):

A University of Arizona law school student and beauty queen has been indicted on charges that say she and three others held her former boyfriend captive for 10 hours while torturing and robbing him.

Kumari Fulbright, a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins, was indicted Dec. 18 on five felony charges � armed robbery, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Check out the comments to the post--some people, in the examples below, are asking what the boyfriend did to deserve being bitten, threatened, and held at gunpoint:

I wonder what he did to her that made her do this? I would like to hear her story. Was this drug related? Obviously this is big from a law student to the dark side. Something pushed her over the edge.

What did her former boyfriend do to her that she felt she could torture him? Where are her other former boyfriends?

Other commenters are more concerned with her looks or her sexiness than with her criminal acts:

Beauty queen? Did she have a gun on the judges?

Don't know if this makes me a bad person or not, but that story kind of turned me on a bit.

With this attitude, it's no wonder women's acts of violence are held to a double standard and not taken as seriously as men's. Women are sexy and cute if they commit violent acts or they are forced to act violently because of the actions of a man. They are not autonomous beings who are responsible for their own behavior. How sexist is that?

Happy New Year! Hope 2008 is a great year for everyone here.