Reality Show Campaign Update

Glenn Sacks has an update on the "Bad Dad" protest campaign: "Last night we launched a protest campaign against Fox's new reality show Bad Dads. By 9 AM this morning, Fox had received over 3,000 letters, faxes and calls. I thank all of you for your participation, and I urge you to call Fox executives...."

If you were one of the 3000 like I was to send a letter or make a phone call, thanks!

Cholesterol Hell

Have you ever been bitterly disappointed in a product and wondered what the heck you were thinking when you tried it? I feel that way today. I went for my biannual ICD check-up and found out I was doing fine except for one thing--somewhat high cholesterol. My cholesterol has always been a bit high--even when I had it checked in my twenties. The funny thing is, I don't have coronary artery disease despite having had a heart attack. However, cardiologists still want cholesterol low no matter what after this type of event. I can't take statins and tried many of them including Zetia, which gave me muscle pain like all the rest.

So, anyway, for the past three months, I ordered these Caramel Benecol Smart Chews--I know, it sounds like some kind of dog treat that Rachel Lucas would give to her obese dog Sunny, but these are of the human variety and are supposed to lower cholesterol, specifically LDL. Here is the pitch from Amazon:

Start to lower your cholesterol in as little as 2 weeks with Benecol Smart Chews
Contains plant stanol esters, which are proven to reduce your LDL, or "bad" cholesterol
May be used by those taking statin medications for additional cholesterol lowering
Enjoy 2-4 delicious caramel chews twice a day with meals
More than 25 clinical studies validate the safety of plant stanol esters


I followed the directions carefully and figured if two of these things was good, four would be better. At first they tasted a little odd, but I soon got used to the taste and after a while, they tasted delicious, just as advertised. I was popping one with meals throughout the day, all the while patting myself on the back for lowering my cholesterol. Except that it didn't.

Today, when I went to the doctor's office and got my cholesterol test back, it was 11 points higher overall than it was four months before. My LDL was up 30 points. My triglycerides, a type of fat found in your blood, were up over 20 points. "Bummer," I thought. I was shelling out about 28 bucks a month for these darn chewy things and all they did was increase my cholesterol. At least I didn't gain any weight--that would have really bummed me out.

If anyone has a product other than statins--or these chewy caramels-- that they have used successfully to reduce their cholesterol, let me know. I would love to find something that works.

Update: Thanks so much to everyone so far who has commented, emailed and even posted on this important topic. All of your helpful suggestions have given me a lot to think about!

Protest Fox's New Reality Show "Bad Dads"

Men's activist Glenn Sacks has put together a press release and information on how to protest Fox's New reality show, "Bad Dads." He has some good information on why the show is harmful to men and their children. Please go by and support this campaign.

Try Being Instapundit

I have to laugh when I read posts like this over at Ann Althouse's blog where she links to a blogger (don't know him or her) who says it's easy to be Instapundit. Like myself, Ann disagrees with this analysis, emphasizing that this blogging style is harder than it looks and that brevity is not always easy.

The blogger gives a few tips on how to blog in Glenn's style--citing laziness, lack of intellectualism, and easy brief links as the key to Instapundit's success. I have read over the years bloggers who talk about my husband's blogging style (usually those who disagree with him) and make fun of it. To those bloggers who feel this way, I have a challenge for you. Try being Instapundit for a while and see if you can achieve the following:

1) Keep up the sheer volume of posting daily to the tune of over 25 posts a day, perhaps more--basically blogging several times an hour. The New York Times suggests that some bloggers have heart attacks and feel stressed doing a lot less blogging than this (not that I believe this).

2) Keep up a daily average of 250,000 page views or more to your site all by yourself. That is, no daily diarists, no co-bloggers, nobody, just you. The one exception is a few times a year, you can get a few terrific guest bloggers like Professor Althouse and others to fill in for a week or so.

3) Keep up this level of interest without comments which increase page views because people keep checking back to see what others have said back to them and finally;

4) Keep this up year after year without complaining, getting upset or bothered, yelling at people, and simultaneously staying happy and doing a million other things that make the world a better place.

If you can do this, then I will eat my words and proclaim you blogger of the century. Otherwise, your criticisms are just hollow words.

Update: Katie Allison Granju agrees--it's not easy being Glenn.

Let's Hear it for Economics Professors!

Can professors turn bleeding hearts into capitalists and vice versa? It appears that they can according to an interesting article that I read in Forbes today entitled, "We Are What We Learn." Take a look and read the comments as well.

Weird Date

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has more on conservative and libertarian women and dating. I thought Megan McArdle's response to the question, "What is the weirdest date you have gone on or been asked to go on?" was pretty funny:

The weirdest date I ever went on was when I was in college. I was taken, I swear to God I am not making this up, by a guy from my Spanish class to go to the dump and shoot rats with his friends....


Hmmm, I can't top that from my previous dating days, can you? If so, share it with us in the comment section.

Say you will � that�ll do

How to reward CEOs and other top executives is an ongoing area of discussion and research. Often it is claimed, of course, that executive compensation should be closely tied to the performance of the firm (but that stock options � an often-used way of rewarding executives � are quite imperfect, for instance because they can be exercised over an extended time regardless of performance).

Yet, it is not easy to measure �the performance of the firm�. Performance in terms of what? And performance over what period? Therefore, a decade or two ago, the use of so-called �long term incentive plans� came about; simply put, top executives receive rewards (in the form of stock or cash) on specific dates dependent on whether specific performance goals are met. Such incentive plans are thought to much more precisely link rewards to managerial performance, encouraging executives to direct their attention to long-term profitability rather than short-term gains.

The stock market (that is, investors and analysts) loves them. Ample studies in financial economics show that when firms announce the adoption of long-term incentive plans (for example through press releases or proxy statements), their stock price immediately shoots up. Managers may not always like them � getting rewarded (or not) based on very specific targets at very specific points in time sort of spoils the fun a bit � but it was also hard to resist them; not adopting one of those thingies made you look �illegitimate�. Hence, the top managers of many firms decided to adopt them after all.

Professors James Westphal and Ed Zajac decided to study the stock market effects of these long-term incentives plans once again, but they did something more. First, as expected, examining 408 large US companies, they too found that adopting firms� share prices went up immediately when they announced that they were going to install such an incentive plan.

Yet, then Jim and Ed also examined whether it mattered how you worded the announcement statement. Specifically, they measured whether the firm's justification for adopting the incentive plan explained that it did so to tie CEO compensation more closely to shareholder wealth (that is, �all the right reasons� for investors; for instance Alcoa did this), instead of a more general description, for instance some sort of HR description (�this plan enhances our ability to attract talent�; AT&T) or no explanation at all. And they found that upon announcement, the stock price of the firms �who used all the right words� went up with 2.4%, while the stock price of the other firms announcing the same plan (but using some other type of explanation) only increased with half of that (1.2%). That is, double benefits from the same thing, by only choosing your words a bit more carefully! That�s easy money.

Then though, it got really interesting. Next, Jim and Ed examined what happened to the stock price of the firms that announced that they were going to adopt a long-term incentive plan but, subsequently, did not actually do it� (a whopping 52% of firms did this!).

This is what they found: First, they found that the stock price of those firms went up on announcement of the plan just like it did for the others (and why not, the stock market could not yet know they were not actually going to implement it!). Then Jim and Ed measured what happened to the stock prices the week following the announcement (when they still had not actually adopted the scheme): nothing; stock price was still up. Then they measured what had happened after a month; stock price still up� Then they measured the outcome after a full year; stock price still up�!

Stock prices went up after announcing the incentive plan. Stock prices did not go down even when the firm subsequently did not actually implement the scheme! Speaking about easy money!!

Is the stock market stupid, or what?! Well� perhaps the answer partly is �yes�� but it is probably also a bit more subtle than that. Apparently you and I, investors and analysts, care about firms using the right language but we care much less about what they actually do. Hence, we reward their symbolic behaviour, rather than their real actions. We may not even be fully aware of it but that�s what we value: unlike Caesar's wife Pompeia (who, according to Caesar, not only had to be virtuous but also appear virtuous), we want a firm to appear virtuous; yet we don't care whether she really is!

America's Worst Mom?

I saw this article from Newsweek advertised at MSN with the provocative caption, "Is this America's Worst Mom? Her crime? She let her son ride the subway alone:

Would you let your fourth-grader ride public transportation without an adult? Probably not. Still, when Lenore Skenazy, a columnist for the New York Sun, wrote about letting her son take the subway alone to get back to her Manhattan home from a department store on the Upper East Side, she didn't expect to get hit with a tsunami of criticism from readers.

"Long story short: My son got home, ecstatic with independence," Skenazy wrote on April 4 in the New York Sun. "Long story longer: Half the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids. It's not. It's debilitating�for us and for them."

Online message boards were soon swarming with people both applauding and condemning Skenazy's decision to let her son go it alone. She wound up defending herself on the cable news networks (accompanied by her son) and on popular blogs like the Huffington Post, where her follow-up piece was ironically headlined "More From America's Worst Mom."


So, is this mom really America's worst? In my opinion, that honor should be reserved for the likes of Andrea Yates. This mom sounds like she knows her son and what he is capable of. When I was in graduate school in New York in the 80's, it was a far more dangerous place. I saw kids ride the subway all the time. No one seemed to care. Now that it's safer, no one thinks kids should come out of their homes.

Sticking the title "America's Worst Mom" on this particular mother, Lenore Skenazy, is rather ridiculous and alarmist given the things really bad mothers actually do to their children. The term should be reserved for people who deserve it.

Pharma � the devil is in the detailing

What do you think pharmaceutical companies spend most of their money on? R&D: the search for new drugs? Think again.

True, pharma companies spend a great deal on R&D; studies show it comprises about 14% of their revenues. Yet, they spend about 1/3 of their revenues on Marketing. That�s right, on average, pharmaceutical companies spend two to three times as much on the Marketing of a drug as on its development. (Hence, next time you hear a pharma executive claim they need to charge such a high price for drugs because of the high costs of R&D, do frown at him fiercely!)

By far the largest chunk of these marketing expenses are taken up by the practice of �detailing�; that is, a vast army of company representatives visit physicians to shower them with information, free samples, and persuasive arguments (and a �healthy dose� of free gifts and travel), claiming that the company�s drug is wonderful and really does what it says on the tin. The raison d�etre of this practice is that physicians � human as they (often) are � only remember and hence only prescribe a limited number of drugs; much fewer than are in existence. Therefore it is important for a pharma company to make sure that physicians know their drugs; they�ll hammer them into their brains (with brute force if necessary!).

Moreover, over the last decade or so, the army of representatives has been expanding with particular vigour. For example, in the US alone, between 1996 and 2000, the herd of quacks with their suitcases full of pills and ointments rose from an already impressive 41,800 to a fearsome 83,000 pharma-suits.

Yet, is this practice of �detailing� really effective? Mwa�(at best).

Research has shown, for example, that on average it takes 3 visits to induce one new prescription. It also takes an average of 26 additional free samples to generate one additional prescription. Hardly impressive I�d say.

Then why do most pharmaceutical companies continue to rely on detailing? Well, there are also studies � mostly internal research by the pharma companies themselves � that do not provide unambiguous evidence that detailing does not work. Hence, they�re just not 100% sure that it is an outdated practice. They fear there is a risk that if they stop using the practice they will lose money. And that�s a risk they�re not willing to take.

�But�, you might add �they�re currently also at risk of losing money because they are continuing the practice�. And of course you�d be right. However, we know from research � for example on variations of �prospect theory�, by Nobel Prize winners Kahneman and Tversky � that people are often a lot more comfortable with the risk of losing money when everybody else is making the same mistake than with the risk of losing money when they�d be the odd one out (even if the latter amount is considerably less than the former).

For example, if a company were to stop detailing but it turned out they were wrong and they�d lose market share and money as a result of it, we (the public) would say �you�re stupid (nobody else did it)�. Currently, firms might be losing (a lot more) money because they continue detailing but now none of us say they�re stupid; because everybody is still doing it and we�re just not sure that the practice is not effective. Hence, the risk of breaking the mould is perceived to be much higher than an undue acceptance of the status quo.

It is a situation very similar to that of the newspaper companies who were reluctant to switch to a tabloid-size format 5-10 years ago: they were just not sure that small size newspapers would catch on. Hence, while everybody was printing broadsheet, nobody dared take the plunge and make the paper smaller.

It takes someone to break the mould and show the way. Usually, that is an outside entrant or a firm in financial distress (who just had to take a risk) � just like the Independent was in financial distress when they were the first to launch a small-size newspaper. Since those scenarios (outside entrants; financial distress) are rather unlikely in the world of pharma with its large entry barriers and deep pockets, detailing may just be with us for quite a bit longer.


Being a Celebrity Cuts Both Ways

Sometimes, being a celebrity is not all it's cracked up to be:

Wesley Snipes is prison-bound.

The Blade star, 45, was sentenced Thursday to three years behind bars as his punishment for failing to file his tax returns, U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges announced in an Ocala, Fla., courtroom....

The prosecution, seeking to make an example of Snipes, had requested the maximum: three years in prison and a fine of at least $5 million.

"The fact that Snipes was acquitted on two felony charges and convicted 'only' on three misdemeanor counts has been portrayed in the mainstream media as a 'victory' for Snipes," the government said in its sentencing recommendation. "The troubling implication of such coverage for the millions of average citizens who are aware of this case is that the rich and famous Wesley Snipes has 'gotten away with it.' In the end the criminal conduct of Snipes must not be seen in such a light."


There are many average citizens out there who cheat on their taxes, but they are out of the public eye and are not being used as an example for others. Sometimes, being one of the rich and famous results in more penalties, not fewer, when one gets in trouble with the authorities.

New Reality Show on "Bad Dads"

A number of readers have emailed me about a destructive new reality show being considered for Fox on "deadbeat dads" (thanks very much). Here is a synopsis of the show:

After embracing the dark side of reality television with its marriage-busting hit "The Moment of Truth," Fox's newest project taps the power of its unscripted division for the forces of good.

The network has ordered a pilot from 3Ball Prods. in which an avenger of penniless single mothers hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support.

Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, functions as a sort of "Dog the Bounty Hunter" for tracking deadbeats. In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It's ambush reality TV -- but for a noble cause.


Most disturbing about this shake down show is the abuse they are heaping on men in the name of "justice":



"(Durham) calls them on the phone and gives them the chance to do the right thing," said executive producer JD Roth ("The Biggest Loser," "Beauty and the Geek"). "Of course, those calls are never met with anything but yelling. Then he goes into their life, finds out what kind of assets they have and makes their lives miserable -- foreclose on their house, repossess their car. He will squeeze them until the women get paid..."

Durham's National Child Support Center is one of several collection agencies that serve as a last resort for neglected single mothers. Some critics say such companies do more harm than good. Child support collectors have been accused of charging steep fees and using ultra-aggressive tactics. Durham bills his clients 34% of whatever he collects.

Roth counters that Durham's clients typically feel so abandoned by the court system that they're relieved to get any money at all. Plus, he said Durham is the only collector who extracts interest owed on the outstanding debt, so his clients often receive more money than if the absent dads had simply paid their bills.

As for the aggressive tactics, child support is not considered a debt per se, but an order of the court. Collectors are therefore not subject to following the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates what tactics a collection agency can employ to collect a debt.

"I'm hoping that eventually this show changes how courts see deadbeat dads and how moms have to deal with it," Roth said.

If greenlighted to series, "Bad Dads" will provide Fox a fresh take on the law enforcement reality show, a genre the network pioneered with such Saturday night staples as "Cops" and "America's Most Wanted."

"I've seen 'Cops,' and I want to watch more than a crack addict with his pants around his ankles running away from a police car," Roth said. "These guys owe money, and they should pay."


From what I can gather, this show is just a pilot right now but could blossom into a series. There must be some way to keep this from happening. This show sounds sick, inhumane and frankly, the way that some men are often treated in family court seems unconstitutional in my book. Where is a show to emphasize that unfairness? Instead, we are going to be treated to men being humiliated, harassed, and having their houses foreclosed on. How is that helpful?

If Fox wants to know more about the plight of "deadbeat dads," they would do well to read Stephen Baskerville's Taken into Custody. In a chapter entitled "Deadbeat Dads or Plundered Pops," Baskerville explains that the objective data shows that there is little scientific evidence that large numbers of fathers are not paying support. The government bases most of these claims not on hard figures but rather, the Census Bureau simply asked mothers what they were receiving. The non-custodial parent was never surveyed. In addition, the astronomical figures owed are inflated as they are based on hypothetical formulas of what would be owed under circumstances that do not exist. This makes it seem like dads are worse than they are.

And what about deadbeat moms? Is anyone going after them?

Update: Protest the show here.

Is Our Self Perception always Accurate?

The other day while at Borders, I cracked and bought this book, StrengthsFinder 2.0: A New and Upgraded Edition of the Online Test from Gallup's Now, Discover Your Strengths. I generally shop at Amazon but I had read about this book and online test to determine one's strengths and thought I would try it out--for academic reasons, of course. If I don't know my strengths by now, something is probably wrong--but I like tests like this and thought it might be fun.

The book is a small hardback that has a sealed envelope inside with a code--good only for one test (great marketing ploy) at strengthsfinder.com. The test, it states, is about 35 minutes and then you use the book as a guide to understanding your various career and other strengths. It's an easy test asking the user to agree or disagree with a series of statements.

Shockingly, I came out as a "Relator" --defined as someone who enjoys being with people, mainly close friends, and talking about ideas. Funny, I have always considered myself more as a loner, so I was sort of surprised to see this. This got me thinking about how many of us view ourselves in a way that may not be accurate. The angry loner thing for me was something I carried with me since I was a child. It was easy to tell myself that being an angry loner was the reason people didn't like me and that there was no reason to try. Yet, over the years, I have found that my perception of myself as an angry loner is not really accurate, I actually like being around people to some degree--if they are people who like ideas and facts. I still don't like the idea of caring if people like me or not, but I do care if the people I like or care about, want to be around me.

What about you, readers, have you ever had a perception of yourself as X, but found out with time and experience that you were not really that way at all?
Dr. Joy Bliss at Maggie's Farm has thoughts on "nudging."

Podcast with Cass Sunstein

sunsteincov.jpg
Should the government "nudge" people towards "better behavior?" Cass Sunstein, law professor at the University of Chicago says "yes" and talks with us about his new book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Professor Sunstein talks about libertarian paternalism which attempts to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. I don't like the term libertarian paternalism, as it sounds too technocratic. I think that this unfortunate choice of words will drive some people away from reading Sunstein's work. And that would be too bad.

Because the book is actually quite interesting and gives a great deal of background in economics, history and the psychology of human behavior as it relates to decision-making. He discusses how and why people make biased or faulty decisions or no decision at all and what government can do to facilitate people to better health, wealth, and happiness. He talks about nudging in terms of privatization of social security, marriage privatization and saving.

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 by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version, suitable for dialup, etc., by going here and selecting "lo-fi." You can also get a free subscription via iTunes -- never miss another episode!

Music is "Time's Right" by 46 Long. Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.

Means & ends; profits & innovation

Don�t ask why, but I have long been interested in what makes certain companies better at innovation than others. Research shows that it is actually not that easy to remain innovative. Once a firm becomes profitable, over time, it is as if the organisation loses the urge to be really innovative and creative, and come up with truly new products and services.

Therefore, one of the things I always ask the executives of a company whose innovation process I am examining is �why do you want to be innovative?� Invariably, the answer is that they realise they need to innovate in order to remain profitable in the long run.

And this is a good point. You may be profitable now, but if you wait to invest in innovation till you see your performance dropping � trying to innovate yourself out of the looming trouble � it may be too late. True innovation has a long lead time; only starting to think about new stuff once your old stuff is beginning to show signs of decay often means you have left it too late. Moreover, by then, you may be out of touch; once you really stop innovating it will be very difficult to get back into it.

All this is of course not rocket-science. Yet, over the past year or so, I have been examining a rather different but also consistently very innovative organisation � as a matter of fact, one of the most innovative organisations of its kind it the world: the famous Sadler's Wells theatre in London.

Sadler�s Wells is a large theatre (their main auditorium takes about 1900 people) which is focused on modern dance. And they host and (co)produce some of the most innovative productions in the world. Moreover, they manage to consistently attract large audiences and are � which is quite rare for such a theatre � financially self-sufficient, very healthy and sound.


When I was talking to their managing director (Chrissy Sharp) and chief executive (Alistair Spalding) � about their many productions, how they organise them, the relations between the theatre and the artists, etc. � at some point I also asked them my usual question: �why do you want to be innovative?� They both stared at me in silent disbelief�

While I was pondering whether they might be wondering whether I was serious (or mad), thinking it was just an incredulously stupid question, or considering to stop the interview immediately, Chrissy finally stammered �but� because we have to� it is what we do�.

Then it dawned on me, they had never even considered the question before.

And gradually, speaking to many more people in the organisation, I figured out that there is a subtle yet fundamental difference between Sadler�s Wells�s commitment to innovation and that of many of the businesses I�ve seen. Companies invariably see innovation as a means to an end; you have to innovate in order to remain profitable. Sadler�s Wells theatre views it the other way around; you have to make a healthy profit in order to be able to continue to innovate.

For them, profit is the means and innovation the end. Companies often struggle to remain truly innovative when they are making huge profits; the urge and feeling of necessity just inevitably slips away. Not for Sadler�s Wells; they continue to innovate, and innovate a bit more the more profit they make. It is not the big, tried-and-tested projects that they have been running for years that excite them, but the new, risky, creative productions that no-one in the world has seen before that get their hearts racing. They respect their established projects but invariably use the profit they make through those to invent new stuff.

And I wonder whether not more companies should adopt this stance: where the organisation�s ultimate commitment is to innovation. It is good to make a profit, and ever better to make a lot of profit. But innovation is what keeps you healthy in the long run, and what generally tends to excite your people; employees and customers alike.

"Maintaining some semblance of parity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics"

Apparently, nasty tactics are the only way the writer of this MSNBC article entitled, "Chores for two: Why men don't pitch in" thinks women can hold their marriages together (Hat tip: Jeff):

Yes, dear readers, it�s true: Maintaining some semblance of parity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics you swore you would never stoop to as a parent but nonetheless found yourself using the minute you actually had a kid. Bribery and punishment work; so do yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as everyone knows you mean business. With husbands, tender blandishments and nooky are particularly useful, as is the withholding of the aforementioned.


That this chauvinistic writer is angry that her husband will not scrub the toilet bowl at her command, yet she thinks of herself as oppressed is laughable:

The fact that guys, when left to their own devices, rarely rush to offer more toilet-scrubbing and diaper-changing is not in itself surprising. As Martin Luther King Jr. once observed, �We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.�

So why aren't women demanding something closer to parity? While many are resigned to seething in silence, the stakes are far higher than they seem to realize. When wives permit their husbands to shirk a fair share of the homemaking and parenting, not only do they themselves suffer, but chances are good that they�re also sentencing their children to a similar fate. When you have kids, everything you do teaches them how to live their own lives when they grow up. Unfortunately, all too many women are still teaching their children that �woman is the nigger of the world,� as John Lennon and Yoko Ono put it so memorably in a song lyric years ago. And what too many fathers teach their sons and daughters is that men can get away with dumping the scut work on their wives, and that women will grit their teeth and put up with it.


No, ma'am, you are teaching your children that mommy is a nagging bitch and that you hold men in such contempt that you view them as children to do your bidding. You are teaching them that psychological warfare is the only way to get what you want. You overlook your husband's strong points and what he brings to your family and see yourself, as you mention, as a heroine. Your narcissism is deafening and while you may think you are "striking a blow" for all womankind here, you are doing nothing more than teaching your children that manipulation and threats are the way to engage in a "loving" relationship.

I have some advice for your long suffering husband, Jeremy. Next time you need something fixed around the house, your wife needs help lifting something, or you need a blowjob, resort to yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as she knows you mean business. Huff and puff and complain to all of your friends about her inadequacies and let the world know what a loser she is. Then crow about your newfound equality. Finally, call yourself a hero and write a lousy piece for Men's Health or some other men's magazine about your loser of a wife and see how your married life takes off after that. For deep down, even if Jeremy won't admit it, my guess is, just like the women mentioned in the article, he is seething inside. It's no wonder he won't scrub toilets for this woman.

Update: Rachel Lucas notes that articles like this one are driving more and more young men away from marriage:

Another thing I�ll be sure never to do, from now on as I fully manifest my inner bitch-martyr, is to ever stop for one fucking MINUTE to think about how I am singlehandedly causing every young man who reads my articles to run screaming in terror the minute a girl utters the word �marriage� to him. I will not worry that my words do nothing but a disservice to other women, confirming ugly stereotypes and mens� worst fears about taking on a wife. It�s not MY problem if men are too weak and immature to sign up for a life closely resembling a forced death march.

Girl Violence: YouTube Fad?

Another display of girl-on-girl violence has surfaced on YouTube (thanks to the reader who emailed the story):

Administrators of the Raymondville school system said they will review the district's cell phone policy after a report of an assault on a middle school student that was recorded with a cell phone and then displayed on YouTube.

It was at least the second time this year students from the school district uploaded violent videos to YouTube, said school board president John Solis. Early this year, a Raymondville High School student used a video to solicit someone to beat another student.

The father of a 13-year-old girl whose recent video-recorded beating was uploaded to the video-sharing Web site said he may press assault charges against the other students he blames for injuring his daughter.

Regino Garcia said Friday he is dissatisfied with the response of school administrators who he believes did not adequately punish those involved in the beating.

Garcia said one Myra Green Middle School student beat his daughter Sara on March 11 while another girl used a cell phone to record the incident, which left Sara with a slight concussion.

A third girl urged the girl striking Sara to "hit her face" during the attack, he said.


So these girls beat up another girl in a middle school hallway and here is the typical response from an administrator:

Solis, the school board president, said officials will have a workshop to discuss policy on student cell phone use.

"We're going to see if we need a stricter cell phone policy or not allow them anymore," he said. "That's what they're doing -videotaping on cell phones.

"It's a new wave. It's happening in other school districts here in the (Rio Grande) Valley. Our school district is not immune."


How many kids are being beaten up in the hallway that never reach YouTube? Wouldn't a better idea be to have a workshop on how to keep an eye out for bullying kids in the hallway? Or perhaps have the groups of girls who are bullies go to a group to learn anger management and be taught to understand why they are hitting other girls in the face? (Hint, girls love to disfigure other girls out of jealousy for being good looking--address that and you might get somewhere).

I have worked with a number of schools in the course of my career and I can tell you one thing I learned. They often punish victims and allow bullies to flourish and insist they have few problems. While I can understand wanting to review cellphone policy, blaming YouTube and cellphones for allowing violence to go unchecked in your school is externalizing the problem so you can stick your head in the sand. It is no solution to violence.

If you would like to read more about school related violence and the differences in girl and boy motivations for anger etc. take a look at my article (with Sandra Thomas) here entitled "School Connectedness, Anger Behaviors, and Relationships of Violent and Nonviolent American Youth" or if you want a good book on the topic, try Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls.

Are Gun Owners Really Trigger Happy?

An article in the WSJ states that gun owners are happier and less outraged in general than non gunowners (Hat tip: Instapundit):

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.


I think the point about gun owners being less outraged than non gun owners is an important one. If you listen to many people who are adamant gun control supporters, they often (mistakenly) believe that people simply shoot others because they are impulsive and angry, and a gun is nearby. My guess is that this is projection. This is what they feel they would do because they do not know how to modulate their own anger. They do not trust their own instincts (maybe with good reason!) and project their anger and inability to control themselves onto others. Most legal gun owners seem to have better anger management and control than the rest of the population. In fact, studies with kids who own legal firearms show them to have fewer behavioral problems, not more. The psychology of gun owners vs. non gun owners is important to understand in the ongoing debate about guns.

Visual Sexual Aggression -- Not So Much

A while back I linked to a scary news story about a Maine bill that would punish people for staring at kids or teens. But it turns out that the story isn't true.

At least, that's what Travis Kennedy, Communications Director for Maine Rep. Dawn Hill just told me on the phone. Despite what the news story reported, Kennedy says that the bill never punished mere staring or leering -- the defendant has to be touching or exposing himself, or doing something like looking over a bathroom stall wall. And he said that the burden of proof remains on the state for all elements -- there's no crime just because someone is staring or looking at you.

He says that the bill in question just made a minor change in the pre-existing law to make clear that this could be in a private or a public place. He also said that Rep. Hill has been getting a lot of complaints over this, and is upset that the story is false. So there you are -- things aren't quite as insane out there as we'd feared.

Not all trouble is trouble

True story: Some time ago I was talking to a CEO regarding an acquisition his company had just done. The topic of �integration trouble� came up, and he said, �I�ve figured out how to avoid all such trouble; I just always quickly and completely assimilate the whole thing�. And indeed, after acquiring the company he immediately merged it with the rest of the firm, spreading out all the new people across different departments and offices.

Around the same time, I was talking to an executive (in charge of M&A) at another company, regarding �integration trouble�. He said, �I�ve figured out how to avoid all such trouble; you simply have to leave them alone, and not meddle in�. And that was what he did with his acquisitions; he bought them but subsequently left them completely autonomous in all aspects of the business.

But who is right, and who is wrong? Hey, I am feeling in a positive mood: I am sure they�re both right. Well� and both wrong�

Both strategies, indeed, usually manage to avoid severe integration tensions. Yet, they also prevent value creation. In order to create extra value, beyond the original two companies� worth, some form of integration will have to take place; otherwise you�re just owning the two companies like any shareholder owns stock (you just bought it at a high price). Similarly, completely assimilating both units will destroy any potential for value creation, since you�re eliminating all differences between the companies, and just increasing the scale of an organization will seldom result in extra value. The differences are the source of potential value.

When Novartis, for example, was created out of the merger of Ciby-Geigy and Sandoz, subsequent CEO Daniel Vasella explicitly set up an integration program to create a new organization, which in many respects was entirely different from anything either of the companies had before. This approach doubled the company�s value in about a year. Similarly, Igor Landau, former Chairman of the merged pharmaceutical firm Aventis, said, �The strategy was to create a new company and not be the sum of the two previous companies. We decided either we create something new or we would pay the price down the line�.

Acquisitions can be useful, but often only if they are utilised to create something new, that the companies could not have done by themselves. Thus, it is tempting to avoid (integration) trouble, by either quickly and entirely assimilating an acquired unit or leaving it completely autonomous. But sometimes you have to bite the bullet; integration troubles can also be the symptoms of a much more healthy process, of organisational revitalisation and the creation of new value.
A guilty verdict is reached in the first of the trials for the Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom murders (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin).

Feminist blogs unfairly labeled "Feminist blogs"

Rachel Lucas has a post on delusional feminists in which she is puzzled by an article in Glamor magazine stating that female political bloggers don't get enough attention (yeah, right--I say some get too much, given some of the hatred and nuttiness some of these misandrists spew, but that's another story):

Here�s my favorite part, though. The Glamor article quotes a guy named Ezra Klein and his opinion that �while male political bloggers are known as �political� bloggers, women are more often known as �feminist� bloggers.� Klein then mentions two female bloggers by name (Jill Filipovic and Ann Friedman) as examples of women who are unfairly labeled �feminist� bloggers.

I clicked on the hyperlinks of both those names to decide for myself if they were �political� and not �feminist� bloggers, and in so doing, I discovered the names of their actual blogs. And I shit you not, these two blogs, which it is apparently so very wrong to label �feminist,� are called:

Feministing.com

and

Feministe.us


My guess is that some "feminist" blogs such as the above get the attention they do because they are feminist blogs, not in spite of it. As Rachel points out, they don't even mention real political blogs such as Michelle Malkin (nor do they mention Ann Althouse) both political bloggers who happen to be women. I wonder why.

New Website for Dads

Blogger Tony Chen has started a new website, savvydaddy.com, for dads out there who are looking for some good information and articles on parenting. The site has a "survival guide" and "conversations" on such topics as how to talk with your daughter about her period, how to decide on the whole spanking thing, and how old is too old to let your kids see you naked.

Chen says he started the website after gathering some research on what men wanted in a dad's site. Dads basically said that they wanted some practical advice that was not dumbed down, they wanted to develop strong character in their kids, and they cared about their children's attitude and perspective but they are worried that the culture works against all that.

Indeed, it does. Take a look at the site if you are interested in such topics.

Michael Yon: Moment of Truth in Iraq

yoncov.jpgBlogger Michael Yon has spent the past few years in the Middle East providing independent journalism on the war. I have to admire Yon's fortitude--how many journalists are willing to spend months and more of their lives living in Iraq and Afghanistan to report the news? He has now written a new book, Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope, in which he shares his insights from his time in Iraq. Yon talks with us today about his new book, the war, and what he thinks the presidential candidates need to know.

You can listen directly -- no downloads needed by going right here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version suitable for dialup, etc., by going here and selecting "lo fi." As always, you can get a free subscription via iTunes, and never miss another episode.

Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com, and music is by Mobius Dick.

Should "visual sexual aggression" be against the law?

Apparently, there are some politicians and police officers in Maine who think the answer is "yes" (thanks to Peregrine John for pointing this potential law out):

Those who peer at children in public could find themselves on the wrong side of the law in Maine soon.

A bill that passed the House last month aims to strengthen the crime of visual sexual aggression against children, according to state Rep. Dawn Hill, D-York.

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.

"There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with," Alexander said.

He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places....

Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.

Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a "loophole" in the state's criminal law statutes.


I have a lot of questions about such a law. What does peering actually mean? Does staring at a teen who looks 25 when one is at the beach count? Does staring at some kids like I did a few years ago because they looked like they were trying to get into some trouble count or am I excluded from the law because I am a woman? A Class C Felony is a serious charge, will people (mainly men, I assume) be put in jail for the simple act of staring? How do you know the person had the intent of "visual sexual aggression"? How does one determine if staring or peering is aggressive or not? One person's aggression is another's peaceful gaze. This law seems very vague and unfair. Does anyone in Maine care?

Update: I have contacted and left messages and email for Representative Dawn Hill, who is sponsoring this bill, asking for clarification. As soon as (and if) she responds, I will post an update. I have also emailed the reporter of the article that I linked to above to see why there is a discrepancy between what this bill says and the story presented.

Update II: There appears to be an amendment to the bill here (thanks to commenters, and to readers for emailing it) and Dave Choate, the reporter of the article quoted above emails the following to me:

Helen,

As indicated to me, the person could be arrested if they were found to be peering at a child in a public place; i.e., beach bathrooms. In my interviews for this story, no one indicated to me that you would need to expose yourself. I believe the aim of the change was to make it a crime to peer in public.

Thank you,

Dave


Finally: Looks like the news story isn't true, based on my conversation with Travis Kennedy of the Maine Legislature.

Why good companies go bad: The Icarus paradox

Icarus was a figure in Greek mythology. Together with his father, Daedalus, he was held prison in a labyrinth, so obviously had trouble getting out (after all, it was a labyrinth!). Then, Daedalus had a bright idea. He started collecting feathers, that had dropped from the sky (I can only assume from over-flying birds, but anything can happen in Greek mythology) and glued them onto some twigs using beeswax. He made two pairs of wings.

And he told his son, �Icarus, let�s fly out of here!� Initially, Icarus thought �yeah old guy, like that�s going to work; a pair of wings!� But Daedalus said �believe me son, they will work, just try them�. And so did Icarus. He put on the wings and, cautiously, started flapping his arms. And, much to his surprise, he took off!



Icarus was flying, initially quite cautiously but gradually he grew more confident and started enjoying his flight. He started flying higher and higher. His father, Daedalus, shouted �don�t go too high!� but Icarus didn�t hear him (or, more likely for an adolescent, ignored him) and went even higher. Until he started flying too close to the sun�

The beeswax melted, the feathers popped out, and Icarus fell down to earth: Dead (the Greeks are no whimps in their mythology).

This is why we call it the Icarus Paradox; the same thing that had made him successful, escape the prison and fly, is what led to his downfall. In his overconfidence he had become blinded to the dangers of flying too close to the sun.

And this is what we often see very successful companies do too; they become very good and successful doing one particular thing, but this also makes them overconfident and blind to the dangers that new developments in their business pose to them. Which ultimately may lead to their downfall.

"'Man as idiot' isn't going over very well these days."

Glenn Sacks and Richard Smaglick on male bashing in advertising:

The way the advertising industry portrays men has drawn increasing scrutiny in both the trade press and the mainstream media. Defenders of the status quo -- in which men are depicted as irresponsible fathers and lazy, foolish husbands -- are starting to feel outnumbered. It's an understandable feeling....

The evidence is clear: "Man as idiot" isn't going over very well these days.


At least there is some push back on this type of negative advertising.

Tax Hell

Rachel Lucas on paying taxes (Hat tip: Instapundit): "I re-worked my return again and got it down to an ass-breaking $10,900. Still want to drink whiskey and blow shit up."

Rachel, like me, is self-employed:

In case anyone wonders and doesn�t already know it, I�m self employed and thus have to pay that Extra Special Just For Those Who Don�t Work For Someone Else Tax.


I think there are a number of us who are self-employed out there who feel the same way at this time in April--especially when we write the whopping checks for self-employment taxes--similar to FICA taxes which fund both Social Security and Medicare. I often wish that I could take a deal from the government--they keep the money I have put in thus far into FICA and give me nothing when I retire--and I no longer fund their "Ponzi scheme." But that would mean that I would have control over my money and my life, something the government doesn't take kindly to, it seems.

"I don't understand why someone becomes your financial responsibility just because you married them"

There is an interesting article in the WSJ that I somehow missed (thanks to the reader who emailed it) --Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect with an added caption: "Modern Males Say Living Off the Ex-Wife Is No Cause for Shame." Some of the women are up in arms about paying their ex large sums of money:

To Ms. Friedman, that financial history fails to support the argument that she should send thousands a month to her ex-husband, with whom she had no children. "I don't understand why someone becomes your financial responsibility just because you married them," says Ms. Friedman, who earns about $500,000 a year as the supervising producer of the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful."


I agree with Ms. Friedman, why should someone become your financial responsibility, especially after the two of you are divorced and have no children? Yet, men have been held to this standard for some time now, and women are now earning larger paychecks. If men are still responsible for alimony, then women should be also. If women want to be free of alimony, they should fight to end the whole thing, for both men and women, especially for those with no children.

Ask Dr. Helen: Are Men Keeping Other Men Down?

My PJM column is up:

Male judges who deny men access to their kids, male professors who bypass men for tenure, and certain male presidents who sexually harass women all help fuel anti-male bias.


Read the column and let me know if you think men are also playing a role in the anti-male bias in our society.

See Jane Hit

Several readers (thanks) have emailed this news story about a group of girls who attacked another girl and posted the video on YouTube and bragged about their crime. Two boys, it was said by news sources, (click on the video to hear the news anchor discuss this) served as lookouts while the beating took place. Notice how times have changed. It used to be the girls serving as accessories to crimes, and now, in some cases, it's the boys.

Why were the girls angry? It seems that the victim, Victoria Lindsay, posted some negative stuff on MySpace about some of her peers and they were upset. Rather than confront her for what she did and talk to her about it, or insist that she take down the MySpace insults, they beat her up and put up the video for the world to see. Many of the news sources asked "why" and had psychiatrists such as this one on Fox News (click on the video in the middle of the page) discuss the "pack mentality" where kids get together and feel more powerful as a group and do things that they might not do alone. The victim's parents blamed the beating on the internet:

Her parents blamed the Internet for the incident.

"These Web sites are creating a space for criminal activity, beating, fights," Patrick Lindsay said. "MySpace, MTV's 'Jackass,' they are enticing our children and desensitizing out children. Now, if they create the best shock video, they are the heroes. They think it is top dollar..."

Rubbing his wife's back as she tried to gain her composure, Patrick Lindsay vowed to get justice for their daughter.

"I'm very upset with these Internet sites," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, MySpace is the anti-Christ for children. I'm going to carry this as far as I can.�


While the need to get "shock video" and a pack mentality may play a part in why girls become violent, there is more brewing in these types of girl crimes. Psychologist James Garbarino, author of See Jane Hit: Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It, explains some of the cultural reasons that girls are turning to assaulting others. In the book, Garbarino discusses the "New American Girl":

...Girls are hitting people more than in the past, and this represents a challenge to adults charged with responsibility for rearing and teaching those girls.

Second, girls are getting physical and learning the very positive message that their bodies can be physically powerful in ways that are not sexual. These very positive changes in girls result from unleashing them from the traditional bonds of femininity and are evident in assertiveness, participation in sports, and active rather than passive psychological coping strategies...

...more and more of the aggression displayed by girls is physical. This aggression is often displayed in a positive light, both in it's own right and as a positive alternative to relational aggression...


The ongoing "feminist" mantra of "you go girl" with the culture telling girls that they are both "empowered and entitled" can be a lethal combination. Our society tends to let girls off the hook, and tells them they are not responsible for their actions or society denies that girls and women can engage in violent assaults. This simultaneous denial and acceptance of female violence just feeds into a sense of entitlement for girls as well as a sense that they can do no wrong.

Sometimes, this causes them to go overboard, like in the case described above. Girls are told that it is okay to be angry and physical yet, they do not understand the boundaries of violence. No adult wants to take this on--men are afraid to interact, engage with, or even teach young girls about the boundaries of violence due to fear of sexual harassment or molestation charges and women feel kind of proud that their daughters are so "empowered." So girls do not get the guidance and help that they need in channeling anger and can end up wrecking havoc on others and at the same time, ruin their own lives in the process.
An interesting video and story by Roger Simon on anti-semitism over at Pajamas Media--take a look.

Board-cloning � a rewarding habit

Who do CEOs think should succeed them? Well, someone like them of course.
But then, who do their boards think should succeed the CEO? Well, someone who is much more like the members of the board of course.
Then, what does the CEO think should the next board member ideally look like? Well, someone quite like him of course.
Does the current board agree with this? No, usually not; they think the new board member should be much more like them.


This sort of sums up the research that professors James Westphal and Ed Zajac (at the time both at Northwestern University) did in the mid-1990s on CEO successors and the background characteristics of newly appointed board members. Surprising it is not � we all like people who are like us, and think that they are so much more competent than the next guy � but I still find it quite striking (if not shocking) how Jim and Ed could so easily uncover evidence of these tendencies using a few simply statistics.

Because they measured some straightforward background characteristics of all of these guys (sorry� yes, usually guys), such as their age, their functional background, education, etc., in 413 Fortune 500 companies. Using these measures, they computed how dissimilar newly appointed CEOs and board members were from the prior CEO and from existing board members.

If the incumbent CEO was in a powerful position (because he was both CEO and chairman of the board, had long tenure, the firm had been performing relatively well, and because there were few outside directors on the board, who owned little stock), incoming CEOs and board members would be much more like the previous CEO � obviously this guy used his powerful position to make sure someone was selected who could be mistaken for his clone. Yet, the reverse was true too; if the board members had more power, they would select someone quite unlike the CEO and much more similar to themselves.

The tricky thing is of course when the CEO succeeds in selecting more and more board members who are just like him. Then the process escalates because board members and CEO start liking the same people! Eventually, everyone in The Firm starts to look alike, talk alike, has the same background, education, taste in cars, dress, entertainment, and so on and so on. Sounds familiar? Know any companies like that? Perhaps you�re employed by a firm just like that (and good chance that you fit in nicely�), or perhaps it reminds you of this phenomenon called �the success trap�, or perhaps � and even worse � both!

Interestingly, Jim and Ed also analysed what happened to the compensation packages that firms offered to their CEO, if the CEO succeeded in selecting more and more people like them. Guess what, the percentage of his pay that was performance related went down, while the total amount of his compensation went up�!

Guess CEOs don�t just like and select people who are just like them, but those people quite like our CEO too! And reward him handsomely for it. After all, obviously, "he does have the most amazing background credentials".


Bromance

Here is an interesting article in the Seattle Times about guys forming deeper bonds due to the delay in marriage (Hat Tip: Instapundit):

In a 2007 episode of NBC's hospital-based comedy "Scrubs," the show's two main characters, J.D. and Turk, break into a musical duet proclaiming their mutual affection. "Guy love. That's all it is," the song goes. "Guy love, he's mine, I'm his. There's nothing gay about it in our eyes."

Turk and J.D. are two straight male doctors who are, without a doubt, in a bromance, a relationship defined as "the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males," according to urbandictionary.com....

Experts say the prevalence of these friendships can in part be explained by the delay in major life milestones. Fifty years ago, a man could graduate from college, get a job and get married all within a couple of months. But today's men are drifting, as opposed to jumping, into the traditional notion of adulthood.

"The transition to adulthood is now taking about a decade longer than it used to," said Michael Kimmel, a sociology professor at Stony Brook University in New York whose upcoming book is called "Guy Land: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men." One set of men Kimmel interviewed for the book were fraternity brothers at Dartmouth College. Following graduation, seven of them squeezed into a two-bedroom apartment in Boston.

No mention of a marriage strike as the reason for this, just that men are delaying adulthood, whatever that means. Oh well, it's nice to have friends along the way.

"People think that if you can bombard people with numbers and jargon, you have more legitimacy"

Sometimes, those numbers and jargon are called facts--something Walter DeKeseredy, a professor of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology refuses to consider-- when it comes to domestic violence research. In an interesting article in the National Journal, Neil Munro looks at the politics of domestic violence:

Proponents of the rival perspectives have amassed studies and facts to buttress their arguments. Feminist-affiliated groups cite surveys from battered-women's shelters to bolster their claims of male violence; family-conflict advocates and groups of divorced fathers cite data collected in surveys of men and women. The different perspectives "have historically been fueled rather than resolved by research, which has ... generated a variety of findings, some flatly contradictory ... [and has] left little room for cooperation," according to a report by participants in the Wingspread conference.

Advocates on either side charge the other with dishonesty and bad intentions. Murray Straus, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire, says that feminist groups deserve credit for launching the campaign against domestic violence. However, they "have created a climate of fear that has inhibited research," he wrote in the July 2007 issue of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research.

Straus and like-minded researchers are "advancing a political agenda that supports the goal of fathers' rights groups," responded Walter DeKeseredy, a professor of criminology, justice, and policy studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. "People think if you can bombard people with numbers and jargon, you have more legitimacy, but it is a struggle about whose side you are on -- and our side is on the side of women, and we're proud of it."


So Professor Dekeseredy admits that he is proud of the fact that he overlooks statistics and methodology, which is basically what "numbers and jargon" are--and just sides with whatever studies favor women? What kind of research is that?

Grand Rounds is Up

Cardiologist Dr. Wes is hosting Grand Rounds at his place:

All 36 (or so) posts have been included, and have been assembled by their appropriate cardiovascular term.

So grab a cup of coffee, sit back, relax and enjoy this week's Best of the Medical Blog-o-Sphere!


Go check it out.

How to turn the US into a Wonderland

Pam Meister has an interesting column at Pajama's Media entitled, "Teens who Hate America":

My oldest daughter, a sophomore in high school, recently complained to her father and I about some of her schoolmates� declarations that they �hate America.�

When I asked if she could elaborate why they would say such a thing, she said she really couldn�t remember because she was so disgusted that she did everything she could to block out the conversation. She also confirmed that she didn�t say anything to them at the time.....

My daughter may not want to know why these kids might hate their own country, but I can make a pretty good guess. Think about it: what would you believe if you were raised on a steady diet about the failings of the dullard in the White House (who was nevertheless crafty enough to �steal� the 2000 election); about our �reduced standing� in the world since he took office; how capitalism is causing the earth to go up in a jolly blaze of global warming; how we are a nation of evil �haves� and powerless �have nots�; how our foreign policy is to blame for 9/11 and the Middle East considering America to be the �Great Satan�; and how the majority of Americans are a bunch of bigots and racists? Add to that the constant barrage of anti-war and anti-America rhetoric from groups like Code Pink and World Can�t Wait, and the complicity in these sentiments by the mainstream media and the entertainment industry � what would you think? After all, if the likes of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Susan Sarandon, and the brain trust on The View say it�s so, why would a teenager argue?


Funny, if a Democrat gets in the White House next year, my guess is that the US will suddenly become a wonderland where pretty ponies and butterflies live. Luckily, I don't think that all teens are dumb enough to fall for this propaganda.

CEOs, marriage, mergers, geriatric millionaires and blushing brides

These things called acquisitions continue to surprise me. Especially how they, quite openly, can get entangled with the personal aspirations and career progress of the companies� executives.

For example, often it is thinly veiled that the single biggest hurdle to a particular merger, determining whether the deal will go through or not, is the question �who will be in charge� afterwards; the current CEO of company 1 or the CEO of company 2? The proposed merger between Dutch banks ING and ABN-Amro, for instance, was rumoured to have fallen through because executives could not agree on who would take the helm. But are these really good, strategic and legitimate reasons to pursue (or abolish) a deal?! If you didn�t notice: that was a rhetorical question�

Similarly, in 1999, the merger of Viacom and CBS completely hinged on whether CEOs Sumner Redstone and Mel Karmazin could figure out how to distribute responsibilities and power. Eventually, the $40 billion mega-merger � at the time, the biggest media deal ever � seemed to be more of a declaration of love between the two than a move inspired by a clear strategic rationale.

For example, the LA Times referred to "secret meetings" between the two during which Redstone "grew to see the magic of the marriage Karmazin was proposing", while The New York Times quoted Redstone saying of Karmazin: "He is a master salesman, and he began to turn me on", also referring to "a marriage that was consummated after a two-year flirtation and a brief but painstakingly intense two-week prenuptial discussion. �Mel seduced me�," Redstone dreamily told reporters and investors after the merger was announced, sounding for all the world like a blushing bride.�

Yet, the marriage came to an abrupt end in 2004, when Karmazin left acrimoniously. What turned out to be the case: If old Sumner (aged 81) would have died during Karmazin�s employment contract with Viacom, he would have taken the mantle. Yet, old Sumner didn�t die� And CBS and Viacom split in 2005.

To me, these kinds of negotiations suggest that the logic for a deal may have more to do with advancing the careers of the people in charge, rather than advancing the value of the combined companies. If you�re an investor or board member, I would conjecture that some suspicion may be warranted.

Can blogging give you a heart attack?

Blogging can be hazardous to your health according to a NYT's article (registration necessary) entitled, "In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop" (Hat tip: Protein Wisdom):

Two weeks ago in North Lauderdale, Fla., funeral services were held for Russell Shaw, a prolific blogger on technology subjects who died at 60 of a heart attack. In December, another tech blogger, Marc Orchant, died at 50 of a massive coronary. A third, Om Malik, 41, survived a heart attack in December.

Other bloggers complain of weight loss or gain, sleep disorders, exhaustion and other maladies born of the nonstop strain of producing for a news and information cycle that is as always-on as the Internet....

The pressure even gets to those who work for themselves � and are being well-compensated for it.

�I haven�t died yet,� said Michael Arrington, the founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, a popular technology blog. The site has brought in millions in advertising revenue, but there has been a hefty cost. Mr. Arrington says he has gained 30 pounds in the last three years, developed a severe sleeping disorder and turned his home into an office for him and four employees. �At some point, I�ll have a nervous breakdown and be admitted to the hospital, or something else will happen.�


Funny, I had a heart attack before I started blogging. Now I am fine. Coincidence? I think not. Some bloggers actually see their craft as therapeutic. Perhaps it depends on your mindset. And as I have said before, I think many people who blog don't feel well to begin with. If they did, they might be out doing less sedentary things. So, some, though not all, may come to the keyboard already with health problems.

Update: Ann Althouse has more thoughts on whether or not blogging is a "young man's game."

Charlton Heston Dies at 83

Sadly, I just read that Charlton Heston died last night. I have long admired Heston and his work and was really honored once when he wrote a review of my book, "The Scarred Heart" in the American Rifleman magazine. He will surely be missed.

Update: I keep in my home office a plaque signed by Heston that reminds me of why it is so important for all of us to continue to keep this country free and to fight for second amendment rights. The plaque reads:

So that this nation can long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

--Charlton Heston, at Harvard Law School, 1999

Obama vs. McCain Bumper Stickers

I saw a mini-van this afternoon with Obama bumper stickers plastered on the back that read "Latinos for Obama" and "Women for Obama" (I wish I'd had my camera on me but since I am now carrying a wallet instead of a purse, I never have anything--this experiment won't last long). Anyway, the other day, I saw a McCain bumper sticker. In contrast to the Obama one, it was plain, just said "McCain President."

I looked up both of the official websites of the two candidates and got a kick out of the differences in the bumper stickers and logos. Here are McCain's bumper stickers-- note that they are plain although there is one that says "Veterans for McCain." Obama's bumper stickers, in contrast, run the gamut from "African Americans for Obama," to "Latinos for Obama" to "Women for Obama" all the way to "Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders" for Obama." I have to hand it to him, he does include "Republicans for Obama," but why break everyone up into every group imaginable? Good grief. I thought Obama was supposed to be the candidate that brought us all together, in spite of race. It seems to me that even his bumper stickers emphasize the differences between us--rather than just being Americans, suddenly, we're divided into whatever group we belong to. Is that really the message he wants to send?

Update: These stickers and buttons were listed under "apparel" on the McCain website. I guess identity politics goes both ways. Yuck. Thanks to readers for pointing this out.

Update II: Sorry about enabling moderation folks, but here is an example of the high level of discussion we would be treated to had I not:


Dear Mrs. Ernest T. Bass,

Please go fuck yourself.

Very truly yours . . .

Dave.


This combination of dissing the South, cursing, and offering no substance is pretty much standard from these guys.

"Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems"

So says a professor and author of The Persistence of Poverty: Why the Economics of the Well-Off Can't Help the Poor in this article from the The Boston Globe (thanks Mike):

Karelis, a professor at George Washington University, has a simpler but far more radical argument to make: traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems....


Naturally, the answer for this professor of goodwill is to give more tax payer money to the poor with fewer strings attached:

Reducing the number of economic hardships that the poor have to deal with actually make them more, not less, likely to work, just as repairing most of the dents on a car makes the owner more likely to fix the last couple on his own. Simply giving the poor money with no strings attached, rather than using it, as federal and state governments do now, to try to encourage specific behaviors - food stamps to make sure money doesn't get spent on drugs or non-necessities, education grants to encourage schooling, time limits on benefits to encourage recipients to look for work - would be just as effective, and with far less bureaucracy. (One federal measure Karelis particularly likes is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which, by subsidizing work, helps strengthen the "reliever" effect he identifies.)


I really don't buy this strategy for the most part. I do think that people who are poor have a worldview of problems that never end and therefore, feel that they can never tackle it all and feel defeatist. However, in my evaluations of thousands of disability clients, I found that a fair number of claimants (certainly not all, some were in very bad medical situations) tended to have a sense of entitlement, that is, they expected money for nothing and felt offended if they were asked to do anything for the money, even show up for their evaluation!

Whole families would come in, having trained their kids and relatives that applying for benefits was a better alternative than working. Once people get Social Security disability benefits, they rarely get off the rolls and go back to work, and even if they can, there is little incentive. According to Karelis's theory, the alleviation of some of the money problems--at least of the younger claimants--should create more work incentive, not less, but it seems to do just the opposite. Giving people something for nothing just creates more of the same.

My Black Thumb

Now that it's spring, I have decided to try to grow something. Glenn ordered me this EarthBox Garden Kit weeks ago and it has been sitting in the garage where I feel guilty every time I step over the big box to get to the car. He ordered it because I am always talking about wanting to "live off the land" and grow things on my own in case of a famine but I had no idea he took me seriously.

Anyway, today I had the morning off and decided that come hell or high water, I was putting this thing together and planting something in it--preferably strawberries or some kind of vegetable. No, it was not hard to put together. It was easy. I am just mechanically challenged as screwing a few casters into a tub and putting a plastic screen and water tube in place for the plants is pushing the limits of my abilities.

But enough about that. This box looks kind of neat. It is described as a:

maintenance-free, high-tech growing system makes it easy to control soil conditions for less guesswork and more yields. In fact, the patented EarthBox more than doubles the yield of conventional gardens its size, with less fertilizer, less water and virtually no effort! With no digging or weeding to do, vegetables, fruits, herbs and flowers grow bigger, tastier and faster in the EarthBox!


I have always wanted to grow strawberries and everyone in my family loves them. I will let you know if I can get anything to grow in this contraption --believe me, it will be a miracle if I do. If I don't blog about it at all in the next six months, it probably means something really bad happened to my plants and I am too embarrassed to let you all know that the curse of my black thumb continues.

If you have any tips on growing vegetables or strawberries etc., please drop a line in the comments.

UPDATE: Here's a picture of the finished product!

Sometimes it is about knowing when not to decide

Some time ago I was interviewing Tony Cohen, CEO of Fremantle Media; they own television production companies all over the world. A programme developed in one country (say, "Pop Idols" or "The Price is Right") may also have potential in another country. I asked him, �how do you decide which programme is right for which country?� He said, �I don�t�.

�Why would I know any better than anyone else?� he continued. �I don�t make these decisions�. But he does make sure to set up a system that enables the organisation to arrive at a good set of decisions. For example, each year, they organise what is called �The Fremantle Market�. It is a one-day event in London, for which Fremantle executives from all over the world fly in. They present to each other their new television programmes, which they have just had commissioned or developed pilots for.









I visited the event this year. Country executives really try to do a good job convincing their counterparts to �buy� their new television programme, because Tony has made sure that if the new production of Fremantle�s company in the Netherlands gets shown on television in the UK, the Dutch subsidiary receives a good commission that goes straight into their P&L. Moreover, the UK company is eager to obtain Fremantle�s best new programmes developed in other countries because if it manages to sell them to television broadcasters in the UK, it also gains a good profit.

Hence, Tony (or anyone else at Fremantle�s head-office) does not decide which programme to invest in and promote as their next international winner, but he sets up the organisational system in order for local people to make their own decisions. This will enable their next global hit to emerge, without knowing in advance which programme that will be. Sometimes he expected it; sometimes it�s a programme that he never thought would see the light of day.

But often that is not the role we expect CEOs to assume. We expect them to make the decisions, quickly and without hesitation or even a drop of sweat.

It reminded me of Andy Grove, when he was CEO at Intel. When Intel, in the 1980s, was in doubt whether to concentrate on DRAM memory chips or on microprocessors, people (employees, analysts, shareholders, etc.) were banging on his door, asking �please Andy, make a decision; are we going for DRAM or for microprocessors? Tell me what to do�. But Andy said, �I don�t know yet. No, I am not going to make a decision; let�s see how things play out�:

�You need to be able to be ambiguous in some circumstances. You dance around it a bit, until a wider and wider group in the company becomes clear about it�. Andrew Grove
And that�s what he did. He let individual middle managers make up their minds about what they were going to concentrate on. He gave the manager of their production plant a formula, in which he had to input a bunch of data concerning the market, margins, production efficiency, etc. and said �this formula will tell you what to produce (because I don�t know)�. And gradually more and more middle managers started working on microprocessors (instead of DRAMs), and more and more the plant manager�s formula told him to produce microprocessors (and not DRAM). When basically the whole company had switched and chosen for microprocessors, Andy said �now I am ready to make a decision: we�re going to be a microprocessor company�. And everybody said �duh�, because that�s what they had been doing already.

I�d say his �indecisiveness� served Andy rather well, as Intel became one of the most successful and profitable companies in the world for the ensuing two decades. Not by making a tough decision quickly and decisively, but by not making it at all, yet instead enabling the organisation to do it for him - just like Tony Cohen let's his organisation decide what television programmes to promote.