Fit for Combat

I had a few minutes to kill today and finally picked up a copy of J.D. Johannes new book, Fit for Combat: When Fitness is a Matter of Life or Death. For those of you not familiar with J.D.'s work, he is a former Marine, filmmaker and war correspondent covering Iraq and Afghanistan. For the book, he teamed up with professional fitness athlete, Nita Marquez, who is an expert in mental conditioning, fitness and choreography. She certainly looks the part of a professional fitness athlete.

Anyway, the book is obviously about fitness and how to follow a system of training and diet that will put you on the path to being, if not ripped, at least looking good in a bathing suit. But the main point I gained from the book was that if your current system of diet and exercise is not getting you where you want to go, you have to change it, and that change is hard. The book has some good tips for overcoming these mental obstacles as well as detailed information for mapping out a system of diet and exercise that is right for you and that works. It's a great motivator if you are trying to get back in shape. So, though I doubt I will ever need to be fit for combat (though you never know), I would still like to be fit enough to get through life. I think this book can help.

Update: Jules Crittenden has more on the book as part of his "live forever" series.

Can we please stop saying that the market is efficient?

The economist Jovanovic wrote, about a quarter of a century ago, �efficient firms grow and survive; inefficient firms decline and fail�. What he meant is that the market is Darwinian; it will rule out the least efficient firms, with habits and practices that make them perform comparatively badly, and it will make sure efficient firms prosper, so that only good business practices prevail.

Yeah right.

When you look around you, in the world of business, one sometimes can�t help wonder where Darwin went wrong� How come we see so many firms that drive us up the wall, how come we see silly business practices persist (excessive risk taking, dubious governance mechanisms, corporate sexism, grey suits and ties to name an eclectic few), and how come so many � sometimes well-educated and intelligent � people continue to have an almost unshakable belief that the market really is efficient, and that it will make the best firms prevail if you just give it time?

That�s because the logic is not entirely wrong. The market is Darwinian, and the firms with the highest level of �fitness� are the ones most likely to prevail. However, our Darwinian view of business is also so incomplete and simplistic that I am unsure whether it would make Mister Charles Robert Darwin cringe, burst out laughing, or pull the hairs from his famously bulging beard in agony. Darwinian mechanisms � or market mechanisms if you prefer � namely work at different levels. And sometimes they conflict. Let me explain.

Some business practices, like the ones mentioned above, will actually reduce the fitness levels of the firms that adopt them, and make them less efficient, yet they persist. That�s because these practices have a fitness level of their own. They survive just like viruses survive among humans. The flu kills many thousands of people every year, and at first glance it seems a slightly flawed strategy of this virus to kill one�s host, yet it persists. Why is that? That�s because it spreads quicker than it kills. It doesn�t matter much, for a virus, that it reduces the fitness of its host, as long as it jumps to someone else before the host snuffs it! And in a way that is what bad business practices do too. They spread easily and kill slowly and stealthily.

Moreover, the flu doesn�t kill everybody that gets it; it often just makes them perform worse. And that is what bad practices do too. Just like an extremely lethal virus dies out � because it kills its host before it can spread � terrible business practices also never quite see the light of day. It is these stealthy, annoying, nasty, creepy, sneaky, and irritating, pains-in-all-sorts-of-bodyparts practices that tend to persist. They don�t kill instantly, but gradually wear a firm down.

And there is another advantage to that � for the practice that is. Firms don�t quite know that the practice is bad. Very bad practices are easy to spot, so nobody adopts them, but not these ones! They�re like a sneaky virus � you catch it before you realize it, and the negative effects only become apparent in the long run.

An example you say? Well, take ISO9000 and apply it in a very innovative industry. Research � by professors Benner from Wharton and Tushman from the Harvard Business School � has shown that ISO9000, in the long run, can have a severe negative impact on a firm because it hampers innovation. Yet, the short-term benefits are clear; adopting ISO9000 often comes with some good reputational effects, an immediate increase in customers, and satisfied stakeholders. However, the negative effect on innovation, in the long run, may outweigh all of this.

Nevertheless, firms adopt the practice because they do see the short-term benefits, but are quite unaware of the long run detrimental stuff. To managers in charge of improving their firms� performance now, the practice seems attractive because they noticed that companies in other industries (perhaps not so reliant on innovation) benefited greatly at the time they adopted it, many of the firm�s competitors are currently adopting it, and they all see a surge in customer applications too! Of course it looks attractive!

Moreover, once we start to suffer from a shortage of internal innovation, many years will have passed, and no-one quite realizes that the creeping troubles were originally triggered by the adoption of the ISO9000 practice a long time ago. The practice gets adopted by many many firms and continues to persist, despite the fact that everybody would be better off without it.

The same may very well be true for quite a few of our popular governance mechanisms, the practice of excessive risk taking as we saw it in investment banking, many forms of performance management systems, and certainly for corporate sexisms, and pin-striped suits with purple ties on hot summer afternoon. It is not that Darwin is wrong � and the mechanisms he discovered do not rule our markets � it is just that they�re just as difficult to shake off as a common cold. And that they are just as annoying.
New York Post: The dead end kids:

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.
Mark Steyn on Obama: "His principal interest in the rest of the planet is that he doesn�t need some nutjob nuking Cleveland before he�s finished reducing it to a moribund socialist swamp."

Would you fight in the aisle over a $10 hamster?

I was reading at CNBC about the new must-have toy for Christmas which apparently is this Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster. From the article:

Maybe it's a sign of the times when one of the toys predicted to be among the top sellers this Christmas Holiday is a $10 Zhu Zhu pet hamster.

Toys 'R Us has issued its 2009 Holiday Hot Toy list. The list includes 36 total items, but the fuzzy hamster is one of the "Fabulous 15," which is considered to be the best of the best on the retailer's list.

The retailer puts a lot of effort into selecting these toys, which will be featured promiently at its stores and promotions. This year, the company has put an extra focus on selecting toys that offer parents good value.


I don't care how much a darn toy costs, there is no way I would fight in a aisle over much of anything, much less a $10 hamster. If a kid on my shopping list really wants this, I'll go to Amazon and cough up the extra $16.50 (or so) to have it shipped to me. Or a better alternative might be to teach the kids that a ten buck hamster is not anything that great.

"All Men are Pigs!"

This is the greeting I received at the checkout line at the Bearden Earth Fare in Knoxville yesterday. After work, I was driving by, had a coupon and thought I would stop by to pick up something for dinner. At the cash register, the women who worked there were congregated around talking, and finally after a few moments, the cashier started to ring up my order and stated to me that she had to impart her words of wisdom that "All Men are Pigs!" to the younger female grocery bagger. The younger woman, a petulant looking twenty-something yelled back, "Yeah, all Men are Pigs!" and started to laugh.

If you have been reading this blog, you know I was not a happy camper. I said to the younger woman, "All men are not pigs" to which she replied,"Well, they are pigs...but I guess not all are, some are okay." To which I replied, "I bet there is no way you would have stood here and said "All Women are Pigs! There is no way you would say that in public." Her response? "Well, we're all pigs." Great, so she thinks her customers are pigs too.

I could tell the older cashier understood that they had made a mistake. But after all, they were in their comfort zone. A health food store where organic food spelled liberalism and an intolerance for those people male or conservative. Grocery bagger girl quickly changed the subject to "paper or plastic." I stared at her as I got my bags and she looked at me with a mixture of intimidation, confusion and perhaps, hatred. I left. But I hope that next time these women feel free to play out their male-bashing meme at work in front of the general public, they will remember that not all of their female customers agree with the good old girl network.

Update: Earth Fare responds in the comments:

Dear Ms. Smith:

We are so sorry that you encountered this type of behavior in one of our stores. We respect all of our customers and are saddened that you had to deal with this sort of behavior.

We are dealing with the problem now. And, thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Sincerely,

Misty Faucheux
Social Media Manager
Earth Fare

PJTV: Interviewing the Founders of Smart Girl Politics


I interviewed Stacy Mott & Terri Christoph, the founders of Smart Girl Politics. Instead of shouting at the TV, they decided to get their views heard via Twitter and the social networking sites and have picked up 20,000 members to their cause. Meet them and some of their members in this interview at PJTV.

You can see the interview here.

"I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten,"

Trudy Schuett reports at Examiner.com on Praxis International, an organization that she says "encourages domestic violence, when properly applied." Trudy says:

I wouldn't have known anything about this org but for an e-mail I got from Marc Angelucci, of NCFM. The e-mail was about the outrage felt by participants at the recent Washington State Domestic Violence Coalition (WSDVC) annual conference, where Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis said with a grin, "I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten," during her keynote address.


Naturally, when asked for clarification about this comment, Janice Wick, Associate Director of Praxis, said:

"Amanda McCormick is an employee of Praxis International but was not representing Praxis at the Washington conference. As I was not present, I can not speak to your concerns. I would not want to make a judgment based on a sentence that may or may not have been taken out of context. I will forward your email to Amanda and she will respond to you directly."


Notice how there is always an excuse when PC comments are made in most organizations, one that would not be tolerated had the sexes been reversed. I am glad to see that people who were attending were outraged and that Ms. Schuett is on the case.

"...they're more focused on their own worries, such as getting a job or paying off mountains of student loans."

I just read this story linked from Drudge about the "quiet" youth who are no longer so interested in politics. It seems those between 18-29 are too busy looking for a job and trying to pay back student loans to get too invested in politics:

Letdown is inevitable to a point, says James Emmett, an unemployed recent college graduate.

"Of course I'm not as hopeful because everyone's been exhausted, absorbed by the economic realities, from man on the street to Congressman," says the 23-year-old artist who's living with his parents on Long Island, N.Y., while he looks for work. But, he adds, the president needs to "trust that we're still with him, build upon his community of support."


Apparently, none of these college grads is able to put two and two together and realize that they voted for a guy who is ruining our economy, and hence, is making it more difficult for them to get a job and pay off those student loans. I should feel sorry for these younger Obama voters but I don't. All I have to say is "serves ya right, suckers!"
Melanie Phillips has a good article at The Spectator on the problems of Britain's "feral" youth and illiteracy (thanks to the reader that emailed the article). Take a look.

PJTV: Interviewing Michelle Malkin


More Smart Girl Politics interviews, this time I talk with Michelle Malkin about the women who gave birth to the Tea Parties, personal attacks on right-leaning women and her books, such as Culture of Corruption.

You can watch the interview with Michelle here.

PJTV: Smart Girl Politics


I interview Congressional Candidate Robin Smith at the Smart Girl Politics Summit on why women are getting involved in politics.

You can watch the interview here.
Michael Barone: "Strangers to dissent, liberals try to stifle it."

Is Your Company Brave Enough to Survive?

As a professor of strategy, lately I've been getting asked quite a lot, "What can our company do to survive the downturn?" I'm sorry, but the real answer is, "Not a lot."

The market is Darwinian: the strongest ones survive. And an economic downturn is like winter in Alaska; many animals can live a happy life in Alaska all through spring, summer, and fall, but when winter comes, it's not a great place to be. It's a much tougher environment � and only the fittest survive.


If you're not very strong, if you haven't accumulated much body fat or haven't developed the ability to hibernate, I am afraid it is going to be tough for you, too. "But what can I do to become stronger? Get thicker skin? It's getting a bit cold here!" you might cry. Well, I am sorry (again), but winter in Alaska is not a great time to try and become stronger. It is a tiny little bit late for that...

But I do think there are a few survival techniques from looking at firms' downturn survival strategies, although they are not for the faint-hearted.

First, we see quite a lot of firms display what we in management academia call "threat-rigidity effects." When under threat, facing a shortfall in performance, firms are inclined to more narrowly and firmly focus on the one thing they do well (e.g. their core product or service), stop doing other things, and become more hierarchical and top-down in terms of management control.


Unfortunately, this often makes things worse, or at least prevents you from coming up with any solutions. What firms are better off doing, is opening up; exploring new sources of potential revenue and experimenting with bottom-up processes to generate such ideas and innovations. Let me give you an example.

I am in touch with a company, here in London, that provides custom-made software for all sorts of logistics systems, which they offer in combination with personnel training. Unfortunately, the vast majority of their customers are automotive companies, like General Motors and Ford... clearly not a great position to be in right now. This recession has definitely been winter in Alaska for them, and at first they went through the usual cost-cutting and rounds of lay-offs.


After a while, though, the CEO decided to try something a bit different. He initiated some processes for all employees to start generating ideas for potential new sources of revenue, which they enthusiastically participated in (it was not like they had anything better to do...). Most ideas were rubbish; some ideas were so-so, but a few ideas were really good! One of these ideas has now brought them a substantial new source of revenue.

One team had noticed that there was always one business unit doing rather well among their automotive customers; the unit providing spare parts. That's understandable; in a downturn, when people stop buying cars, more people need to have their cars repaired. And this greatly helps the spare parts units. So, this team decided to propose an inventory control product specifically aimed at the spare parts units of automotive companies. And it worked.

This is the opposite of the usual "threat-rigidity effects" � rather than focusing and becoming more narrow and top-down, this company opened up, organized bottom-up processes and tried something new.

This is a brave thing to do, when the winter blizzards are turning your ears frosty, because it feels like spending money rather than saving it. But finding the "spare parts division" among your customers might just see you through the downturn.


Conservative women and politics

Glenn and I spent part of the weekend in Nashville covering the Smart Girl Politics Summit, a conference of conservative women for PJTV. Women from around the country were there to learn how to be activists, listen to speakers such as Liz Cheney, Michelle Malkin and Congresswoman Masha Blackburn, and to find like-minded souls who share a love of free markets and limited government.

After interviewing a number of the women, I found the common theme to be a sense of isolation due to media exclusion of their voices, or if they were mentioned at all in the media, their portrayal was negative. I must say all of the women seemed pretty tough and talked about how they were personally attacked for their views. Most were moms and worried about their kids and how the negativity would affect them. One attendee, Vanderbuilt Law and Political Science Professor Carol Swain, stated that she was often given flak and negative feedback for being an African American conservative. But all of the women rose to the challenge and said that despite the personal attacks, they would continue to speak out, become activists, and some would run for office. The conference, and the women were inspiring, and reminded me that there are many people, both men and women who will continue to fight for the American way of life.

The interviews should be up at PJTV soon and will give you a chance to hear from women whose views are a welcome departure from the typical propaganda we hear from the popular women's magazines and the MSM.

"...the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman."

It seems that the woman who says she was raped at Hofstra University has now stated that she made the whole story up:

The student who alleged she was gang raped by five men inside a Hofstra University dormitory bathroom on Sunday has admitted to making the entire story up, the Nassau County District Attorney's office confirmed on Wednesday night.

Charges against the four men arrested have since been dropped. ...

When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.

"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts. I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."

As of late Wednesday night, the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman. A press conference will be held Thursday morning.


This woman could have destroyed the lives of these young men and the district attorney has not decided whether or not to press charges? And one of the men involved "has no hard feelings?" I am sure he is simply relieved that he will not spend part of his life in jail, but it just goes to show how much power women have in our society when they get away with falsely accusing men and the men are just happy they have not landed in jail. Pressing charges against women who falsely accuse men will stop it from happening in the future. When there are no consequences for horrendous behavior, it escalates. Expect more of this in the future.

Blame the Brain?

Forensic Psychologist Steven K. Erickson sent me a link to his excellent article entitled Blaming the Brain. The article takes a look at the emerging field of neurolaw and how it "promises a more humane and just criminal justice system, yet there is ample reason to believe otherwise."
Shrinkwrapped: The Persistence of Racism and "Racism."
John Nolte at Big Hollywood: "Jay Leno�s the new edgy, the new ballsy�"

Lies or Self Preservation?

I was listening to Neal Boortz this morning and heard him talking about new research that shows men lie twice as much as women. I thought his point was good. Boortz felt that men were probably "lying" to their wives in response to questions such as "Do I look fat?" And indeed, when I looked through the main reasons men lied, most had to do with placating women:

1.Nothing's wrong, I'm fine

2. This will be my last pint

3. No, your bum doesn't look big in that

4. I had no signal

5. My battery died

6. Sorry, I missed your call

7. I didn't have that much to drink

8. I'm on my way

9. It wasn't that expensive

10. I'm stuck in traffic


I think that often men lie because they will get a very severe response from women if they tell the truth. For example, if a woman says, "What's wrong?" and rather than reply, "I'm fine," the man says, "You are driving me crazy and I need some time away from you," there is a good chance the woman will make him pay dearly for the remark. I don't know about you, rather than lies, I think many of these quips are more like self-preservation.

CEOs seek external advice � if you pay them for it�

There is ongoing debate whether performance related pay for top managers � in the form of stock ownership, options, or other types of financial incentives � actually works. We know it alters their behavior but does it improve it?

I�ve quoted some of the research in this area before but, in a way, whether or not it does, it remains a bit strange that top managers would need performance related pay. As I have said before, do you really want someone at the helm of your company if he or she only works hard and smart if they are directly rewarded for it? On the other hand, I have to admit, no matter how rhetorical this question is intended, I do guess it is only human�

It is only human that our behavior is altered due to performance related pay; and you and I are probably no exception. The trick then, of course, is to get the right measurement system, and perhaps to no overdo it; too much performance related pay may alter the behavior of top executives in ways you had not quite in mind when putting the measures in place! We�ve seen ample examples of that over recent years�

So, how might it bias top executives behavior in useful ways? Professors Michael McDonald from the University of Central Florida, Poonam Khanna from Arizona State University, and Jim Westphal from the University of Michigan examined an intriguing aspect of CEO behavior, and that is their inclination to seek advice from others.

CEOs often seek advice on strategic issues from executives of other firms. However, we also know from research that � just like humans � they are often inclined to solicit that �advice� from friends and other people who are just like them. In such cases, it is not really genuine advice-seeking, but it serves more in a self-confirmatory fashion; people seek confirmation that what they are doing is right, and what better way to get that by asking the opinion of your friends and look-a-likes.

To examine which CEOs engage in this pseudo-advice seeking and which ones truly turn to people who might actually disagree with them, McDonald and his colleagues surveyed 225 large American industrial and service firms. They managed to obtain information on how often their CEOs sought the input of other top managers outside their own firm and how well acquainted they were to them. Subsequently, they statistically correlated that to the extent to which these top managers received performance-contingent compensation packages, and found a very clear result.

Those CEOs who had a very small performance-related pay component in their compensation package sought very little true external advice. They relied on asking their friends � and perhaps their wife, uncles, and mother � whether they too thought that what they were doing was great, splendid, and spot-on. I guess it helps people feel more confident and self-assured�

In contrast, CEOs with a relatively large performance-contingent component in their remuneration package much more often sought advice from other executives who were not their friends and who had different backgrounds than themselves. These people may be slightly scary (they may actually tell you that what you�re saying is nonsense!) but perhaps also more useful. Moreover, McDonald and colleagues showed that this true advice-seeking significantly helped the financial performance of the CEOs� companies, in the form of an increase in the company�s market-to-book and return on assets. Thus, the scary stuff actually led to hard cash!

The pay-for-performance construction paid off; it stimulated executives to repress their �it�s-only-human� inclination to avoid asking people�s opinion who might actually disagree with you. It is much safer and more pleasant to make sure to solicit advice from people who will say that you�re splendid, but it is much more useful � and lucrative � to really put yourself to the test. And if you reward them for it, and only if you reward them for it, CEOs � just like humans � will actually be brave enough to take this test.

PJTV: Walking on Eggshells: Advice on how to cope with the Borderline in your life

Are you a man who is dating or married to a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder and at a loss for how to cope? Randi Kreger, co-author of Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder and author of The Essential Family Guide to Borderline Personality Disorder joins me today to give advice to men about how to cope with the Borderline in your life. Plus, how the sexual attraction/addiction plays a part in keeping a man in a constant dance with the Borderline.


You can watch the interview here.
John Hawkins interviews Congressman Joe Wilson on Obama, lies, and health care.

Good advice

John Hawkins: "To hell with civility, to hell with politeness, and to hell with the hand wringing over whether we're going to lose some kind of moral authority if we're only three times better, fairer, and more moral people than the Democrats rather than four times better."

Thank you, Joe Wilson

When I woke up this morning and read the Drudge headline linking to a story that Republican Congressman Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, my only thought was "it's about time." It's about time that Republicans play by the only rule book that works--that of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals that asks the question, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?" The answer in the case of Joe Wilson's truthful expose of Obama is "yes."

Republicans cannot get heard, the public is being lied to or ambushed about Obama's health care plan and the only thing that matters is that it not pass. Period. End of discussion. The MSM does not cover Republicans except in a negative light, Republicans are not even included in health care talks at the White House and they have nothing to lose as they are already in the minority. Shouting out during the President's speech forces the issue. It forces the MSM to cover it, just as bloggers and talk radio exposing Van Jones and his subsequent resignation forced the MSM to cover that story. Of course, the MSM will cover the Wilson story in a negative light, but in the back of many citizen's minds, they will wonder, "is Obama lying, is there some truth to what Wilson said?" At least someone is bringing this possibility to light.

Those of us who do not toe the liberal line must stand up--just like Mr. Wilson. We are all radicals now.

Who can downsize without detriment?

Downsizing has always been a rather popular practice in the corporate world � even for firms not in distress, attempting to boost their share price � but my guess is that, at present, executive courses such as �how to downsize your company� are the last remaining strongholds in many business schools� executive course offering. So I thought I might as well look into what we know about the effects of such programs from academic research, to see when they can be a good idea.

Let me start by saying: not very often. On average, they simply don�t work. For example, professors James Guthrie, from the University of Kansas, and Deepak Datta, from the University of Texas at Arlington, examined data on 122 firms that had engaged in downsizing and statistically analyzed whether the program had improved their profitability. And the answer was a plain and simple �no�. The average company did not benefit from a downsizing effort, no matter what situation and industry they were in.

So why do they usually not work? Well, for starters, as you can imagine, it is not a great motivator for the survivors. Academic studies confirm that usually organizational commitment decreases after a downsizing program and, for example, voluntary turnover rates surge. Hence, downsizing is not something to be taken lightly, and should be avoided if at all possible.

But sometimes, of course, a company�s situation may have become so dire that it may not be at all possible. What then? Who might be able to get away with?

Professors Charlie Trevor and Anthony Nyberg from the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to examine exactly this question, surveying several hundreds of companies in the US on their downsizing efforts, voluntary turnover rates, and HR practices. As expected, they too found that for most companies, voluntary turnover rates increased significantly after a downsizing program. Many of the survivors, earmarked to guide the company through its process of recovery, decided to call it a day after all and continue their employment somewhere else � a nasty and unexpected aftershock for many slimmed-down company; they became quite a bit leaner than intended!

Next, however, professors Trevor and Nyberg examined who could get away with a downsizing program or, put differently, what sort of companies did not suffer from such an unexpected surge in voluntary turnover after their downsizing program. And the answer was pretty clear:

Companies that had a history of harboring HR practices that were aimed at assuring procedural fairness and justice � such as having an ombudsman who is designated to address employee complaints; confidential hotlines for problem resolution; the existence of grievance or appeal processes for nonunion employees, etc. � did not see their turnover heighten after a downsizing effort. Apparently, remaining employees were confident that, in such a company, the downsizing effort had been fair and unavoidable.

Similarly, Trevor and Nyberg found that companies with paid sabbaticals, on-site childcare, defined benefit plans, and flexible or nonstandard arrival and departure times did much better in limiting the detrimental effects of a downsizing program. The surviving employees were more understanding of the company�s efforts, had higher commitment, or simply found the firm to good a place to desert!

In general, it shows downsizing can work, but only if you have always taken commitment to your people seriously. Instead, if your employees sense that you may be taking the issue rather lightly, they will vote with their feet. And you may end up losing rather more people than you had bargained for. Or as Fortune Magazine once observed, most firms that downsize, �rather than becoming lean and mean, often end up lean and lame�.

Who cares what presidents think?

I was just reading over Obama's speech to be given to students tomorrow and started thinking about this passage:

So today, I want to ask you, what�s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?


This speech made me think back to a much quoted passage of Kennedy's inaugural address,"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." My question is "Why?"

I would rather think that the words of Milton Friedman from his book Capitalism and Freedom make more sense:

The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, 'what you can do for your country' implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors, and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served.


Government should be about helping us to protect our freedoms, not making us into wards who are to protect and serve our government. Obama's remarks don't make note of this. Maybe there is more to life than what future presidents think of us.

Are there really no black school shooters?

Not according to Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who states that only white kids shoot up suburban schools:

"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."


I guess Van Jones never heard of Nicholas Elliot. But I have. During my research for my book on school shootings, The Scarred Heart: Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill, I described Elliot's case. He was a black sixteen year old male who attended a Christian Academy. He was quite shy and taunted and teased by classmates. On December 16, 1988, Nicholas came to school with a semiautomatic pistol and two hundred rounds of ammunition and entered a classroom. He opened fire, killing one teacher and wounding another. Luckily, his gun jammed before he could accomplish a bigger mass shooting. At his trial, the psychiatrist who evaluated Nicholas testified that was a "pressure cooker" who was unable to express his feelings and exploded after being tortured by classmates.

Maybe next time Jones opens his mouth, he should try to get his facts straight. But then, what can we expect from someone who thought 9/11 was an inside job?

Update: Jones quits.

�The recession has been a bonanza for the online education industry...�

I just read an interesting article at CNBC entitled, "Online Schooling Picks Up Students�and Respect:"

Thanks to the recession, Internet schooling is taking on growing importance�and gaining acceptance.

The huge cost of a higher education�plus the need by many laid off workers to learn new skills�has sparked a sharp increase in the number of people taking online courses. And online degrees, especially from well-known institutions, are gaining acceptance among educators and employers.


And apparently, these online classes can be quite effective:

UC Santa Barbara's Conoley also says online courses are effective. She cites a study in which students at the University of Texas, Austin who took a course online posted similar test results as those who took the same course in a classroom.

The internet, is there anything it can't do?
Don Surber: "Are we American citizens or are we subjects?" I am going to suggest Obama thinks we are the latter.

"You are your child's moral tutor, not that shady lawyer from Chicago."

So says Tammy Bruce regarding the September 8th speech Obama plans on giving to our nation's school children:

President Barack Obama's plans for a televised back-to-school address to students next week are drawing fire from some conservatives, who say he's just trying to indoctrinate them to his political beliefs.

In the Sept. 8 speech, Obama will challenge students to work hard, set goals for their education and take responsibility for their learning, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a letter to principals.

The Education Department is encouraging teachers to create lesson plans around the speech, using materials provided on the department website, that urge students to learn about Obama and other presidents.

"He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens," Duncan said in a press release.


Okay, this is just creepy--Obama is the first president to come in and give a speech directly to school children. This Hugo Chavez wannabe is really working overtime to get the American people riled up. Some conservatives and others are calling for parents to have their kids skip this day at school.

What do you think?

Health care for Clunkers

I was at the gym this morning and saw a car dealer on Fox News talking with Megyn Kelly about the Cash for Clunkers program. He had sold 181 cars and been reimbursed for 6 of them thus far. Asked if he would use the program again, he said "yes, but I hope they'll pay next time. There was also too much bureaucracy."

Good luck with that and welcome to how the government takes its own sweet time getting money to providers of services. The auto dealers are just getting a little taste of what health care providers have been dealing with for years. Those of us who are health care providers are used to filling out forms over and over, stalling, lack of reimbursements and often, cuts in reimbursement without warning. I can't tell you how many times I have filled out forms, made phone calls and begged for payment for Medicare reimbursements. It's just not worth it.

Imagine what will happen if the government takes over all of health care. Cash for Clunkers, Health care for Clunkers, call it what you want, actual cash will be hard to come by and take outrageous amounts of time and energy to collect. Cash for Clunkers should serve as a warning sign to providers and patients alike that more government interference into health care will result in more bureaucracy and less time for providers to spend with patients. After all, filling out paperwork and begging for cash can be time consuming.

Self Help book on Borderline Personality Disorder

I am in the middle of reading an excellent new book by Randi Kreger entitled, The Essential Family Guide to Borderline Personality Disorder: New Tools and Techniques to Stop Walking on Eggshells. Kreger is also co-author of the very popular Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder and The Stop Walking on Eggshells Workbook. These books are a must for those of you dealing with someone with BPD.

The new book for family members of those with BPD has some great strategies for coping with the disorder as well as good descriptions of the dynamics of the relationship between the person with BPD and the non-BPD. This is important as the dance between the person with BPD and the one without can contribute to an increase in symptoms and problems.

Although Kreger points out that many men have BPD (the DSM-IV says 75% women, 25% men--though some experts think the number of men is higher), I believe that men need coping strategies as they are the ones who are often involved with BPD women and do not know where to turn for help. Women have more access to, and are willing to get more help from the mental health profession and they get more help from society in general. There are many reasons for this that we have discussed on this blog.

I am scheduled to have Ms. Kreger on my PJTV show next week to give advice to men who are coping with a significant other who has BPD (she points out that women dealing with a BPD family member can learn much from her work also). Hopefully, she can shed some light on this disorder and how men can cope.

Update: Ms. Kreger lets us know in the comments that if people want to know more about BPD, they can go to her website at www.BPDCentral.com. There is also a support community if you have a family member with BPD here.

Why I no longer have to worry about finances

Imagine how delighted I was to receive this credit card in the mail today from LibertyPropaganda.com with my name on it. Order yours today and we can all stop worrying about petty things like liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, and the economy. Thank goodness, all that stuff was getting to be a burden, don't ya think?
Grand Rounds is up at the Medicine and Technology blog.