Whimsical art and architecture of Jeff Shelton

Hat tip to the LA Times...

Architect Jeff Shelton's ingenious designs tease and reinterpret the city of Santa Barbara's historically conservative architectural guidelines. Featuring open interiors and playful artistic flourishes, Shelton's work is inventive and pleasantly eccentric:

Cota Street Studios

Cota Street Studios from another angle

Shelton also designs and creates unique business cards:

Shelton's own Escher-inspired card

Mary Beth Adams

Check out more of Shelton's portfolio on his website.

MLB wants to charge for historical facts

That post title stands in stark contrast to the rather biased headline of this Yahoo! story:

Fantasy League Co. Wants Free Stats

ST. LOUIS - A company that runs sports fantasy leagues is asking a federal court to decide whether major leaguers' batting averages and home run counts are historical facts that can be used freely or property that can be sold.

In a lawsuit that could affect the pastime of an estimated 16 million people, CBC Distribution and Marketing wants the judge to stop Major League Baseball from requiring a license to use the statistics.

The company claims baseball statistics become historical facts as soon as the game is over, so it shouldn't have to pay for the right to use them. [read more]

The company is right, of course, and this issue has already been settled by law. Alan Schwarz, in his excellent book "The Numbers Game," details how in 1997 STATS Inc. and Motorola prevailed over the NBA in a similar squabble over use of real-time stats and scores (p. 192):

The [Second] Circuit Court confirmed the original decision holding that no copyright laws had been broken, and reversed -- strongly -- the holding that STATS had taken NBA property by broadcasting scores and statistics. The NBA was not a news-gathering service on which STATS was free riding, and therefore did not warrant INS-type protection. And while the video and audio broadcasts of sports events are protected under copyright law, the facts contained in them are not. [emphasis mine]

MLB may have no legal basis for demanding payment for the use of its statistics, but this is depressingly characteristic of the game's brain trust -- greedy and shortsighted. Acting like the cartel/mafiosi that they are, MLB's clubs take the questionable view that nobody should be allowed to make a dime off the game without baseball getting its cut. Never mind that MLB has marginalized the fantasy game and its enthusiasts for years. Never mind that MLB took a dim view at best of the fantasy game, believing that it somehow diluted fan interest (rooting for individuals and "stats" ahead of home teams and their wins and losses), rather than enhancing it. Never mind that fantasy baseball and its devotees already help drive the game's bottom line (what percentage of subscribers to MLB's Extra Innings satellite package does so primarily for the fantasy implications?). MLB wants it both ways -- it wishes to profit off the fantasy baseball enterprise without having to contribute anything or innovate in any way. How sanctimonious, yet typical, of MLB!

And how stupid! Fantasy sports companies will have to pass on to customers the costs of paying MLB's "license fees" for otherwise freely available information, which of course will price some fantasy game providers out of business and drive others away from the hobby altogether. This is MLB's bold strategy for putting fans first? To potentially destroy a hobby that passionately binds fans to the game just to squeeze out a few more bucks? Fantasy sports companies offer baseball some of the best free advertising and publicity available! Why fight this?

Just so we understand: MLB wants to profit from an enterprise it won't support, sell the rights to property it doesn't legally own, and alienate a significant portion of its fan base in the process. These guys are pretty savvy, no?

Do Supreme Court nominations matter? Not even Alito bit

I have absolutely no interest in the Samuel Alito nomination hearings, and two great blog posts succinctly capture why:

Butler Shaffer on LRC:

There is a pretense in the hearing process for each nominee that we are going to discover his or her philosophic dispositions. We already know what those are: each is insistent upon advancing their careers by interpreting the meaning of constitutional or statutory language so as to serve the interests of the political establishment. Otherwise, they would not have percolated themselves up through a system that regards them as "safe" trustees of power. Their positions on abortion, or capital punishment, or flag-burning, provide little more than peripheral entertainment; distractions from the Supreme Court's primary role: to rationalize the exercise of state power.

Brad Spangler:

Constitutionalism and limited government have had their chance and failed. You can never really go home again. I maintain that the way forward, to correct the shortcomings of the vision of the US Founders while adhering to their ideals, is anarchy.

Anyone who has made acommodations with power and the powerful sufficient to allow for their nomination by a sitting president is not likely to be the sort of crusader against them that might rescue the system from its own self-destructive march toward ever greater tyranny and resulting instability.

Exactly. The system is so hopelessly corrupt that the composition of the Court matters only to the statists who worship it. When the problem is institutional, it doesn't matter who gets nominated or confirmed -- Harriet Miers would have been no "better" or "worse" than Sam Alito in any meaningful sense. The political establishment loves to squabble over the Court and its members, pumping it with an inflated sense of importance, because both sides agree that political power must be exercised -- the fight is over whose vision of statism will prevail. So you can see why none of this political theatre matters from the anarchist perspective.

Let's face it -- the system of checks and balances long ago metamorphosed into a rubber stamp. That's what happens when the government is permitted to decide the boundaries of its own power.

Go You Huskies

I've resisted blogging about the UConn Huskies men's hoops team, instead leaving the critical analysis to the folks who actually get to witness them in person. But having watched my fourth game of the season the other night, a 70-59 win vs Cincinnati, I have some haphazardly organized thoughts about the 2005-06 squad:

They're talented, no doubt, but something's missing right now. At this point they're coasting along on reputation and the national championship experience of 2004's holdovers. It's too early to say whether the #4 ranking means anything at all. This is an enigmatic team. Four days after an ugly 17-34 performance from the free throw line in a loss to Marquette, they somehow manage to sink 20 of 25 free throws against LSU and then went 16-20 vs Cincy. In the LSU game, they turned the ball over just 6 times -- 3 miscues each for Rudy Gay and Marcus Williams. Just two days later vs Cincy, Denham Brown turns the ball over 5 times by himself as the team commits 14 turnovers. What the hell?

This inconsistency drives me nuts. "UConn basketball," such as it is, can be boiled down to a single word: toughness. Calhoun emphasizes defense and rebounding, and he is particularly adept at recruiting fluid, athletic players and getting them to buy into his philosophy. He loves to use the phrase "imposing their will" to describe how UConn games are won or lost. The talent for this team is there, but is the effort?

And where's the killer instinct? They have yet to blow out an opponent that can be reasonably classified as "good." Case in point: in the Cincy game, against a shorthanded opponent (a 7-man rotation that just lost senior leader Armein Kirkland to a career ending knee injury), they take a 63-51 lead with 6:57 remaining. Ordinarily, a Final Four caliber team steps on the accelerator and wins going away, by 15-20 points, right? No, not this team -- they let Cincy creep back into it and cut the lead to 7 with 3:47 left.

And some of the veterans appear to be regressing. I defy you to watch Denham Brown, Josh Boone, Rashad Anderson, and even Marcus Williams at times, without wanting to break something. Forced passes into traffic, shot clock violations, dumb fouls, missed layups, etc. How about Rashad fouling an LSU shooter in the act of heaving a desperation 3 pointer with time running out, thereby stopping the clock and giving LSU 3 free throws? Or Josh Boone leading the NCAA in Missed Tipbacks and Shot Blocks Against By a Player 6-10 or Taller?

Calhoun's greatest challenge will be figuring out how to use all his pieces. Right now his substitution patterns and lineup choices are curious. Ed Nelson and Marcus Johnson might as well be serving the other guys water or waving pom-poms for all the minutes they've gotten lately. Rashad Anderson is a one-dimensional gunner. He'll grab a few rebounds, make the occasional nice pass, and is capable of sinking the dagger three but he can't dribble penetrate or create his own shot. Rudy Gay...don't get me started. Shows flashes of promise but too willing to settle for the 15-18 foot jumper. With his size and skill he should be going for the SportsCenter dunk every time. Who's going to stop him?

The brightest spot of the season, by far, has been Hilton Armstrong taking The Leap. He's aggressive, he's assertive, he's tough -- what a turnaround. By far the team's best post option and a legitimate matchup problem for many teams. Hilton has really improved his footwork and developed some moves around the basket; plus he's not afraid to pull up for a 10-12 foot jumper if left unguarded. He's a ferocious rebounder and tenacious shot blocker. As long as Armstrong stays out of foul trouble, he's going to be a major force. Another great example of a decent player who stayed in school and developed into a star. Yes, it's premature, but I'm relishing the inevitable Duke-UConn matchup where Hilton silences the Shelden Williams partisans.

Ultimately I think this team has the pieces to win another national championship. They're talented, they're deep, they're tough, and they have a nice blend of youth and experience. All that's missing is consistency and a set lineup with everyone's roles clearly defined. That tends to take shape by the middle of the Big East schedule and I am confident Calhoun will find the right mix.

Stupid Government Tricks

People often say to me, "J, your searing, vitriolic hatred for the state and its various depredations borders on fanatical and unnatural. How do you do it?" The answer is simple: constant exposure to news stories that reinforce my pre-existing disillusionment with forcible government. I mean, it's not like there's any shortage there, right? Consider the following:

U.S. Draws Up Space Tourism Rules:
"The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is attempting to regulate the commercial space industry in a bid to ensure minimum safety standards. It has recommended security checks similar to those for airline passengers."

Right, because we all know what a smashing success that has been. What really bothers me is the arrogance of these people. It's as if the FAA believes Sir Richard Branson and his insurance companies have no natural incentives to protect their investments from the scourge of terrorism! Let's assume that these commercial space launches take place on private property, in private spacecraft, with services contracted between consenting providers and passengers. All parties understand and assent to the risks involved, so tell me: what role does the F-A-Fucking-A have here? They have no property interest or financial stake in any of the proceedings, yet they presume to tell these innovators, these pioneers of private space travel, how to conduct their business and provide for the safety and security of their well-heeled clientele! Unbelievable.

$0.02 Stamps Hard to Come Buy:
"The price of a first-class stamp rises to 39 cents from 37 cents today - but all the vending machines at Manhattan's main post office were out of 2-cent add-ons yesterday. That left New Yorkers waiting for up to 90 minutes to buy the stamps at the window, because they were being sold only at one window."

See, this story would be cute if it was just another illustration of the government's legendary incompetence, but the truth is much worse. The government owns a legal monopoly over the delivery of mail, which means competition is legally outlawed. Absent the need to compete, the state has no incentive to innovate or adequately serve its customers, because there are literally no other choices. No market mechanism exists to ensure that postal prices reflect an equilibrium between supply and demand. Would private industry charge 39 cents per delivery, regardless of whether the destination is down the street or 3000 miles across the country? We'll never know since the government won't permit the competition. Here's the real problem: the postal system is one of the more visible and benevolent examples of the clumsy state, but this sclerosis and inertia is inherent in all government endeavors. Government does not face the same profit and loss test as entrepreneurs. It does not confront the threat of competition or obsolescence. It has no rational way to allocate resources or anticipate customer (citizen) needs. It produces nothing. All government does is extract resources from the productive sector through taxation and inflation, and it uses those resources in politically (not economically) expedient ways.

US Troops Seize Award-Winning Iraqi Journalist:
"American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children."

This is what George W. Bush means when he speaks of "spreading freedom and democracy" through the Middle East. But it's OK, because they're fighting terror, right?

On Defunct Hockey Teams and Obscure Acid Jazz Collectives

I've been meaning to post an update here for awhile now but, since my thoughts have lately amounted to little more than semi-coalescent wisps, you'll forgive my reticence. A couple of things that have me fired up:

• The Hartford Wolf Pack, AHL affiliate of the vile NY Rangers, hosted a "Whalers Appreciation Night" Friday. The highlight: they brought back Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, and Ulf Samuelsson, and raised their numbers (10, 11, and 5 respectively) to the rafters of the Mall. The Hartford Courant did a nice job covering the event, and even the hit-or-miss Jeff Jacobs scores with a nice column for anyone who ever cared about the Whalers. Nearly nine years have passed since the team left town and I still bleed green.
  
  
• Incognito is coming to Atlanta! Halle-freaking-lujah! Most people on this side of the pond have never heard of them but, if you get the chance, check out their latest release. You won't ever hear a finer fusion of funk, soul, R&B, and acid jazz. Silky smooth vocals, groovy beats, catchy arrangements, mind-blowing jams -- it's all here. Incognito's Atlanta performance takes place at the Coca-Cola Roxy on Monday, February 13th. And oh yes, I will be there.

Happy New Year!

And thus concludes a very tumultuous 2005! Tra and I are very much looking forward to 2006 and all the promise that the new year brings. We've survived our own personal version of Harvey Pekar's "Our Cancer Year" and we now set our sights on happier pursuits -- new jobs (yes, that's "jobs," plural, because even I plan to reverse the inertia), new plans, and New Years resolutions we won't keep.

We've spent a very relaxing day playing "Guitar Hero" for the PS2 (yes, even Tracy's hooked now) and will be spending NYE at the Funny Farm in Roswell with comedian Tom Simmons. We're convinced we've seen him before but it's been a few years.

Anyway, one quick housecleaning item: tonight is the last chance to give to charity and still qualify for deductions on 2005-2006 taxes. Everyone has causes they hold near and dear, and for me, I'm contributing to keep alive the best libertarian site on the Intarwebs.

Best wishes to all for a very happy, healthy, and prosperous 2006!

Eliot Spitzer Is An Evil Fucking Douchebag

New York's evil Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is in the news again, this time for threatening John C. Whitehead, who recounts in today's OpinionJournal:

After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:

"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."

Spitzer's bullying tactics and abuse of power have garnered a lot of attention nationally, and are chronicled most notably by Tom Kirkendall. Many of the fine columnists on LewRockwell.com have also done good work exposing this jackass, including Michael S. Rozeff, J.H. Huebert, Paul Craig Roberts (here and here), and most passionately, William L. Anderson (here, here, here, and especially here), to whom Spitzer is known appropriately as "Mr. Evil."

But it's not enough to point out that Spitzer is an evil fucking douchebag -- the man is legitimately dangerous. In his hands the law is not an instrument of justice but a weapon to be wielded against politically convenient victims. The many lives ruined by Spitzer's recklessly aggressive posturing are mere collateral damage to him; necessary sacrifices to his political ambitions. The man is a bully, demagogue, and opportunist. Make no mistake -- Spitzer intends to use his AG position as a springboard, first to the governorship of New York, and then on to the White House. The thought of this megalomaniac wielding supreme executive power sends chills down my spine.

Design Within Reach

I promised that this blog would reflect my myriad interests and idiosyncracies without regard to local customs or social taboos. In that spirit, this post represents something of a confession, and it may surprise even those of you who know me well. So here goes: I'm a full-blooded heterosexual male who also happens to be keenly interested in design. There, I'm not afraid to say it.

Design Within Reach offers some amazing pieces of functional art at prices only moderately beneath "spit take" reaction levels. Some of my favorite items include:



Sapien Bookcases:




Ideal for the bookworm who needs to store many tomes within a limited footprint.



Malena Chair:




Hard to tell from the profile view but the ladder back really gives the chair its signature look.




Eames® Soft Pad Chair (I believe these appear on the set of Stephen Colbert's show during the interview segment):






It's important to nourish the soul as well as the bile -- the political ranting, economic wonkery, and sports commentary can really mess with the chi. So be sure to recharge over the holidays by checking out these and other cool, upscale pieces. And indulge your inner architect/designer for a fraction of what you'd pay for a mid-sized American sedan or a kidney on the black market (what, you think cachet is free?).

In Defense of "Goldbuggery"

Hat tip to Angelica of Battlepanda for linking to James Hamilton's and Brad DeLong's critiques of the gold standard. Her blog post is interesting:

Goldbuggery

James Hamilton has written the definitive take-down of the supposed benefits of pegging one's currency on a gold standard. Brad Delong says it shorter: "If your government doesn't have monetary-policy credibility, attempting to establish that credibility by going on the Gold Standard is a recipe for disaster. If your government does have monetary-policy credibility, going on the Gold Standard doesn't gain you anything."

I was surprised by her characterization of Hamilton's piece as a "definitive take-down" of the benefits of the gold standard -- I found it singularly unimpressive. Hamilton and DeLong attack the same old strawmen about the gold standard that the Austrians have repeatedly refuted.

For examples, see Joseph Salerno, "Money and Freedom":

Those who implicate the gold standard as the main culprit in precipitating the events of the 1930’s generally fall into one of two groups. One group argues that it was an inherent flaw in the gold standard itself that led to a collapse of the financial system, which in turn dragged the real economy down into depression. Writers in the second group maintain that governments, for social and political reasons, stopped adhering to the so-called "rules of the gold standard," and that this initiated the downward spiral into the abyss of the Great Depression.

From either perspective, however, it is clear that the gold standard can never again be trusted to serve as the basis of the world’s monetary system. On the one hand, if it is true that the gold standard is fundamentally flawed, that in itself is a crushing practical argument against the principle of monetary freedom. On the other hand, if the gold standard is in fact a creature of rules contrived by governments, and it is politically impossible for them to follow those rules, then monetary freedom is simply irrelevant from the outset.

The first argument is the Keynesian argument and the second the monetarist argument against the gold standard.

[...]

In the face of the historical evidence they adduce, can any defense be mounted in favor of the gold standard? The answer is a resounding "yes," and the defense is as simple as it is impregnable. As I have tried to indicate above, the case against the gold standard is from beginning to end a case of mistaken identity. The genuine gold standard did not fail in the 1920’s, because it had already been destroyed by government policies after 1914.

The monetary system that sowed the seeds of the Great Depression in the 1920’s was a central bank manipulated and inflationary pseudo-gold standard. It was central banking that failed in the 1920’s and stands discredited to this day as the cause of the Great Depression.

And Lew Rockwell, "Our Money Madness":

Should our monetary system be reformed so that it is based on a pure gold coin standard? Yes it should. This would be the single best reform we could make for the cause of freedom. Its commercial benefits include stability, predictability, and honesty in finance. Its moral benefits include a financial system that does not reward living beyond one's means. From the point of view of government, a gold standard would tie the hands of the state. They could wish and long for wars, welfare, foreign aid, bailouts, subsidies, and graft, but unless they could raise the money by taxing, all their talk would be pointless. That is a country I want to live in.

For years I've heard people suggest that the Mises Institute come up with a detailed plan for how the conversion would work. In fact, there are many models to choose from, from Joseph Salerno's to Murray Rothbard's to George Reisman's to Ron Paul's own legislation, which has been before the House for some two decades. What is lacking is not a plan. It is the political will. It would require that the government recognize the error of its own ways, agree to limit its power and influence, abolish the Fed, and return the control over economic structures back to the people. And you wonder why the movement for a gold standard struggles!

Finally, if the gold standard were the Force, Murray N. Rothbard would be its Yoda. For goodies too numerous for snippage in this space, see the following from Rothbard:

• "The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar"
  
  
• "America's Great Depression" (free e-book downloadable in pdf format; 409 pp)
  
  
• "What Has Government Done to Our Money?/The Case for the 100 Percent Gold Dollar" (hardcover edition; 191 pp; $17)
  
  

***NOTE: Honestly, I have no intention of starting an econ wonk slapfight. I admire Angelica's well-written, entertaining blog and am a regular reader of Battlepanda. The point here is to raise awareness of the counter-counterarguments to the gold standard. The scholars have done the heavy lifting on this issue already, so -- having no scholarly credentials of my own -- consider my contributions here a mere conduit into further research on this debate. Please read the links. Carry on.***

"The Impossibility of Imposed Freedom" by Lew Rockwell

Many times I've used the word "stunning" to describe Lew Rockwell's writings but his latest piece, "The Impossibility of Imposed Freedom," is especially so:

We flatter ourselves into believing that our central planning mechanisms are imposing not socialism but freedom itself, with Iraq as the most obvious example and the reductio ad absurdum, all in one. Here we have a country that the US invaded to overthrow its government and replace it with martial law administered by tanks on the street and bombers in the air, a controlled economy complete with gasoline price controls, and handpicked political leaders, and what do we call it? We call it freedom.

And yet some 15 years ago, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, threw out its leaders, occupied the country and attempted to impose a new government, the US president called it an aggression that would not stand. He took us to war to send a message that the sovereignty of states must be considered inviolate. It seems that everyone got the message except the US.

Iraq is hardly the only country. US troops are strewn throughout the world with the mission to bring about the conditions of freedom. Ads for military contractors emphasize the same theme, juxtaposing hymns to liberty with pictures of tanks, bomber’s eye views of cities, and soldiers with gas masks on. Then we wonder why so many people in the world bar the door when they hear that the US government is going to bring the blessings of democratic freedom to their doorsteps.

We have developed some strange sense that freedom is a condition that can be imposed by government, one of the many policy options we can pursue as experts in public policy. But it is not real freedom of the sort described above, the kind Jefferson claimed was to be possessed by all people everywhere whose rights are not violated. Rather it is freedom that conforms to a particular model that can be imposed from the top down, whether by the US government domestically or by US troops internationally.

Please do yourself a favor and read the whole piece.

In Defense of the A.J. Burnett Signing (sort of)

Sheesh, been a slow news cycle lately, huh? The Bush Cabal hasn't of late done anything flagrantly, uncharacteristically stupid, and this absence of tomfoolery has left many bloggers feeling blue. At least baseball's hot stove is burning bright; even the Braves have moved on some minor deals but commentary on those will have to wait for now.

One thing I did want to touch upon: A.J. Burnett's free agent deal with Toronto. The Blue Jays have taken a beating for the signing and not undeservedly so -- 5 years/$55 million is a huge gamble on any pitcher and the Jays are unlikely to get full value for this investment.

But what's interesting to me is the logic underpinning many of the criticisms. It's fair to say Burnett will suffer statistical backsliding in '06 -- he's trading a terrific pitching environment (NL East in general and Dolphins Stadium in particular) for one far more friendly to hitters (AL East/SkyDome). 9-man lineups (with a DH) are tougher to pitch against than 8-man lineups (no DH). But what puzzles me is how many sportstalk hosts have been trumpeting Burnett's career record (49-50) as prima facie evidence of the deal's folly.

Two problems with this approach:

1. It overrates the importance of W-L records, which are often dictated by factors beyond a pitcher's control, such as bullpen and run support, team defense, etc. It's probably the single worst way to evaluate pitcher performance.
   
   
2. In general, teams are paying for expected value moving forward, not rewarding past performances. Toronto sees the 98 mph fastball and comparatively low mileage and gambled $55 million chips on Burnett taking a developmental leap forward. It's a huge risk but not entirely implausible to pay off.

The reason is there are historical precedents for mid-career developmental spikes, especially among power pitchers. The comparison hardly seems valid but there are superficial similarities between A.J. Burnett and Randy Johnson. Burnett is unlikely to approach even 40% of the Big Unit's accomplishments but let's not dismiss the odds based on evidence as flimsy as W-L totals.

Let's examine the parallels:

• After Johnson's age 28 season (where Burnett now resides), his career record was 49-48 in 130 career starts. He had a no-hitter to his credit and was best known for his overpowering wildness, prickly demeanor, and flyaway mullet. His numbers: 818 IP, 649 HA, 519 BB, 818 K, 70 HR, 3.95 ERA, 1.43 WHIP, 0.77 HR/9.
  
  
• After his age 28 season (2005), Burnett's career record is 49-50 in 131 career starts. He has a no-hitter to his credit and is best known for his overpowering stuff, prickly demeanor, and nipple rings. His numbers: 853.2 IP, 719 H, 377 BB, 753 K, 66 HR, 3.73 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 0.63 HR/9.

(According to baseball-reference, Randy Johnson's most similar by age at 28 is...(*drumroll please*)...A.J. Burnett!)

Now, I am aware that there are tons of unexamined variables here such as park effects and league contexts, but the point is simply this: hardly anyone would have predicted superstardom for Randy Johnson based on his statistical achievements through age 28. But Johnson went 75-20 in his age 29-33 seasons -- Burnett will make the Jays look pretty S-M-R-T if he spikes so dramatically. I realize that the differences between Johnson and Burnett are manifold and let me emphasize that I am not predicting the same career trajectory for Burnett.

But it's waaayyy too soon to judge this signing; all this idle speculation is just that until Burnett takes the Toronto mound. I really wish the talking heads would just shut the hell up about his record already. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be skeptical but A.J. Burnett's career W-L record strikes me as the weakest.

Austrian Economics Go Mainstream: Koch to Acquire Georgia-Pacific

Business stories bore the ever-living shit out of me 99% of the time, but when Austrian economics and Ludwig von Mises get mentioned in the mainstream press (in this case, the AJC), I take notice. Koch Industries, a $60 billion privately held juggernaut, is in the process of acquiring Georgia-Pacific and infusing it with a free market, entrepreneurial spirit. This is innovative, invigorating stuff (to me, anyway).

Snip:

Koch promotes performance-based pay, doled out in the form of bonuses and other incentives to people who "create value," and thereby, profit. Top executives can pull down million-dollar bonuses, but Koch will share the bottom-line love with secretaries, janitors or anyone who comes up with a way to make the company some money.

When a team of pipeline operators in Minnesota took it upon themselves to figure out how to change pump pressures to boost capacity by 15 percent instead of spending tens of millions of dollars on expanding the pipeline, Koch cut each worker involved a check averaging 15 percent of his annual pay.

"Koch is known for rewarding people," said financial economist Mark Skousen, who used Koch Industries as a case study in a management class he taught last year at Columbia University in New York. "Koch is very focused on having and hiring the right kind of people --- hardworking people who are comfortable with this idea that creativity comes from the bottom up.

"But that cuts both ways. People who are just rolling along probably won't make it," Skousen said.

And more snippage:

Of all the virtues Koch sees in his free-market philosophies, none may cut closer to home at Georgia-Pacific than freeing the company from the frustrations of Wall Street. Georgia-Pacific stock has languished --- hamstrung, Correll contends, by the fixation on asbestos litigation.

The litany of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations and disclosures hasn't made public life any easier either.

Koch company literature, on the other hand, extols the blessing of being private.

With no pressure to live quarter-to-quarter, Georgia-Pacific can now focus on long-term goals, Koch told employees in announcing the deal. Rather than paying out dividends, Koch typically reinvests 90 percent of profits into the businesses where they are generated.

Koch told Georgia-Pacific executives Tuesday that he's still learning quite a bit himself about Market Based Management, likening it to the North Star.

"You know you'll never actually reach it but you still use it as a guide because it moves you in the right direction," he said.

Bingo! Isn't this how business should be run? Contrast this with the myopia and short-term thinking that dominate most corporate cultures and strategies. "Hitting numbers" and pleasing secondary constituencies (shareholders, SEC regulators, business magazines/forecasters, etc.) become ends to themselves rather than the means by which successful businesses are run. It used to be that "success" was achieved by pleasing customers as measured by the good old-fashioned profit and loss test: maximize profit by bringing goods or services to market at prices sufficiently above the costs needed to produce them. Now the whole incentive structure is distorted by short-term forecasts and "leveraging" things, instead of cultivating long-term, symbiotic relationships. I don't get it.

Lest you think I've gone soft, I'm going to sound my usual drumbeat here: much of the blame for this crazy thinking lies with the government and its depredations. Corporate America is way too focused on flattering the state and its surrogates: it must comply with a litany of SEC regulations, negotiate the minefield of tax laws, deal with anti-trust issues, keep unions fat and happy, satisfy environmentalists, and manage operations in a society whose litigiousness goes beyond reckless.

Koch has similar problems but quietly manages to send the message that incentives matter. And this is the essence of economics! There are consequences to making life difficult for the entrepreneurs who enrich our lives and make civilization possible. Civilization flourishes when free people are left alone to peacefully trade and exploit their comparative advantages. Government intervention, mercantilism, and corporatism wrecks prosperity and impoverishes us all.

Many of us work in a setting way too reminiscent of the film "Office Space" but it doesn't have to be that way. Koch gives us a glimpse of what embracing freedom and innovation can do, and to me, that's pretty damn cool.

Contra Doris Kearns Goodwin, Part Deux: DiLorenzo's Take

Warm greetings! Hope everyone had a safe, enjoyable, and thoroughly gluttonous Thanksgiving. Having digested my fair share of turkey, stuffing, and sweet potatoes, I now have a nice amount of political bile to spew. Yay! On to the divisive historio-political ranting...

As a quick followup to my post about Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book about Abraham Lincoln (and the vigorous debate with Abe that it prompted), check out Thomas DiLorenzo's scathing review of the book on today's LRC:

Although this is supposed to be a book about Lincoln’s "political genius" most of the means by which Lincoln eventually grabbed on to dictatorial powers are not mentioned. There is no mention of his long career of writing anonymous letters to the editor smearing his political opponents, for example. There is no mention that he was a wealthy and politically-connected railroad industry lobbyist. In discussing the Lincoln presidency Goodwin makes no mention whatsoever of the fact that literally tens of thousands of northern political dissenters were imprisoned without due process, that hundreds of opposition newspapers were shut down, that elections were rigged, that West Virginia was illegally separated from the rest of the state, that all telegraph communication was censored, private firearms were confiscated in violation of the Second Amendment, habeas corpus was illegally suspended, and that for these reasons, among others, generations of scholars have written of "the Lincoln dictatorship." She doesn’t even cite the two pro-Lincoln books that catalogue all of this – Constitutional Problems under Lincoln by James Randall and Fate of Liberty by Mark Neely – despite all her boasts of having spent ten years researching and writing the book (which has several thousand footnotes).

Good times! This heroic article is lengthy (nearly 5400 words strong) but well worth the effort.

Separated at Birth: Obscure Poker Edition

While watching reruns of the 2005 World Series of Poker on ESPN, I noticed that final table player Andrew Black of Ireland:

Bears a striking resemblance to veteran character actor Paul Giamatti:

"I am not drinking any FUCKING MERLOT!!!"

Domestic Mystery

So after dropping Tra off at the airport and reenacting key scenes from the films "Risky Business" and "Home Alone," I spent the majority of my Sunday afternoon shlepping leaves around the front yard. Raking, blowing, mulching, lifting, bagging, etc. A more punishing brand of drudgery is scarcely imaginable. But I had ignored the task as long as possible and the leaf cover threatened to undo the overseeding and aerating job we'd recently deployed for the hilarious patchwork of weeds and crabgrass we call a "lawn."

Anywho, the mystery. After two and a half hours and seven Home Depot bags' worth of leaves, I was done. I dutifully arranged the overflowing bags along the curb, Home Depot labels facing out as is my anal retentive wont, and left them for the yard waste pickup (which is Wednesday). I dragged myself inside, stumbled into the shower, and flopped down on the sofa to watch the Falcons soil themselves in an uninspired loss to the previously 1-7 Packers. No problem, right? Just business as usual for a Sunday afternoon?

Well, no. When I went out around 7:30 this evening to answer a sweet tooth calling, the bags were missing.

Gone. Vanished into thin air. Was this some sort of prank? The handiwork of leaf bag hooligans? I can't even hazard a guess. My neighbors' bags (across the street and next door) are all intact. I half-expected to find the bags spilled around my yard or scattered about the street, but no. It's as if the Leaf Bag Fairy swept down from her magical realm and cleared my curb. Fat lot of good our street's "Neighborhood Watch" signs did. Anyway, all I know is that at some point between when I finished clearing the yard at 3:45 and when I left the house at 7:30 this evening, somebody (or some..thing?) hauled away those bags, and I cannot fathom why. It's really no big deal but, to be perfectly honest, I'm a little freaked out by this curious episode.

Any theories? Anyone in the neighborhood with suspicious sightings or other leaf bag malfeasance to report? I'm all ears.

Bill O'Reilly: Al-Qaeda Should Blow Up San Francisco for Defying the U.S. Military

Professional instigator/insufferable jackass Bill O'Reilly is making headlines for recent comments he made attacking San Francisco's referendum decision to ban military recruiters from public high school and college campuses (link courtesy of boingboing):

"Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

What planet is this guy on? O'Reilly's comments are laughable for a lot of reasons but consider the following scenarios:

1. The ballot measure disallows military recruiting on public high school and college campuses only. Military recruiters are still welcome on the private property of whomsoever wishes to invite them. For example, they're still permitted to ply their trade at any SF property Bill O'Reilly may own (if this is so important to him) or at FOX News' SF bureau headquarters. You know, if they actually cared enough about the issue to do something in response.

2. Here's the really hilarious part: if San Franciscans followed O'Reilly's advice and attempted secession, odds are they'd be attacked by the U.S. government sooner than Al-Qaeda! Don't believe me? Ask the South how its attempt to escape the clutches of the federal hegemon worked out. The ridiculous irony is that Al-Qaeda's incentive to blow up the Coit Tower decreases if the building resides outside U.S. territory. But let San Francisco (or any other municipality) declare its independence from federal control (despite no longer costing the treasury a nickel) and guess who gets deployed to quash the "resistance" and "insurgency" in San Francisco? The very military whose recruiting tactics triggered the confrontation in the first place!

O'Reilly's not smart enough to see the humor or irony in his preposterous statements. But thank goodness FOX keeps that windbag around to keep the rest of us entertained...

Contra Doris Kearns Goodwin: "The Real Lincoln"

During lunch with Mark and Abe on Saturday, our conversation turned to the new Lincoln hagiography from Doris Kearns Goodwin, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Goodwin has been aggressively pimping her book of late, having appeared on forums as varied as NPR and "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." The subject has even captured the hearts and minds of Hollywood, for Steven Spielberg is directing the film adaptation of Kearns Goodwin's book (Kearns Goodwin herself is writing the screenplay and Liam Neeson is slated to play Lincoln).

I post this neither to recommend nor to much disparage Goodwin or her book. Instead, I'd like to balance the other side of the story against the whitewashing of history that permeates these rock star treatments of "Honest Abe": if you read this book, please give equal time to Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln." From the book's dustjacket:

Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized -- as the Founding Fathers intended -- to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government. Lincoln's aggressive agenda triggered an uncontrollable swelling of big government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

Exaggerations are bound to appear in both books, but before brushing aside Dr. DiLorenzo's interpretation, ask yourself why Lincoln has been deified by both sides of the political establishment.

The 2005 PGA Tour Championship

Yesterday I was privileged to attend the final round of the 2005 Tour Championship at East Lake Golf Course. Very few sporting events can measure up to golf in terms of the "in person" experience. By comparison, most sporting events offer static, inert experiences; you purchase an assigned seat and get, in most cases, confined to it for the duration of the game. And those games usually end in a few hours. But you can spend literally the whole day on the course during a PGA event, and (except for the corporate tents) you have complete freedom to roam just about anyplace you like. Choose your own viewing angle and experience: you can watch the action from the tees, the fairways, the greens, etc. Follow your favorite players or choose a comfy spot on one hole and watch the pairings march through. And unlike other games where the fans are more or less omniscient -- you always know the score and can watch just about all the action as it unfolds -- golf relies far more on word of mouth, which enhances fan interaction and enriches the social experience. Roars erupt around the course but at the moment it's unclear why.

Anyway, yesterday was amazing. The weather was perfect and the course immaculate. The players were accessible and gracious, tipping their caps for nearly every ovation. They even seemed to be enjoying themselves despite the pressure. Some personal highlights included:

• Watching Tiger rip a tee shot: he attacks the ball like it owes him money. I'm not sure there's another moment in sports that can compare to this in terms of anticipation -- maybe Barry Bonds swinging at a 3-0 fastball. Maybe. But the buildup during Tiger's pre-shot routine as he waggles the club and surveys his target, then the payoff as he practically shatters the sound barrier with his explosive uncoil and 125 mph clubhead speed -- incredible! People just shook their heads in disbelief. I watched him tee off on the par-4 13th and couldn't believe how the ball explodes off his club face -- it disappears down the fairway at such impossible speed and with such a high trajectory, it looks like it's never coming down. What an awesome display of power and finesse.
  
  
  
• The incredible shotmaking. I was fortunate enough to witness several amazing recoveries: after eventual champ Bart Bryant dunked his tee shot on the par-3 6th, he pitched an amazing recovery about 50 feet over the water to within 8 feet of the cup. He drained the bogey save, pumped his fist, and never looked back. I also saw Scott Verplank chip out of the rough on 10 right into the cup. And I watched Padraig Harrington pull off a similar shot on the par-4 17th -- he practiced his mechanics at least 5 or 6 times, settled over the ball, and confidently stroked it from a difficult angle. While the ball was still 8 feet from the hole, Padraig raised his club in triumph because he knew it was going in.
  
  
• The funny or touching little moments you don't necessarily get to see on TV. I raced ahead to 18 just in time to watch Bryant approach the tee, and he seemed genuinely touched (and a little surprised) by the boisterous ovation he received. He was high-fiving fans before he'd even teed off at 18 but, with a 6-shot lead it was just a formality, and he seemed to let the thought creep into his mind: I'm about to win the Tour Championship. After he sank the winning putt, his caddy (who looks like a pro wrestler) ripped the flag from the pole as a keepsake.

I have to admit, I walked around with a goofy grin on my face for most of the afternoon. Just taking in the scenery, the history, the aura of Bobby Jones' home course, the smell of the grass, etc., was truly memorable. I hope to return next year.

Special thanks to Roger Lowenthal for providing my ticket.

U.S. Congress: All Your Pro Sports Are Belong to Us

For whatever reason, this story didn't make many waves in the sports headlines yesterday, but Congress is reiterating its threat to introduce steroid legislation "to standardize drug testing and penalties for professional leagues:"

Three House bills with similar testing minimums and punishments have been proposed, including one sponsored by Tom Davis, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Government Reform Committee. That panel held the March 17 hearing with Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire and baseball officials.

"If pro sports leagues don't get a handle on this problem on their own, members of Congress will be more than willing to do it for them," Davis spokesman Dave Marin wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "No matter which bill ultimately moves forward, one thing is certain: In the absence of self-initiated progress, legislation becomes a matter of when, not if."

What arrogance! It is telling that Marin uses cryptic terms like 'this problem' and 'progress' without being explicit about what they mean. Because the first obstacle for Congress is defining baseball's "problem." Is steroid use rampant in baseball (however 'rampant' is defined)? And if so, is enough being done to discourage and punish steroid use? These questions, if they should be pondered at all, ought to be considered by those with a vested interest in the game's wellbeing, such as its owners, players, sponsors, and fans.

Conspicuously absent from that list are members of Congress. Baseball's owners, unlike members of Congress, have invested hundreds of millions in their franchises. This includes money spent on player scouting, drafting, development, long-term contracts, etc. They have every incentive to keep players healthy and productive, since success is so dependent on fielding a winning, profitable team that pleases fans. Only baseball and its monied interests -- not Congress -- will suffer if customers perceive a problem with the game's fairness or integrity.

If fans grow disenchanted with "juiced" players or tainted competition, they'll express their dissatisfaction by refusing to watch the game either in person or on TV. They will no longer patronize the game's sponsors or support its endeavors, and the whole enterprise will get hit in the wallet, where it hurts. That's the only reliable gauge as to whether baseball has a steroid problem or not, and if it does, Congress has no responsibility either to uphold the game's integrity or to ensure that it remains profitable (national pastime or not).

And so we return to the first of our two key questions: is steroid use rampant in baseball? Ironically, the true answer is unimportant; it is the perception, and baseball's response to it, that matter. For better or for worse, baseball's officials were long indifferent to the issue, and that's when they ran afoul of the state. The decree had come down from on high: "Steroids are illegal. You will treat this issue with the seriousness and respect due the law." But baseball's "crime" was refusing to bend to Congressional will by acting as a proxy for its war on steroids. So it was not steroids that landed baseball in hot water but its collective shoulder shrug toward federal authority. Like Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction," the state will not be ignored -- or otherwise disrespected. As Butler Shaffer so eloquently puts it: "Anything that diminshes respect for the state apparatus or its purposes weakens the popular sanction upon which all political power ultimately rests." So Congress clearly felt the need to assert itself in this area without bothering to allow baseball to find out for itself how prevalent and harmful steroid use was within the game.

As for our second question -- if steroid use is rampant in baseball, is enough being done to curb and punish this behavior? -- it answers itself. If baseball's steroid policy should prove unsatisfactory, then the issue will need to be revisited by those facing the profit and loss test -- again, this includes baseball's owners and sponsors, not Congress. Whether for PR purposes or to get Congress temporarily off its back, baseball in 2005 had already implemented a new testing program for steroids; indeed, Matt Lawton today became the 12th player busted under the new policy. As a private entity, baseball should have every right to set these rules and mete out punishment at its own discretion.

But the state rejects a subordinate role in these processes (especially when there are cheap political points to be scored), and thus we have the spectacle of Congress acting tough while at the same time abdicating its real responsibilities: if federal law is violated, then the offenders must be prosecuted; that's why laws prohibiting the sale and possession of steroids were enacted in the first place. But this is not about the law, it's about PR: it's easy to look like a hero by grandstanding for the cameras and hammering on a politically unpopular constituency -- but prosecuting ballplayers for steroid violations is much riskier. So they instead bully baseball into adopting a politically acceptable version of justice. The yentas in Congress have once more overstepped their purview and substituted their judgment for the wisdom of the market. What a cowardly way to assert your authority!

But this is how the state racket operates, and a more perfect example of government-imposed externalities would be hard to find: the state shifts all of the costs of its policy onto baseball while assuming none of the risks. So the questions about steroids take a back seat to the lessons imparted by the Congressional response to the issue. Quite ironic that a group utterly wanting for ethics and intergrity should go forcing these virtues on others.