Sesame Square

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Nigeria’s state-run television network used to run the American children’s show Sesame Street, but soon it will run its own version, Sesame Square — funded by the US government:

Produced and voiced by Nigerians in formal — if squeaky — English, the show aims to educate a country nearly half of whose 150 million people are 14 or younger. Its issues focus on the same challenges faced by children in a country where many have to work instead of going to school: AIDS, malaria nets, gender equality — and yams, a staple of Nigerian meals.

“Nigeria is diverse; we have 250 different ethnic groups, so many different languages. We don’t have the same customs; we do think differently,” executive producer Yemisi Ilo said. But “children are children. All children love songs and all children love furry, muppety animal-type things.”

Renamed “Sesame Square,” the show will air 26 episodes in the first of its scheduled three seasons, with one show for each letter of the alphabet.

The lead muppets are Kami, whose yellow fur matches the dandelion on her vest, and Zobi, who resembles a mint-green shag carpet. Kami is an orphan with HIV who explains blood safety to children through her own story. Zobi, whose yellow cab lacks an engine, teaches by ineptness, getting entangled in a mosquito net while explaining malaria prevention.

They live not on a fictional U.S. city street but in “Sesame Square,” whose concrete homes and slatted windows mirror those found in Nigerian villages. “A village square is somewhere where people gather around, it’s the news and information,” Ilo said. “It’s all across Nigeria.”

The muppets’ adventures take place between original recorded “Sesame Street” segments, re-dubbed with Nigerians voicing the parts of familiar characters like Bert and Ernie. One live-action scene shows hijab-wearing girls in the Muslim-majority north kicking a soccer ball and proudly saying they can do anything a boy can do.

The Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that oversees “Sesame Street,” received a five-year, $3 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. That comes after the government agency funded a 2007 pilot project featuring Kami and Big Bird discussing HIV infections and AIDS.

The new series underscores the ever-broadening reach of “Sesame Street” since it debuted in the U.S. in 1969. The Sesame Workshop has overseen short- and long-term productions of country-specific shows in more than 140 nations, ranging from “Rechov Sumsum” in Israel to South Africa’s “Takalani Sesame,” where Kami first appeared.

I used to laugh at accusations of American cultural imperialism. Sesame Workshop — which you may remember as the Children’s Television Workshop — now documents the progress of their campaign for world domination. Afghanistan appears to be their next target.

E-Cigarettes Spark New Smoking War

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered tubes that vaporize a nicotine-laced liquid — e-cigarette juice — instead of burning dried tobacco and producing known carcinogens. Naturally the FDA wants this stopped:

The FDA began detaining some shipments from China in June 2008 on the grounds that the products were unapproved drug devices aimed at treating nicotine addiction. Smoking Everywhere Inc., a Florida distributor of e-cigarettes, sued the agency in April 2009, claiming that the FDA had no jurisdiction over the products. Another purveyor, Sottera Inc. of Scottsdale, Ariz., later joined the case as a plaintiff.

While the case was pending, Congress, in an unrelated move, passed landmark legislation that gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products, which lawmakers broadly defined as “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.” But the agency continued to maintain that e-cigarettes were drug devices, not a tobacco product like a pack of cigarettes or can of snuff.

Richard J. Leon, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction against the FDA in January, ruling that Smoking Everywhere and Sottera generally marketed their e-cigarettes as recreational alternatives to cigarettes, rather than as quit-smoking aids. The judge called the FDA’s approach a “tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power.” He noted that e-cigarettes contained nicotine derived from tobacco and said they appeared to fall under the provisions of the new tobacco law.

The FDA won a stay of Judge Leon’s ruling, pending an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The agency is still detaining and refusing entry of e-cigarettes, a spokeswoman says.
[...]
Ms. Vasconcellos says that she has lost tens of thousands of dollars on shipments from China that were blocked by the FDA and that the agency’s actions make it tough to do business. The FDA has refused to allow e-cigarette battery chargers and other products Ms. Vasconcellos has ordered from China and other countries, according to FDA documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. To try to stay under the radar, Ms. Vasconcellos orders shipments in smaller packages and has them sent to friends’ homes around the U.S.

The FDA spokeswoman says the agency has refused the entry of more than 700 shipments of e-cigarettes nationally since it began detaining and reviewing the products two years ago.

Steve McVey, owner of PureSmoker.com in Goodlettsville, Tenn., near Nashville, had $59,000 in shipments from China seized last year and has faced lengthy delays on other shipments as federal inspectors scrutinized them.

“We’ve almost closed up shop three or four times,” Mr. McVey says.

Nevertheless, Mr. McVey says his company, Pure Enterprises Inc., collected $1.3 million in revenue last year.

Richelieu and Olivares

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Most of us know at least a little bit about Cardinal Richelieu, if only from The Three Musketeers, but few have heard of his less successful Spanish counterpart, Olivares. Joseph Fouché compares and contrasts Richelieu and Olivares:

  • Richelieu (1585) and Olivares (1587) were born within two years of each other.
  • They died within three years of each other (Richelieu 1642, Olivares 1645).
  • They became first minister to their respective kings within three years of each other (Olivares 1621, Richelieu 1624).
  • They left office within a year of each other (Richelieu by death in 1642, Olivares by dismissal in 1643).
  • Both relied on the tenuous health and often more tenuous support of young, occasionally resentful monarchs for their political (and physical) survival.
  • Both were deeply unpopular with the people they governed over, from noble to commoner.
  • Both sought to reform their kingdoms but existing power structures and the demands of war frustrated their efforts.
  • Both initiated long wars that severely strained their governments, societies, and economies.
  • Both were devout Catholics who sometimes found themselves allied with Protestant heretics.
  • Both were hard workers.

Richelieu and Olivares both sought to adopt Dutch innovations:

As part of a Europe-wide trend, Richelieu and Olivares sought to adopt Dutch innovations. Both set up versions of the VOC. Both tried to encourage their aristocracies to become more commercially minded and work. Both expanded their navies and merchant marines. Both pursued colonial ventures and tried to increase trade.

Both only went skin deep.

They both overlooked the subtle factors undergirding Dutch success, the most important of which was the Dutch’s power to harness late medieval institutions like Estates. An earlier pan-European phenomena, Estates represented the estates of the realm. Originating in the late Middle Ages, Estates started as a way for feudal overlords to consult (and propagandize) their vassals and subjects. However, after the estates were brought together in Estates, the discovery of their collective power led many Estates to challenge the power of their overlords and win a substantial share of the judicial, legislative, and financial power of their realms before the late fifteenth century.

The Dutch themselves rebelled against Phillip II to preserve the power they exercised through their medieval institutions. The revolt came after Phillip II tried to centralize what was formerly local power by transferring it to his personal appointees. The Dutch Republic’s successful defense of its old order during the Eighty Years’ War gave the men who held the money the power and the interest to vote on whether or not to tax and borrow from themselves. This control over government funding by the Dutch moneyed class guaranteed that the Republic would never arbitrarily confiscate property or default on its debt since the moneyed classes were the state.

In other parts of Europe, developments went in the opposite direction. During the 17th century, Estates after Estates was weakened, suppressed, and bypassed in favor of centralized control by the ruler. In some cases, like the Netherlands, Poland-Lithuania, England, and Scotland, Estates held on and won supreme authority. In many more cases, aspiring divine monarchs defeated their Estates.

This newfangled absolutism was the hip new thing. With cutting edge thinkers like Bodin, Hobbes, Filmer, and Bossuet, absolutism was the future. Unfortunately, there were holdouts on the march to progress. In England and Scotland, the efforts of progressive monarchs like James I and VI, Charles I and I, Charles II and II, or James II and VII were thwarted. History actually turned-tail and went backwards when the Dutch conquered England in 1688 under the leadership of James II and VII’s nephew and son-in-law Willem III and II and III and forced England, her colonies, Ireland, and Scotland to become permanent members of the reactionary Bataviasphere.

Richelieu and Olivares, on the other hand, were both men of the future. Both were pioneers of absolutism. Ironically, Richelieu started out as a representative in the French version of Estates, the Estates-General. But the 1614 session of the Estates-General was the last such assembly called until 1789. Richelieu was the major reasons it remained unsummoned for another 175 years. He set out and largely succeeded in making the king the absolute power in France in fact as well as theory

Richelieu’s task, however, was easy. While French administrative practices remained in flux after the Wars of Religion, giving Richelieu the freedom to innovate, Olivares faced a well-established, elaborate, and sclerotic central bureaucracy. On top of this, Phillip IV was not the king of Spain. While Louis XIII was the king of a unitary kingdom of France, Phillip IV was king of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Portugal, Naples, and various other dominions that were loosely lumped together as Spain. Each of these dominions had its own institutions, laws, liberties, and politics and jealously guarded them.

With the king’s support, Olivares attempted to overcome both. He used ad-hoc juntas packed with his own creatures to bypass the established court bureaucracy, but to little effect. He continuously tried to bypass the Estates of Phillip IV’s various dominions, especially when Olivares was trying to collect more taxes. Though Castile was the heart of Phillip IV’s power, even the Castillian Cortes resisted his efforts. Olivares’ fared even worse with the other realms’ Estates. The Corteses of Aragon, Navarre, and Portugal and the Corts of Catalonia and Valencia each contributed less to overall Spanish efforts than Castile. Olivares made several attempts to remedy this imbalance, the most ambitious effort was the “Union of Arms” that would have distributed the cost of raising and supporting troops among each realm based on their size and population. This plan failed but Olivares persisted in his efforts as Spanish finances deteriorated.

His efforts failed. As a result of Olivares’ depredations, Catalonia, Naples, Andalusia, and Portugal revolted in the 1640s and for a time it seemed like Spain itself would fragment. While the worst case didn’t happen and the Catalan, Neapolitan, and Andalusian revolts failed, Portugal was able to regain its independence and take its wealth and its colonies with it. Something resembling Olivares’ vision of a more unified and absolutist Spain eventually did come to Spain but, ironically, it had to wait until Louis XIII’s great-grandson Phillip V brought Richelieu’s vision to Spain as its first Bourbon king.

Whether Richelieu or Olivares could have creatively engaged their Estates is impossible to say. It would have meant ceding more power to their nobility and gentry than either man demonstrated comfort with. Even then it’s less than sure whether or not an empowered French or Spanish Estates would have cooperated with Richelieu’s or Olivares’ ambitious agendas. What we do know is that Richelieu and Olivares didn’t engage their Estates and that they paid the consequences. The lack of sustained financial buy in by French and Spanish moneyed classes led to chronic funding crises for France and Spain well into the twentieth century.

The crisis of Estates led to the naive efficiencies of absolutism triumphing on the Continent. It was only on the fringes of the European world that late medieval institutions like Estates survived. There, when even an outlier like England showed signs of absolutist ambitions, its colonies followed the earlier Dutch example and rebelled to preserve their archaic institutions and keep them under local control.

It’s ironic that the American Revolution occurred just as the last traces of the traditional Estates disappeared from continental Europe. In 1787, Prussians annihilated the old Dutch Republic. In 1791, Russia, Austria, and Prussia destroyed the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the final partition of Poland. In France, an attempt to employ the old Estates-General ended up suborned by the sinister new religion of Jacobinism. In the name of a reality free but philosophically pure revolutionary faith, French armies swept away what remained of the old medieval institutions on the Continent along with old medieval republics like Venice and Genoa. This clear cutting destroyed the evolved diversity of Europe’s social ecology. The way was clear for the future subjection of continental Europe to idealized monocultures of the mind. The United States was left as the last besieged outpost of medieval European experience.

Hipster Shrugged

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

I didn’t realize it was Julian Sanchez (@normative) who kicked off the #HipsterShrugged meme on Twitter a few days ago:

ziege19 @normative Who is John Galt? Oh, you probably haven’t heard of him, he’s really obscure. #HipsterShrugged

radleybalko I stopped contributing to society way before “going Galt” was cool. #HipsterShrugged

SandyS1 Dagny Taggart: Relationship status: It’s complicated. #HipsterShrugged

jacobgrier I have John Galt’s entire speech… on vinyl #hipstershrugged

sethdmichaels @normative Side A is Side A. #hipstershrugged

grandmofhelsing Galt’s Speech really isn’t as good as his earlier work. #hipstershrugged

normative Yeah, Ragnar was in Sigur Ros for a while, but he bailed when the label got so hardass about piracy. #HipsterShrugged

normative Actually, Francisco’s got this trust fund, but he doesn’t like to talk about it. #HipsterShrugged

willwilkinson Yeah, Francisco’s super-rich, but he’s totally cool politically. #HipsterShrugged

petersuderman I used to like the government, but that was before it got big and popular. #HipsterShrugged

jacobgrier Camping out for the new iPhone. Rearden Metal finish, Galt motor. Pretty sweet. #hipstershrugged #stilldropscalls

peejaybee Galt’s Gulch used to be pretty cool. Now it’s like, strollers everywhere. #hipstershrugged

Amir Sadollah’s Portrait

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

MMA fighter Amir Sadollah has a quirky sense of humor, as evidenced by this portrait:

(Hat tip to John, who calls it the best MMA pic ever.)

How to tell when management is lying

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

David Larcker and Anastasia Zakolyukina analyzed the transcripts of nearly 30,000 conference calls by American CEOs and CFOs whose company profits later had to be “materially restated” — and from this analysis they determined how to tell when management is lying:

Deceptive bosses, it transpires, tend to make more references to general knowledge (“as you know…”), and refer less to shareholder value (perhaps to minimise the risk of a lawsuit, the authors hypothesise). They also use fewer “non-extreme positive emotion words”. That is, instead of describing something as “good”, they call it “fantastic”. The aim is to “sound more persuasive” while talking horsefeathers.

When they are lying, bosses avoid the word “I”, opting instead for the third person. They use fewer “hesitation words”, such as “um” and “er”, suggesting that they may have been coached in their deception. As with Mr Skilling’s “asshole”, more frequent use of swear words indicates deception.

The 72-Hour Expert

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

If Americans claim not to understand Afghan corruption, P.J. O’Rourke says, we’re lying.

Bribery has been a dominant part of our foreign policy in Afghanistan, the way it’s been a dominant part of everyone’s foreign policy in Afghanistan including al Qaeda’s. What we Americans don’t understand about Afghan corruption is why it’s so transparent, just a matter of openly taking money. Don’t the Afghans know that you should take bribes indirectly — by collecting publicity, popularity, public recognition, prestige, influence, and, most of all, power? Then big corporations put you on their boards of directors and that’s when you get the money. Meanwhile you’ve been riding in government cars, flying on government planes, eating out of the government pork barrel (lamb barrel in Afghanistan), so why worry about payoffs up front?

Afghans have failed to move their corruption from the Rod Blagojevich model, which we all deplore, to the Barack Obama model, which we all admire.

How To Raise A Superstar

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

The 10,000-hour rule has become a cliché, Jonah Lehrer notes:

However, a series of recent studies by psychologists at Queen’s University adds an important wrinkle to the Tiger Woods parable. The scientists began by analyzing the birthplace of more than 2,000 athletes in a variety of professional sports, such as the NHL, NBA, and the PGA. This is when they discovered something peculiar: the percent of professional athletes who came from cities of fewer than a half million people was far higher than expected. While approximately 52 percent of the United States population resides in metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 people, such cities only produce 13% of the players in the NHL, 29% of the players in the NBA, 15% of the players in MLB, and 13% of players in the PGA.*

I can think of several different explanations for this effect, none of which are mutually exclusive. Perhaps kids in small towns are less likely to get distracted by gangs, drugs, etc. Perhaps athletes outside of big cities go to better schools, and thus receive more attention from their high school coaches. Perhaps they have more access to playing fields. Perhaps they have a better peer group. The scientists summarize this line of reasoning in a recent paper: “These small communities may offer more psychosocially supportive environments that are more intimate. In particular, sport programs in smaller communities may offer more opportunities for relationship development with coaches, parents, and peers, a greater sense of belonging, and a better integration of the program within the community.”

But there’s another possible explanation for this effect, which was nicely summarized by Sian Beilock, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and author of the forthcoming Choke. She proposes that an important advantage of small towns is that they’re actually less competitive, thus allowing kids to sample and explore many different sports. (I grew up in a big city, and my sports career basically ended when I was 13. I could no longer compete with the other kids in my age group.)

While avoiding burnout is nice, and training a breadth of sports skills may build useful general traits — such as self-control, patience, grit, and the willingness to practice — there are other benefits to competing at a lower level.

The well known January effect — in which kids born in the first months of the year are more likely to excel in sports — already demonstrates that a slight edge early on can turn into a long-term edge, because early successes lead kids to play more. It’s fun to win.

Competing at a lower level also allows an athlete to try new things and take risks. If you always bring your A game, you always go to your go-to moves, and you don’t add many new moves to your repertoire.

Maryland doesn’t allow concealed carry

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Maryland doesn’t allow concealed carry, in case you were wondering. It’s not a shall-issue state but a may-issue state:

Maryland law contains provisions for citizens to apply for a concealed carry permit under a limited set of circumstances. These include several occupational reasons such as business owners or their employee who makes large cash deposits, retired police officers, doctors, pharmacists, private detectives, security guards, and railroad police. Correctional officers (who do not require a permit while on duty but cannot carry off duty) may obtain a permit if they can provide legally documented evidence of threats on their life. Similarly, private citizens can obtain a permit if they provide evidence of 3 death threats that have been documented by the police.

Would you even notice?

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

What would you do if you were in the Discovery Channel building when an armed eco-terrorist arrived?

Mildred Ugay, a research strategist for Discovery, said she was at her fourth-floor desk when an alarm sounded. She said employees initially thought it was a fire drill, but they shortly received a work email that explained a gunman was in the building.

She and coworkers went into an office, closed the door and turned on a TV to watch reports of the incident, Ms. Ugay said. A law-enforcement official eventually told them to go to a higher floor, which they did. About 45 minutes later, they were told to leave the building.

James Lee ID’d as Discovery suspect

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

James Jay Lee has been identified as the Discovery suspect, responsible for shots fired and a “small number” of hostages taken at the headquarters of the educational TV network.

We live in an odd era, when a crazed eco-zealot’s MySpace page and list of demands are immediately available to peruse.

When I first heard that the children at the on-site daycare had been evacuated, I was somewhat relieved, but after reading world guardian Lee’s demands, I was really relieved that the children got out:

  1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!
  2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

Wow. Just wow.

Diversity Fatigue

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

In the congressional debates on the 1924 Immigration Act, Representative William Vaile of Colorado, a prominent immigration restrictionist, argued that if there is any changing to be done [to our country], we will do it ourselves:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.

— [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

When Vaile made those remarks, America had just experienced four decades of high immigration, and continued immigration was poised to remake the nation into “something different”:

Congressman Vaile’s language grossly violates modern protocols of course. That is not his fault; and taken at face value, with an understanding of the times, the notions he expresses are humane and sensible. They put the lie to arguments — I heard one in conversation just the other day — that the only motive driving the 1924 restrictionists was a determination to keep out inferior peoples. Plainly Rep. Vaile did not believe Czechs, Jews and Italians to be inferior to “Nordics.” He thought they were fine people: but they had their own countries, and we had our own country, and to go on permitting them to move from there to here in great numbers would change our country more than we wished it changed. Perhaps they would be more usefully employed in changing their own countries, if those countries were so unsatisfactory to them.

After a similar period of high immigration, America may once again be experiencing diversity fatigue, John Derbyshire says:

It seems to me that in the recent arguments over Arizona’s immigration law and the Ground Zero mosque, I detect a whiff of diversity fatigue. Could it be that the mindset of Congressman Vaile is still to be found, in quantity, among the American public? A mindset not of racial superiority or privilege, still less of “hate,” but of satisfaction with one’s country the way it is, with the ethnic balance it has, and a reluctance to countenance the indefinite continuation of headlong demographic change?

Yesterday I got lost near the railroad station of a nearby town, Hicksville. I stopped people to ask directions to the street I wanted. It took four or five tries before I found someone who could both (a) understand me, and (b) reply in plain English. This was not the teeming slums of a port city, or some adobe outpost in the southwastern desert: this was a provincial town in Long Island.

Then this evening I saw Katie Couric on TV saying: “We cannot let fear and rage tear down the towers of our core American values.”

Is massive, never-ending demographic change a “core American value”? Might objections to the Ground Zero mosque—the topic exercising Ms. Couric’s absurd grandiloquence—be inspired by something other than “fear” and “rage”? Perhaps by the beliefs that this is a good country; that it suits us; and that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different?

Derbyshire is, of course, an immigrant — from England.

Investors Head for Bunkers

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

As investors head for the bunkers, certain stocks perform well — the so-called shelter shares:

Between them, they provide an investor with essentials for any respectable fallout shelter — makers of bottled water, canned goods, dehydrated broth, gas masks and auxiliary generators.

A portfolio of the 18 companies that reached their peaks in the past month would be up about 24% this year, compared with the broader market’s 4.5% decline, a sign some investors may be taking the prospects of financial Armageddon more seriously than one might think.

Hormel Foods Inc., the 120-year-old producer of that dugout staple, Spam, is up 12% this year, and hit an all-time high of $43.95 in recent weeks. The company’s stable of long-life provisions, from instant packets of dehydrated broth to wrapped sausages, are critical for weathering even the most prolonged storm.

Bottled-drink maker Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., whose brands include DejaBlue purified drinking water, has soared 32% this year. The company also makes Schweppes ginger ale, great for any gnawing queasiness.

Also in the bunker club, Cummins Inc. The maker of a wide range of auxiliary power generators in addition to truck engines is up 66% this year. Shares of the Columbus, Ind., manufacturer hit a record $81.83 last Wednesday.

Hard hats and gas masks? Airgas Inc. makes both. Shares of the Radnor, Pa.-based company, which spiked in February after a hostile bid from rival Air Products & Chemicals Inc., has since added to those gains, hitting its best-ever close, at $66.72, on Friday.

“If it’s the end of the world, what do you buy? Canned foods, guns and the generators,” said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services. “There are a huge number of people who feel this is the end of the world.”

The article doesn’t mention gun companies.

How Our Professional Elites Are Hired

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Conor Friedersdorf continues to be astonished by how our professional elites are hired:

Even getting an interview often requires attending an Ivy League professional school or a very few top tier equivalents. Folks who succeed in that round are invited to spend a summer working at the firm, the most sane aspect of the process.

But subsequently, they participate in sell events where they’re plied with food and alcohol in the most lavish settings imaginable: five star resort hotels, fine cigar bars, the priciest restaurants. A fancy dinner will be scheduled in a faraway city. Summer associates will fly there that evening, spend several hundred dollars on the meal, spend the night in a hotel, and fly back the next morning in time for a 10 am client meeting. They’ll expense steak dinners or $150 cab rides without a second thought. The whole process is designed to appeal to their status conscious side, to accustom them to a kind of luxury that requires them to retain highly paying jobs, and to keep them busy enough during their summer tryout that anyone unable to commit their whole lives to the firm won’t stick around.

The prize firms are after: talented people, to be sure, but also the ability to tell clients, “We can put together a team for your company that is entirely made up of Ivy League graduates.” Apparently this is enormously appealing to companies, which makes sense, given that law firms and especially consulting firms are often used as a kind of responsibility deferral system, allowing managers to fall back on some variation on, Yes, technically I approved this consequential decision that didn’t actually work out for the company, but as you can see we hired the most prestigious consulting firm in America — a whole room full of Harvard graduates! — who affirmed that this was the best option.

How did Germany become such a great place to work?

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Alex Jung believes that Germany’s social democracy is vastly superior to our American system — but his answer to the question, How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place?, could have been written by the reactionary Mencius Moldbug:

The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans.