Defending Stoogology

3stooges.jpgChristopher Hitchens wrote this Vanity Fair piece earlier this year in which he explains why men are generally funnier than women. Dubuque (Iowa) Tribune-Herald columnist Rebecca Christian took offense to Hitchens’ article (her column is not online) and, in so doing, made several disparaging remarks regarding those icons of American male comedy, The Three Stooges. Those are fightin’ words to the Kirkendall brothers, prompting this letter to the editor (registration required) from my brother Matt, which provides as follows:

Dear Editor:
I am responding to a recent column from Saturday columnist, Ms. Rebecca Christian. She wrote expressing her irritation at a Vanity Fair article by Christopher Hitchens, but included in this a general meditation on women’s inability to appreciate male humor. Unfortunately, she made several disparaging remarks about the Three Stooges with some particularly cheap shots directed at Curly.
In this way, she demonstrated a woeful lack of appreciation of the Three Stooges and by implication the entire male philosophical discipline known as “Stoogology” — the study of the Three Stooges and their impact on society. Her comments demand a response.
She is correct in her assertion that women generally do not understand the Stooge phenomenon. For men, however, the Stooges provide a framework to develop an understanding of the world and their place in it.
One of the most important and time honored responsibilities of any father is passing on to his son a passion and proper respect for the Three Stooges.
In their unique way, the Stooges teach valuable life lessons that all men can identify with and can use to try to fashion their own lives. Some of these lessons include:
* Life can be painful (i.e. eye pokes, face slaps).
* Question authority (be it as a teacher, plumber, census taker, columnist; most any job can be pretty much made up as you go along).
* Despite your best efforts whatever you do may not be appreciated (ex: a pie in the face).
These are tough lessons to be sure. It is a choice, you can spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives sending your sons to university to study obscure philosophers to learn these lessons, or you can allow them to watch Stooge shorts on men focused cable channels to learn the same things.
An added advantage is that even basic Stooge knowledge can be broadening as it allows your son to come to appreciate other important social commentary of our time such as that provided by Benny Hill, Monty Python, ESPN commercials, and many others.
Several years ago, a national magazine proposed that every man’s personality type could be summarized as being one of the Three Stooges.
Most men are Larry; they just want to get along with everyone. The forceful personality types are Moe. These are the guys that run businesses, are corporate types and are generally SOBs.
It was in fact the Curlys, that women found most fascinating. One woman noting, “I would marry a Larry, but dating a Curly would be the most fun.” Curlys tend to be exciting and prone to excess. Typically they burn out early. Unfortunately, this describes the life of the real Curly, Jerome Horowitz, who was famous for his girlfriends, several wives and dying at a young age.
Other famous Curly types have included Marlon Brando, Babe Ruth, Elvis and John Lennon. Significantly, former President Bill Clinton was felt to be a Curly, whereas, President George W. Bush was classified as a Shemp. Go figure.
Within this framework, the columnist Christopher Hitchens can be classified as a Curly. He is prone to polemical excess and his schtick is to be controversial. He tries to impress the girls with his vocabulary, his British accent and his peculiar worldview.
However, the TH columnist should not take her dislike of Mr. Hitchens’ column as an excuse to condemn Curlys as a whole. In that way, she is insulting a large part of the male population and she may be seriously limiting her options for fun dating in the future. She should remember that in the end: “Soitenly, we all are just victims of coicumstance, N’yuk, N’yuk, N’yuk!”
Matthew J. Kirkendall
Dubuque, IA.
Kirkendall is a physician at Dubuque Internal Medicine.

Charles Koch on Market-Based Management

koch.gifC.S. Hayden. who is serving an internship at Koch Industries, Inc., the world’s largest privately-held company, provides this entertaining interview of Charles G. Koch, the company’s CEO. Koch is the author of The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company (Wiley 2007), which he expands upon in the interview. Of particular interest is Koch’s view toward Koch’s advantages in the marketplace:

Q: What separates this company from those in the Fortune 500?
Mr. Koch: The MBM culture and management philosophy are key. We are privately held, which gives us tremendous advantages in this business environment of regulation and litigation. Also, we have continuity of leadership. As Deming said, constancy of purpose is a key. A 20% yearly return will make your money double every 3.5 years, which adds up over time. Others try to change their purpose all the time, they have some successes, but they end up bankrupt and have to start all over again.
Q: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the private vs. public ownership structure?
Mr. Koch: In today’s regulatory and litigious society, about every company is better off private. The only reason to go public would be if the shareholders want liquidity or if the business can finance takeovers through public offerings. [I think this is what he said, but I’m not certain about the second point, financing takeovers; the key is that he emphasized the vast benefits of the private structure.]
The equity markets are not free markets, but highly regulated and distorted.

Also impressive is Koch’s analysis of his decision-making:

Q: What have been your best and worst decisions?
Mr. Koch: The best decision was a deal with J. Howard Marshall to gain control of the Great Northern Oil Company, which established the refining business and eventually propelled us into many other industry areas. The worst decisions are way too numerous to recount. Making so many mistakes is definitely a humbling process. The very worst decisions occur when we don’t take advantage of good deals, when we have massive opportunity costs. We get scared and don’t take risks. Fred Koch said, “Don’t take counsel of your fears.”

Koch’s final piece of advice is also insightful:

Finally, if you lose your humility, you’re on your way out.

Read the entire interview.

Catching up with Bill James

Bill%20James%20062507.jpgClear Thinkers favorite and the original sabermetrician Bill James is the subject of this Dan Ackman/Opinion Journal piece, which provides the usual dose of Jamesian good sense regarding objective analysis of baseball. James, whose original Baseball Abstract in 1977 revolutionized the way in which statistics are used to evaluate baseball players, never worked for a Major League Baseball team until 2002, when the Red Sox hired him as consultant. Among the most interesting observations that James makes in the article is the following:

Mr. James, a rationalist in a church of red-blooded true believers, takes the long view: “In any given season there is an immense amount of luck in who wins the division, even if it’s a lopsided race,” he says. “People are made very uncomfortable by the notion that our lives are random, but there are huge random parts in everything that happens. It’s uncomfortable because it’s our job to drive the randomness out and make the system work.”

Read the entire piece.

What’s the excuse?

woody%20wiliams.jpgDespite the fact that Craig Biggio (-9 RCAA/.271 OBA/.382 SLG/.653 OPS) has been one of the least productive hitters (-28 RCAA) among regular National League players over the past season and a half, I at least understand the Stros’ decision in continuing to play him regularly as he plods toward his landmark 3,000th hit.
But what’s the Stros’ excuse for continuing to trot Woody Williams (-18 RSAA/5.75/17 HR’s in 92.1 innings) out to the mound every fifth game?
For the season, Williams is now the third least productive starter of the 90 or so regular starters in the entire National League. Unlike Biggio, he is not a franchise icon. Rather, Williams is a 40 year-old speculative off-season pickup who has not worked out. There is simply no reasonable explanation for not giving some of the Stros minor league talent a shot while having Williams play out his string in a less damaging role, probably as a long reliever.
By the way, after ridiculing the Rockets’ Les Alexander’s quite reasonable decision to change management, the Chronicle’s Richard Justice now thinks maybe Stros’ owner Drayton McLane should fire Stros General Manager Tim Purpura, despite the fact that Purpura has been an integral part of the Stros management team that has overseen the most successful decade in the club’s history.
As noted in the earlier post, I don’t understand why Chronicle management thinks Justice has any business analyzing sports. However, at least he is doing that rather than making management decisions for any of the local sports teams.

But what about the price of the smoked gouda?

wholefoods062207.jpgBest crack yet on the Federal Trade Commission’s remarkably misdirected lawsuit to enjoin the proposed Whole Foods-Wild Oats Markets merger comes from Mr. Juggles over at Long and Short Capital. Commenting on the FTC’s novel theory that the merger will reduce competition in the market catering to those of us who seek a “superior grocery store experience,” tongue firmly planted in cheek, Mr. Juggles observes as follows:

Frankly, I agree [with the FTC’s theory]. I spent 20 minutes waiting in the deli line at Food Lion last week, only to be sold ground beef that looked like it had been dropped on the floor and then put back in the deli case. I love superior quality and superior service and abhor the idea that Whole Foods could acquire the only other superior provider, Wild Oats. At that point, given their monopoly on quality service, what would happen next? Iíll tell you what: weíd probably all end up paying a huge premium for our smoked gouda and wild Alaskan salmon.

The song of a salesman

opera_5053.jpgI’ve never watched even one episode of American Idol. However, my nephew Rich passed along this four minute excerpt of an episode from the British version of the show, and it’s truly about as inspiring as anything I’ve seen recently from television. There is some speculation around the Web that the performer was a ringer, but this critic makes a good case that he is legit. Take a look. It might just make your day.

Trouble in Lake Wobegon

bicyclist61153.jpgGarrison Keillor didn’t much like the way in which some “burly” security men behaved during his trip to Texas last year, but this post indicates that security matters can get a bit out of hand even in such progressive outposts as Keillor’s beloved Minneapolis. A couple of Minneapolis’ finest apparently decided to arrest, rough up and Taser a citizen who had the audacity to attempt to ride home from the local airport on his bicycle. The bicyclist ended up spending 24 hours in jail before being released on a $2,000 bond. A trial, in which the bicyclist is apparently representing himself, is scheduled for mid-July. Stay tuned.

Help for J. Fred

microphone062207.jpgCharles Kuffner passes along the news that J. Fred Duckett — the longtime public address announcer for Rice University sports teams, the Stros, the Oilers, the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, the Texas Relays and many other events — is battling leukemia and in need of blood platelet donations. Kuff’s post has the information on how to arrange a donation, as does this post from the Rice forum. Please give if you can and pass along the information to anyone who has enjoyed J. Fred’s good-natured style over the years (no one who ever heard it will forget J. Fred announcing at Stros games “Jose Cruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuzzzz!”).
Update: Sad news. J. Fred died on Monday, June 25. Charles Kuffner has more.

Fiddling while the Whole Foods-Wild Oats deal burns

wholefoods062007.jpgGeoff Manne (see also here) and Thom Lambert (see also here) over at the Truth on the Market blog are having a field day bashing the misdirected FTC opposition of the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger. And with good reason.
The latest development in this bizarre episode of excessive governmental regulation is the publication of the unredacted version of the FTC’s complaint against the proposed merger, which relies heavily on comments that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey made to his board about the merits of the merger. Not surprisingly, Mackey told the Whole Foods board members the straight truth as to why it would be good for Whole Foods to acquire Wild Oats and, in do doing, pooh-poohed the ability of other supermarket chains to compete with Whole Foods. This David Kesmodel/WSJ($) article sums it up well:

The lawsuit quotes Mr. Mackey as saying that the company “isn’t primarily about organic foods” but “only one part of its highly successful business model,” citing as others “superior quality, superior service, superior perishable product, superior prepared foods, superior marketing, superior branding and superior store experience.”

What is wrong with that? All Mackey is saying is that other supermarkets are not currently a direct competitor of Whole Foods because they are focused on price rather than the Whole Foods shopping experience. But nothing is stopping those other chains from changing course and imitating the Whole Foods karma if it’s in the interest of their shareholders to do so. The FTC’s theory that Whole Foods is attempting to monopolize the “hip” grocery shopping experience borders on the absurd.
Mackey has fired back with his own blog post, which is well worth reading. Among other things, he points out that Whole Foods’ prices are unaffected by whether it is competing in a particular area with a Wild Oats store and that several other grocery chains are bigger and more direct competitors to Whole Foods than Wild Oats. Frankly, Mackey’s blog post would be an excellent affidavit in support of a summary judgment motion for Whole Foods and Wild Oats.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Whole Foods could, through discovery, find out why the FTC is pursing this costly regulatory charade in the first place?

Want a season ticket? Take out a mortgage

Yankee%20stadium%20new.jpgConde Nast’s Megan Barnett reports on how the lion’s share of the new Yankee Stadium is apparently going to be financed. The idea is that the seats in the new Yankees Stadium will be sold in advance to investors who will own them in perpetuity. Morgan Stanley and its partner, a start-up entity called Stadium Capital Financing Group, are hoping that their structure becomes the accepted way of privately-financing sports stadiums. They have even applied for a patent regarding the concept, which seems like a stretch. Here’s how it would work:

Fans would buy seats for a designated period of time and finance them much like a mortgage. Pricing mechanisms can vary, but the most appealing option for buyers might be a 30-year loan with an annual payment equal to the current price of a season ticket. In exchange, the seat becomes real property, equivalent to, say, a condominium. The team (or university or other owner) receives the principal amount of the loan up front, to put toward construction costs.
This arrangement is different from seat licensing, which gives the holder the right to buy a season ticket for a specific seat. . . . Under [the] system, people own seats, not shares of a team.
Say, for instance, the current price of a season baseball ticket is $3,240. A 30-year loan at 6 percent interest with an annual payment of $3,240 results in a principal amount of $45,000. Even if the price of the seat doubles in the next 20 years, the seat owner still pays $3,240. Investors will have the option of making annual payments over 30 years, paying the entire amount up front, or something in between. Owners can also sell their seats at any time for market value, but rest assuredóthe team will get a cut of any profits.

At least one expert on financing stadiums, though, does not believe the financing technique will be all that earth shattering:

Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor who has written extensively about stadium financing, says that such an approach might make a dent in required public funding but will never replace it. Noll points out that most teams can’t afford to sacrifice future revenues in order to pay for their ball fields. “At the end of the day, stadiums are not good investments,” he says. “This isn’t going to be a revolution.”

H’mm, think this might work to defray the cost of this proposed boondoggle?