Ernie The Attorney

Obama's Golf Game Reveals A lot

I agree that golf is one of those games that exposes a person's personality. People who fudge golf rules tend to fudge rules in real life. People who adhere strictly to golf rules tend to be very honorable in their real life. So what is Obama like? Check this link.

A funny sign of open-mindedness...

Think That You Might Be Wrong: New Orleans Mystery Art

Book recommendation: The Gamble

I recently enjoyed The Gamble (author: Thomas Ricks), a fascinating book about why 'the surge' campaign in Iraq was successful. (hint: it completely shifted the focus of military operations to helping civilians, rather than attempting to hold ground).  The most amazing thing, however, was how David Patraeus managed to convince top decision-makers to adopt the strategy.  I wasn't a fan of 'The Surge' when it was first proposed (or even after it became successful), but I'm glad I read this book because I know understand a lot more about why it's so easy to make poor military strategy decisions.  

The Iraq War wasn't well thought out to being with, and the political winds did not favor the surge strategy.  So how did it succeed? Read Ricks' book and you'll find out.  It's a well written book, and you won't want to put it down. After you read the book, check out this innovative presentation that summarizes the key points (and provides additional illumination into how Patraeus succeeded).

I know that there are some people who think that David Patraeus is some kind of awful person, but a few of those people might change their minds if they read this book.  Anyone with an open mind and a healthy curiosity about how social groups work (or don't work) will thoroughly enjoy The Gamble.

Iceland, what made you think you were so special?

Michael Lewis' recent article in Vanity Fair is a must read on so many levels.  First, it's fascinating account of how Iceland, a quaint little country that has been isolated from the world of International finance for more than a millennium, suddenly became a careening high roller.  And then promptly became bankrupt. As in: 'the whole country became bankrupt.'

But there's another level (as their always is when Lewis looks at a situation) that I find more Interesting. How did a bunch of people who made their money for hundreds of years by fishing come to believe that they had an aptitude for high finance?  This short blurb, in which Lewis talks with an Icelandic fellow, kind of sums it up:

It took years of training for him to become a captain, and even then it happened only by a stroke of luck. When he was 23 and a first mate, the captain of his fishing boat up and quit. The boat owner went looking for a replacement and found an older fellow, retired, who was something of an Icelandic fishing legend, the wonderfully named Snorri Snorrasson. “I took two trips with this guy,” Stefan says. “I have never in my life slept so little, because I was so eager to learn. I slept two or three hours a night because I was sitting beside him, talking to him. I gave him all the respect in the world—it’s difficult to describe all he taught me. The reach of the trawler. The most efficient angle of the net. How do you act on the sea. If you have a bad day, what do you do? If you’re fishing at this depth, what do you do? If it’s not working, do you move in depth or space? In the end it’s just so much feel. In this time I learned infinitely more than I learned in school. Because how do you learn to fish in school?”

This marvelous training was as fresh in his mind as if he’d received it yesterday, and the thought of it makes his eyes mist.

“You spent seven years learning every little nuance of the fishing trade before you were granted the gift of learning from this great captain?” I ask.

“Yes.”

“And even then you had to sit at the feet of this great master for many months before you felt as if you knew what you were doing?”

“Yes.”

“Then why did you think you could become a banker and speculate in financial markets, without a day of training?”

“That’s a very good question,” he says. He thinks for a minute. “For the first time this evening I lack a word.” As I often think I know exactly what I am doing even when I don’t, I find myself oddly sympathetic.

Funny how easy it is for us to believe that we suddenly understand something that common sense should tell us is not that easily known.  I suggest that this a human (as opposed to an Icelandic) phenomenon by the way.  But of course we already knew that, didn't we?

Are newspapers really going to die?

Many people are wondering about the fate of newspapers.  How will they survive?  This is an important question, and many people want to find a way to save the newspapers. Clay Shirky has poignant observations about why newspapers are in trouble, and why they simply can't survive.  

Clay Shirky, in case you don't know him, is wicked smart and relentlessly observant.  So if you want to maintain a glimmer of hope that newspapers will somehow make it, please don't read his essay. On the other hand, if you have strong powers of denial then go right ahead.

The end of lawyers?

Richard Susskind has, for many years, been assessing technology's effect on the practice of law.  The titles of his prior books are: The Future of Law, and Transforming the Law.  His latest book is called The End of Lawyers?  On the first page he explains that he writes “not to bury lawyers, but to investigate their future.”  His believes that, in the future, conventional legal advisors will be less significant than today, as a result of two forces: (1) commoditization, and (2) information technology.

I am just starting this book, but already I can tell it's a sober examination of forces that many lawyers seem oblivious to (similar to other professions that have wound up roiled by new social forces). I highly recommend Susskind to anyone who really wants a glimpse of the future of the legal profession.  And for those lawyers who dismiss the future Susskind describes as "a long way off," I offer the words of science fiction author William Gibson: “the future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed.”  

Incidentally, Mr. Susskind will be the keynote speaker at the upcoming ABA TechShow in Chicago, which takes place from April 2 – 4.  Which is another good reason to sign up for TechShow.

Teaching art: if it's good enough for elephants...

In my recent discussion of the rogue artist Banksy I may have mentioned that I think that we need to do a better job of teaching art in schools. Ken Robinson makes the point more eloquently than I could. But this video also makes the point (after all why aren't more kids encouraged to do what this elephant was encouraged to do?).

And if you want to read a fascinating story about an elephant check this out. (note that many of the Amazon reviews of this book proclaim it 'was the greatest book the reviewer ever read.')

Random observations

If you want to subscribe to my 'hidden links' click here. Occasionally, I drop an observation over here. And now for today's photography tip. Photography is about seeing (no kidding!), but not the kind of seeing that we're used to. It's about seeing 'the potential of a great image.'

Ansel Adams took great pictures and we've all seen them. What we rarely see is what the 'great pictures' looked like if he printed the image straight from the negative. I saw a book that included the straight shot of many of his well known images. They were terrible. Why? Because Adams didn't try to take a picture that would look great when printed straight from the negative. He tried to take a picture that would give him a negative from which he could (after much manipulation in the darkroom) print a great picture.

Today's digital cameras allow us to do the same thing without having to spend hours in a small darkroom inhaling chemicals. The first step is to learn about the histogram. If you don't know what it's useful for then you probably get annoyed when you see it. But, if you watch this video podcast then you'll learn that it's actually a tool that lets you do what Ansel Adams did. Well, you'll still have to work on seeing 'the great potential picture' but at least now you know that most 'great pictures' don't necessarily look great without being manipulated a bit.

If only we could use a simple tool like a histogram to manipulate Congress.

Inefficient awareness

Most of you have heard about this notion of 'the efficient market,' usually used in discussions about laissez faire economics. The core of this notion is that if we just let the markets 'do their thing' then it will all come out for the best. I'm sure many of you now expect me to talk about whether the currently proposed $700 billion dollar bailout is a good idea. That's not where I'm going at all.

Just so we can dispense with any such misconception: I have no idea if the bailout is good, or if we need more regulation etc. I'm not talking about that at all. If you think I am then you are about to completely miss the point of what I'm going to say.

I used to believe in that notion of 'the efficient market' and also the idea that efficiency leads more quickly to what is inevitable. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm not saying I disbelieve in the efficient market; just that I don't know either way. But here is what I do know.

The idea of an 'efficient market' that acts rationally is premised on the idea that people are at all times acting in their own self-interest. Greed is okay, because it simply represents a form of self-interest that leads to efficiency. Free flow of information also leads to efficiency, or facilitates it. This is built into the theory of 'efficient markets.' And this is the part that I no longer buy into.

I believe that people are largely motivated by self-interest, and I believe that if they have good information about the state of things that they will use that information to their benefit. The problem is that most people are stuck at a certain level of perception, and most people have trouble advancing beyond the level that they are currently in. Most people cling to arcane beliefs, even when doing so is detrimental to their self-interest. Most people follow the herd, even when doing so is detrimental to their self-interest. In short, most people have trouble actually seeing how to benefit themselves.

Sometimes helping other people first is the best strategy. But this requires a subtle sense of how things work, and it requires patience. Oh, and it requires 'deferred gratification.' These are the skills that most people lack: sense of subtlety and deep patience. And these skills are under-developed in any community that fosters hair-trigger debates, and which discourages thoughtfulness.

Why is it that we now find so many people diagnosed with ADD? How did this happen? Is it possible that our society promotes this? And how does ADD keep people from understanding what their self-interest is?

Today, I called a lawyer who I really like a lot. She's my 'opposing counsel' but we have a good relationship for the most part. I have found, however, that she is really bad at returning phone calls. I don't take it personally because I can see it's a system-wide problem for her. And when I say 'system-wide' I mean it. I called to today at 10:00 am to follow up on our last phone call (she was going to talk to her client 'and get right back to me'), but no one answered. Remember, this is 10:00 am on Monday. So here is what the answering machine said:

"You have reached the offices of ________. Our offices are open from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. No one is available to take your call now. Please leave a message and someone will return your call during normal business hours."

Incidentally, this is not the first time I've gotten this message when calling a business during 'normal hours.' But let's not condemn other people. We all make mistakes. The biggest ones are the ones where we fail to help ourselves by being insufficiently aware. And so, once again, I ask: how is that we become more aware of how to help ourselves (and those around us)?

What would you do if...?

The other day I met Benjamin Reese, actually the Friday before Gustav hit. He's a really interesting guy and I liked him a lot right off the bat. He mentioned this film that he had been working on and editing for many many hours, but which got messed up due a computer problem. He tried to show us a brief clip of the shortened version (post-computer glitch), but we had technical difficulties with that too.

He finally got it all fixed up (now that Gustav has passed) and I think it's really amazing. It's based on a single question, a really provocative question. Check it out.