Friday, November 14, 2014

Is Carolyn Elefant the Worst Lawyer in the U.S.?

Is Carolyn Elefant the Worst Lawyer in the U.S.?

Maybe not. But I wouldn’t hire her to defend me against a jaywalking ticket. She might get me assessed $250,000, then hanged.
     You see, I had written this article saying (1) everyone needs a lawyer, and (2) other things being equal, hire a lawyer in a group. Because you want someone looking over any one lawyer’s shoulder.
    So this Elefant writes that I have accused her, a solo lawyer, of being unethical! Well, no I didn’t. I don’t even know her. (Thank God.) All I wrote was that solo lawyers, in general, may not be as ethical as lawyers who practice in a group. There’s evidence to that effect—though it may apply only to physicans.
   She’s in Washington, D.C.

   Don’t jaywalk in Washington, D.C. You might wind up with her defending  you.

Musical Anecdote



The father of Carl Czerny, a famous composer, was walking in the streets of Vienna sometime in 1793 when he encountered Abbe Joseph Gelinek, a famous pianist of the day. Gelinek was preparing to have a public musical duel with another pianist. His opponent: a young foreigner. “I’ll fix him,” said Gelinek confidently.
    The next day, they met again. How did the duel go? asked Czerny.
    Gelinek was “awestruck.”
   “Yesterday was a day I’ll remember! The young fellow must be in league with the devil. I’ve never heard anybody play like that! I gave him a theme to improvise on, and I assure you I’ve never heard even Mozart improvise so admirably. Then he played some of his own compositions which are marvelous—really wonderful—and he manages difficulties and effects at the keyboard that we never even dreamed of.”
    “I say,” said Czerny the elder. “What’s his name?”
   “He’s a small, ugly, swarthy young fellow and seems to have a willful disposition…. His name is Beethoven.”


In  Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph, by Jan Swafford, Houghton-Mifflin, 2014.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Stop This Whining! Now!

So many good people are so depressed by the results of the election!
 The Bad Guys--the cynical, depraved Republicans, the Kochs of the world--defeated the decent compassionate people, like Obama. 
But sometimes the Bad Guys do triumph. 
I remember how miserable we were when Eisenhower defeated the clever, charming, ever-so-decent Adlai Stevenson. 
But look, we elected Obama, didn't we? 
And we're going to elect Hillary, aren't we?

Friday, November 7, 2014

An Epidemic of Sammyglickism

An Epidemic of Sammyglickism

By Warren Boroson

There’s a word for a good employee, a desirable employee, a desirable colleague.
Namely, a “team player.”
    Not necessarily someone on a sports team. A cooperative member of any group.
    Someone at the Vanguard group once told me what Vanguard looks for in an employee. (Vanguard is the class act among final firms.) People who think in terms of “we,” not in terms of “I.”
   In short, someone who thinks first of helping other employees or the employer, rather than helping himself or herself.
   Example. In baseball, a home run hitter is up. There’s a man on first, none out, ninth inning. The home run hitter could try for an extra-base hit—or a bunt, and sacrifice the runner to second base, where a hit might score him. A team player bunts. A Sammyglick, putting himself first, swings for the fences.
    There’s an astute saying: “A people hire A people, B people hire C people.”
    B people are reluctant to hire A people—because they may show up the B people. In fact, they may eventually be promoted OVER the B people—because of their excellence. Whereas A people are self-confident. Jon Stewart hired John Oliver. A hiring A.
   Well, what’s the opposite of a team player?
   A word for someone always looking out, first and foremost, for his or her own interest Not for the interest of the team or the employer or fellow workers. A non-team player. Someone who doesn’t cooperate; someone who competes.
    There is such a word. It comes from the loathsome protagonist of the novel  “What Makes Sammy Run?” by Budd Schulberg. (I bought the novel, but couldn’t finish it.)
      I’ve met a goodly number of Sammyglicks in my long and undistinguished career in journalism.
   In fact, at my last job, the editor—an authentic Sammyglick--killed my financial column. It was a nationally syndicated at Gannett News Service.
   When I first met this editor, he said that readers identified me with the newspaper. I knew then that I was in trouble. Soon after, he killed my nationally syndicated column, saying it wasn’t “local.” I offered to write just a local column. He smiled a smile of satisfaction, and said no.
   At Medical World News, there was one editor who made suggestions about the magazine. And would relentlessly remind people when his suggestions proved successful.
   I could give other examples.
   Of course, Sammyglicks are sometimes useful. They may come up with good ideas. And they may not be Sammyglicks all the time. Sometimes they change. Perhaps just temporarily.
  Is Sammyglickism increasing? I don’t know, but I’ve run into a lot of it. What causes it? I guess you get it from your self-seeking parents and self-seeking brothers and sisters.

  And someone I know argues that Sammyglickism is far more common among Republicans than among Democrats, among people like the Koch brothers and Richard Nixon. Rich people who want to lower their taxes, not increase the minimum wage, and keep immigrants from entering the country or getting citizenship. 

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Bad Memory...

Twenty or 30 years ago, I was living in Passaic, NJ--
I heard a boy who lived next door plead with his father, "Don't hit me, don't hit me!"
Said the father, angrily, "Don't tell me what to do!"

That poor kid--today he probably is timid and fearful--

Monday, November 3, 2014

Remembering the Great Sylvia Porter

Remembering the Great Sylvia Porter

BY WARREN BOROSON

A new book about Sylvia Porter has come out, and no one can accuse the author of trying to whitewash Sylvia. (The book, subtitled “America’s Original Personal Finance Columnist,” was written by Tracy Lucht, a journalism teacher.)
     Sylvia, Lucht writes, was stingy, contradictory, untruthful, and almost always fighting with the people she worked with. An especially recurrent criticism in the book: Other people wrote many of her columns and her books.  Writes Lucht, “Porter took credit for a lot of work she did not do, and she was less than generous toward those who worked for her.”
    I was among them. I wrote a half-dozen of Sylvia’s columns, along with some of her tax books. (On their inside cover it says, “Prepared with the editorial assistance of Warren Boroson.”)
     Someone at the book’s publsher phoned me.
   “Has Miss Porter read and approved the book?” 
    Me, my voice filled with contempt: “Sylvia doesn’t…read…her books.”
     I also worked at her magazine. And it was I who first said that half of America read Sylvia’s columns, and the other half wrote them. (But I don’t hold it against her that I received little credit. I wrote financial stuff for Louis Rukeyser, too, and got little or no credit.)
    
 Working at Sylvia Porter’s Magazine was fun. Sylvia herself almost never visited, and by coincidence on my very first day there was an annual picnic. The entire staff picked up an all-paid-for lunch at a fancy restaurant and dined on the grass in Central Park. We called it “Picnic in the Park Without Sylvia.”     
   Still, Sylvia deserves credit for almost single-handedly inventing writing about personal financial—and led the way for women to enter the higher ranks of financial journalism. (In fact, her original columns didn’t even reveal that she was a woman: She used just her initials.) Writes Lucht,  “A large number of personal financial journalists today are women—so many, in fact, that one has to wonder whether personal finance has become a pink ghetto.”    
    Not only that, but Sylvia was incorruptible. As Lucht notes, at one time writers at The Wall Street Journal and the Daily News were actually paid to tout stocks. Not Sylvia….
   I once wangled an an interview with Peter Lynch, who ran Fidelity Magellan, one of history’s great mutual funds. At the time, Fidelity bought most of the ads in Sylvia Porter’s Financial Magazine. Lynch, after the interview, told me he would love to have Sylvia praise his new book, so more women might read it. So I asked Sylvia. No, she said flatly. She doesn’t endorse books. Did I  mention that Fidelity bought most of the ads in Sylvia’s magazine?
    It’s important to acknowedhge that there were two Sylvias. Sylvia One was the young, assertive, Phi Beta Kappa college graduate, sharp as a tack. Sylvia Two, the older woman I worked for, was as sharp as a wet noodle. Sometimes she embarrassed herself when she appeared on TV programs. She had become, not to put too fine a point about it, somewhat batty.
    She could also be difficult.
    “Warren, your columns are lovely. Just lovely,” she purred to me on the phone.
    Pause. Then she decided that she had gone too far.
    “But you’ll just have to do better!”
    She customarily read through the galleys of Sylvia Porter’s Magazine. One time, she had come upon an article claiming that a certain new safe was so easy to open that Larry, Curley, and Moe could do it.
   She phoned me. “Who the hell are  Larry, Curley, and Moe?”
  But she let the Three Stooges go through.
  She  hired me after I had visited her at her estate in Pound Ridge, New York. I was working at a superboring doctors’ financial magazine in New Jersey at the time, desperate to escape. Visiting Sylvia, I brought along a recording of Jussi Bjoerlng singing “Sylvia” and a bouquet of flowers. And when she told me, sharply, “I want someone who knows the difference between semicolons from colons,” I replied confidently, “I’m an authority on colons and semicolons. “
    I once said to her, You should write a book about mutual funds.
   Said she, “I HATE mutual funds.”
  I almost fainted. Later, I learned that she must have meant closed-end funds, which fell into the pits in 1929.
  She would phone me at the office. “This is…SYLVIA PORTER!!!” she would begin.
 When you work for Sylvia Porter’s Personal Finance Magazine, and you heard that, naturally, you jump out of your seat.
    But, as I said, she had integrity. At a dinner at her place, her husband said, “I don’t care what I do for a living, so long as I get paid well.” Sylvia, almost to herself, said quietly, “I don’t  feel that way.”
     Sylvia Porter’s Magazine—despite such splendid people as Pat Estess and Greg Daugherty—gave up the ghost after the stock market crash of 1987, when Fidelity pulled all of its advertising. And today hardly anyone but the elderly recognize Sylvia’s name. But at one time she was a powerhouse. Her columns appeared in 500 newspapers. Presidents Ford and Kennedy and Johnson communicated with her. Johnson even offered her a job as president of the Export-Import Bank. 
    As for the new book about Sylvia, it does a good job. The author’s last lines are memorable: “It is not difficult to grasp her importance. One only has to visit the personal finance section of a bookstore and imagine that, in the beginning, there was only Sylvia.”


The Happiest People on Earth

The Happiest People on Earth

By Warren Boroson

Unlike Hamlet, most Danes are not melancholy. In fact, according to several polls, they’re the happiest people on earth.
     Just why are they so damn happy?
    Donna Skeels Cygan, CFP, in her new book, “The Joy of Financial Security” (Sage Future Press), claims that low taxes are NOT the reason. Denmark, in fact, has very high taxes.
    Here are some of her explanations:
   *free health care
    *free job training
    *free child care
    *free college education
   * free elder care
   * up to four years of unemployment benefits
   * six weeks of vacation.
   Also, the average Dane retires on 87% of what he or she made while working.
Meanwhile, Denmark has the lowest poverty level in the world, and the smallest disparity between the incomes of the rich versus the poor.
   Cygan’s conclusion: “Although it may not be feasible  to emulate every aspect of the Danish culture, it seems clear that happiness can be increased through government policies.”
   Another persuasive explanation for Danish contentment includes a warm, welcoming social life: “Hanging out with other Danes just may be their happiness secret. Ninety-two percent of Danes belong to some kind of social club, dancing, singing, even practicing laughing with other Danes. Get a few people together who enjoy model train building, for example, and the government will pay for it. In Denmark, even friendship is subsidized.” (ABC News)
   The Happiness Research Institute, a think tank in Copenhagen, offers still another reasonable explanation: Denmark holds the highest level of trust in the world (Danes happily leave their babies in strollers outside shops and cafés while running errands)….” 
    I’m sure there are lots of other causes at work here, but my own suggestion is: Danes constitute a fairly uniform society. It’s when your neighbors are very different from you—in the way they talk, or dress, or walk, or look—that suspicion and hostility begin to breed. The United States is very different from Denmark—we pride ourselves, legitimately, on our multi-cultural society. But the incredible variety of our people may help explain our full prisons, our high levels of violence, and our mistrust of one another.

    E pluribis disunion.