f/k/a . . . the archives

May 31, 2004

memorial day ’04

Filed under: Haiku or Senryu,pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 3:26 pm

Michael Dylan Welch — photo-poem pairs:

 

 

old folks’ home

the square of light

crosses the room

[Click here to see the original, full-color photo and poem.]



you squeeze my hand 

how still the sky

after fireworks

[Click here to see the original, full-color photo and poem.]

From Open Window - an online collection of paired haiku and photographs by Michael Dylan Welch.

gold star nana
holds one small hand
remembers another
[dag, 05-31-04]

May 30, 2004

unofficially summer?

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 1:41 pm

 


of English-Language Haiku 1999

 


lazy afternoon–

the digital temperature sign

rises one degree

                         by Michael Dylan Welch

 

 







lift bridge

the broken flow

of tourists

               by Tom Painting

calm night

the moon broken

by the oar

                by Jim Kacian    

 

 

 


 (edited by Jim Kacian and the Red Moon Editorial Staff)  






coatless   
the late Spring day
colder than it looked
                               [dag, 05-30-04]

May 29, 2004

grave times

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 12:58 pm

black envelope . . honored guest: jim kacian


cemetery
the sharp edges

of the new names

 






a letter from a prisoner–
the wide spaces
between words

 

 

 

pegging

from pegging the wind: The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 2002 

(Red Moon Press; Jim Kacien, Ed.)  Click here  for information on the book. 

Learn about Jim Kacian and read the first installments of his Haiku Primer.

 




  • by dagosan:


  • New Guinea   
    dad rather not 
    talk about it
                                   [dag, 05-29-04]

    May 28, 2004

    gridlock and earthquakes

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 2:57 pm


    Michael Dylan WelchHonored Guest

     

    gridlock Welch gray  









          gridlock
             on the freeway–
    the skywriting drifts
                                              








                        [Click here to see the original, full-color photo and poem.]


                             



    after the quake      


    after the quake


                    the weathervane


                                  pointing to the earth  


                                                         [Click here to see the original, full-screen photo-poem.]  


     



     Welch From Open Window - an online collection of haiku and photographs by Michael Dylan Welch. 






     





    green carpet   
    turned white overnight 
    pollen magic
                                   [dag, 05-28-04]

    May 27, 2004

    honored guest: tom painting

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 2:23 pm



    family plot
    the gravedigger
    severs a root












    solicitation
    the wildlife activist
    flashes her teeth


     





    loose thread from the loose thread :The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 2001 (edited by Jim Kacien, and the Red Moon editorial staff).  Click here for information on the book, and here to learn about Tom Painting.


     






    silently  
    she lures me to the kitchen -  
    peeled tangerine
                                   [dag, 01-03-04]


     


                              ”tree b&W”
        almost dusk
        driving while distracted
        by tree after tree
                                      [dag, 02-23-04]


    May 26, 2004

    Poetry Not Punditry

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:56 pm

    Punditry makes me grumpy (and Sleepy and Dopey). So, it’s quite auspicious that the Third Annual Great American Grump Out took place today. You see, May 26th, 2004, is my First Anniversary as a weblogger, and I’ve decided to ban grumpiness permanently from all future posting on this weblog [Ed. note: that ban and the plan set out in this posting did not last long, and we soon slipped back into opinionated punditry; see our About page].

    shift key neg More precisely, I will stop all forms of commentary and preaching at this weblog as of this posting — from now on, we’re grumping-out for good, and focusing exclusively on haiku, and related forms of poetry. Given our history of frequent name-changes, you can just call this weblog f/k/a . . ..

    Four things are clear here at my desk:

    1. I’m unable to maintain an opinionated, topical weblog without obsessing and overweblogging.
    2. my health is noticeably and chronically worse than it was pre-weblog (when it wasn’t exactly great)
    3. nothing ethicalEsq, prof. yabut or any other alter ego is likely to achieve by trying to change lawyer behavior is worth further jeopardizing my health.
    4. on the other hand, haiku is good for my body and soul, and good for lawyers (and other hyper-busy, over-stressed Americans), too.

    check red The very-public soap opera of my many weblog hiatuses, retirements, and reformulations needs to end. As my wise physician, Joe Hayes, has often said, “David, you’re like an alcoholic who thinks he can go into a bar and have Just One drink.” Cold turkey appears to be my only safe relationship to punditry. Please don’t try to lure me back with flattery or new coping strategies.

    With 220,000 page hits in 52 weeks, I’m immensely grateful to my weblogging friends — colleagues, visitors, frrequent commentors, et al. Thanks to all the webloggers who have pointed to us so frequently, and said some pretty darn nice stuff about ethicalEsq. [No more eulogies, the ones last November were enough for a lifetime (or two).]

    I’m finally going to have time to visit other weblogs consistently, and to enjoy small pleasures away from my laptop, which have been sorely neglected this past year. Soon, I’ll have more energy, too.

    bike sketch gray You are all invited to stop by frequently for a haiku moment. I’ll be spotlighting the works of top-notch English-language haiku poets, presenting special materials [such as the serialized preview of Jim Kacian's How-to Primer, with new installments the first of each month], updating our Haiku Resources Page, with its links to haiku sources, and humbly offering — and always re-editing — my own small poems. This is not goodbye. It is a sigh of relief. . . . .[dag, 05-26-04]

    P.S. By Memorial Day, we’ll have haiku moved into the body of the weblog as befits our new focus. Until then, please check out HAIKUesque in our Margin. Don’t forget, the extensive ethicalEsq Archives and Resources will continue to be available at this site.

    P.P.S. More serendipity: The article For Some, the Blogging Never Stops (about addicted webloggers) appeared on the New York Times website this evening. Thanks to TalkLeft for pointing to the article and to Pandagon‘s spirited reply. Update: (05-30-04): “Hello, I’m Ernest, and I’m a blogaholic.” My e-buddy Ernie Svenson says he “speaks in blog,” too, and wonders if he needs to seek counseling. From a distance, it appears you’ve got the blog-disease well under control, Ernie. You may think in Blog, but you don’t seem to eat, drink and breathe it — instead, you leave plenty of time for real food, drink and fresh air.

    May 25, 2004

    Aging Up: False IDs for the AARP Crowd

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 1:23 pm

    All the recent jabber on weblogs about lawyer marketing has left skepticalEsq in an entrepeneurial mood, and he offers this money-making idea for an extra profit-center in your law firm:


    birthday cake small  Fake IDs for Baby Boomer and Greatest Generation Birthday Gifts.  These make great gifts for every AARP-ager, but will be especially appreciated by folks who are aging either very gracefully or very poorly. Think how impressed strangers will be, when your faker “proves” that he or she is a decade older than shown on that pesky old original birth certificate or driver’s license!



    Immigration and p/i lawyers may already have the necessary machinery in-office; and solos working out of their homes probably have cameras and laminators around the house.  Of course, techie lawyers will be able to help establish electronic IDs for up-agers.


    plus key small  We think aging-up is already going on across the nation, but here’s your chance to cash in on it.  Listen to the chatter at office and cocktail parties.  See how often you hear variations on “wow, you don’t look a day over . . . “  Baby Boomers loved fake IDs as kids.  Their vanity and competitiveness will make Aging-Up irresistible as they see themselves faring poorly on the WPQ (well-preserved quotient).  There’s money to be made here, for the niche-marketing law firm.




    • Disclaimer:  Aging-Up ID services are offered for entertainment and other lawful purposes only.  Obtaining Senior Discounts on a fraudulent basis is considered by the pyj gang to be both tacky and inappropriate. 


    P.S.   Do you think Bob Dylan wanted an Aging-Up ID for his 63rd birthday yesterday?  Let’s face it, he looks pretty darn good for 75!

    May 24, 2004

    No Denial of Post-Sovereignty Pull-Out

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 11:29 pm

    escape key neg  


    In his thirty-minute speech tonight, President George W. Bush did nothing to squelch the rumors (started here) that his current Exit Strategy is to find a transitional government that will ask for a pull-out of all coalition forces after June 30th.  Indeed, he stressed that the new government would have “full sovereignty,” while giving no pullout timetable (See Reuters, “Bush Tries to Allay Mounting Doubts Over Iraq,” 05-24-04)



    • Hmmmmm.
    • Update (05-25-04):  Somebody needs to remind TChirs at TalkLeft that Colin Powell has already told the nation that we would pull out American troops when the new Iraqi government asks us to do so.  All the vagueness about a withdrawal timetable will just make it easier for the Aministration to say it’s surprised when the new government asks us to leave, and we “reluctantly” acquiesce to their full sovereignty.

    Putting the (Political) Arm on Associates

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 10:59 pm

    At pyj, we dislike poor analogies almost as much as we dislike the poor treatment of young lawyers by law firms.  So, we want to respond to a comment by Williams & Jensen partner William Canfield in today’s Legal Times.  In an article about lawyer contributions to presidential campaigns (“Lawyers Fill Candidates’ Coffers,” by Lily Henning, 05-24-04), Canfield is cited as seeing no need for law firms to have written policites about partners seeking political contributions from subordinates:  Acording to the Legal Times (emphasis added):


    “[Canfield] says firms don’t need explicit policies. He likens political campaign fund raising to collecting money for a charity. ‘It’s not different than having a partner going around raising money for the United Way,’ Canfield says.”

    donkey elephant  There’s no difference between collecting for a favorite charity and asking an associate to give money in support of Bush or Kerry or their respective parties?   I bet that any mediocre lawyer (or grade school student) could come up with some very good reasons why the analogy is far from perfect — not at all on all fours (with or without a leash). 



    • Should we be concerned that Election Law expert Canfield is currently the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law?  The Committee states its Mission to be ”representing the Association’s commitment to ensure that the nation’s election laws are legally sound and are drafted to permit the broadest, least restrictive access by Americans to the ballot box.”

    It’s heartening to see that Gibson-Dunn partner William Kilberg, who has raised over $200,000 for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, ”as a rule” doesn’t ask associates for contributions.  According to the Legal Times article:


    just say no gray “You don’t want to give people the impression that this is something that they need to do,” Kilberg says. “It’s fairly common sense that you don’t solicit people who report to you or someone over whose career you have influence. It wouldn’t be fair.”

    Of course, Kilberg is also quoted saying “We have money, we have awareness, and we have interest.”  The wise Gibson, Dunn subordinate might know how to keep his or her boss happy. 

     

    Brett Kappel, a federal election law expert at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy’s D.C. office, notes that putting the arm on subordinates for political contributions ”might not be fair, but it isn’t against the law either.”  We hate to sound monotonous, but we’d like to think that lawyers don’t merely avoid law-breaking when dealing with their employees (or their clients).


    • See Votelaw’s post quoting Kappel on how easily a corporation can violate the anti-facilitation rules under the Federal election campaign laws.

    Putting the (Political) Arm on Associates

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 10:59 pm

    At pyj, we dislike poor analogies almost as much as we dislike the poor treatment of young lawyers by law firms.  So, we want to respond to a comment by Williams & Jensen partner William Canfield in today’s Legal Times.  In an article about lawyer contributions to presidential campaigns (“Lawyers Fill Candidates’ Coffers,” by Lily Henning, 05-24-04), Canfield is cited as seeing no need for law firms to have written policites about partners seeking political contributions from subordinates:  Acording to the Legal Times (emphasis added):


    “[Canfield] says firms don’t need explicit policies. He likens political campaign fund raising to collecting money for a charity. ‘It’s not different than having a partner going around raising money for the United Way,’ Canfield says.”

    donkey elephant  There’s no difference between collecting for a favorite charity and asking an associate to give money in support of Bush or Kerry or their respective parties?   I bet that any mediocre lawyer (or grade school student) could come up with some very good reasons why the analogy is far from perfect — not at all on all fours (with or without a leash). 



    • Should we be concerned that Election Law expert Canfield is currently the Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law?  The Committee states its Mission to be ”representing the Association’s commitment to ensure that the nation’s election laws are legally sound and are drafted to permit the broadest, least restrictive access by Americans to the ballot box.”

    It’s heartening to see that Gibson-Dunn partner William Kilberg, who has raised over $200,000 for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, ”as a rule” doesn’t ask associates for contributions.  According to the Legal Times article:


    just say no gray “You don’t want to give people the impression that this is something that they need to do,” Kilberg says. “It’s fairly common sense that you don’t solicit people who report to you or someone over whose career you have influence. It wouldn’t be fair.”

    Of course, Kilberg is also quoted saying “We have money, we have awareness, and we have interest.”  The wise Gibson, Dunn subordinate might know how to keep his or her boss happy. 

     

    Brett Kappel, a federal election law expert at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy’s D.C. office, notes that putting the arm on subordinates for political contributions ”might not be fair, but it isn’t against the law either.”  We hate to sound monotonous, but we’d like to think that lawyers don’t merely avoid law-breaking when dealing with their employees (or their clients).


    • See Votelaw’s post quoting Kappel on how easily a corporation can violate the anti-facilitation rules under the Federal election campaign laws.

    Clients Treated Like Adults in Florida! (Lawyers, too)

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 12:27 am

    Although facing raging nannyism (over sex with clients) and enraged ninnyism (over advertising by lawyers), the Florida Supreme Court has issued revised rules of professional conduct for lawyers that demonstrate a belief that clients who have reached their majority are indeed adults.  The rules suggest that lawyers might be responsible adults, too.  (See Amendment to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 5/20/2004.  As usual, Tim Chinaris has done an excellent job at sunEthics, summarizing the rule changes and linking to relevant materials).

     

    embrace small  As for the nannyism, see the concurring opinion of Justice Pariente [apt name] in Florida Bar v. Bryant, 813 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2002), where the judge recommends the total prohibition of sexual relationships between a lawyer and client during the lawyer-client relationship (leaving no loophole for prior relationships — nor even mentioning spouses.)   Justice Pariente favorably quotes a law review article stating:


    Even an arguably “consensual” relationship could end up with a client alleging she was coerced or manipulated into the relationship. An express rule would protect the client from the attorney and the attorney from the client, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal profession.

    Note: the Bryant opinion should be R-rated, but please finish reading this posting before checking it out.  Sneak preview: Lawyer Bryant told his client, “the happier you keep me, the harder I will work.”)   ethicalEsq fully explained his disagreement with absolute prohibitions here, and the current Editor, not surprisingly, concurs.  

     

    The prior rule in Florida banned sexual relations that “exploit” a client.  sunEthics (05/20/04) has a good summary of the changes:


    The revised rule provides that a lawyer may not “engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.”  Rule 4-1.8(i).  New language provides examples of offending conduct, including demanding sexual relations as a condition of representation, coercing or intimidating a client into acquiescing to sexual relations, or allowing the sexual relationship to cause the lawyer to render incompetent representation.  New language in the Comment provides that a “client” means not only an individual but “a representative of the client.. 

    Justice Pariente continues her nanny role with another concurrence (at page 26), in which she requests “that this rule be assessed periodically to ensure that it operates to guarantee that the attorney-client relationship is not compromised in any regard as a result of an ongoing sexual relationship.”   Wouldn’t that be a great use of scare bar counsel resources?

     


    masks  On the subject of ninnyism over lawyer advertising, see our recent posting, concerning the current legislative push to ban virtually all advertising that “solicits” litigation.  Instead of caving to this legislative pressure to further limit advertising, the Florida Supreme Court chose to remove many restrictions on television and radio advertising, while banning features that are “deceptive, misleading, manipulative, or . . . likely to confuse the viewer,” and insisting that all statements that are required to be included in lawyer ads be “clearly legible if written or intelligible if spoken aloud.” 

     

    Existing paternalistic prohibitions have been eliminated, including:



    • The requirement that verbal and visual portrayals or depictions be “objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney” is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(b)(4).


    • The requirement that illustrations be “directly related and objectively relevant to a viewer’s possible need for legal services” is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(c)(1).)


    As sunEthics explains, under the new rules, “A non-lawyer spokesperson may speak or appear in TV and radio ads, provided the spokesperson ‘is not a celebrity recognizable to the public’ and makes ‘a spoken disclosure identifying the spokesperson as a spokesperson and disclosing that the spokesperson is not an attorney.’” (New Rule 4-7.2(b)(2).)


    ship to label  One final issue: Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5 has also been amended to provide that a lawyer’s costs must be reasonable, and listing factors to be considered in determining reasonable costs.  sunEthics points out (emphasis added) that:


    This new rule can benefit lawyers in at least 2 ways.  First, it contains a “safe harbor” provision specifying that a lawyer’s costs “shall be presumed reasonable” when there is a written attorney-client contract “in which the method is established for charging costs.”  Amended Rule 4-1.5(b).  Second, new language in the Comment to Rule 4-1.5 approves the practice of lawyers using charges for “in-house costs” (such as “copying, faxing, long distance telephone, and computerized research”) and “in-house services” (such as “paralegal services, investigative services, accounting services, and courier services”) as profit centers.  Amended Rule 4-1.5(a), (b) and Comment.

    While the pyj team believes that a lawyer can ethically enter into an agreement with a client that includes specific charges for in-house costs and services, we want to emphasize that determining reasonableness starts with looking at the nature and extent of the disclosure made to the client about the costs.”  Therefore, the revised Comment to the Florida rule stresses (1) general overhead should be accounted for in the lawyer’s fee, and (2) “The lawyer should sufficiently communicate with the client regarding the costs charged to the client so that the client understands the amount of costs being charged or the method for calculation of those costs.


    • pencil  The lawyer should not take advantage of the “captive” nature of the client as a customer of in-house services and costs.  Using an analogy to candy: the price should be similar to that found at your local drug store and supermarket (including mulit-packs and bulk discounts), and not like the cost at the counter of a movie theater.

    Clients Treated Like Adults in Florida! (Lawyers, too)

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 12:27 am

    Although facing raging nannyism (over sex with clients) and enraged ninnyism (over advertising by lawyers), the Florida Supreme Court has issued revised rules of professional conduct for lawyers that demonstrate a belief that clients who have reached their majority are indeed adults.  The rules suggest that lawyers might be responsible adults, too.  (See Amendment to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 5/20/2004.  As usual, Tim Chinaris has done an excellent job at sunEthics, summarizing the rule changes and linking to relevant materials).

     

    embrace small  As for the nannyism, see the concurring opinion of Justice Pariente [apt name] in Florida Bar v. Bryant, 813 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2002), where the judge recommends the total prohibition of sexual relationships between a lawyer and client during the lawyer-client relationship (leaving no loophole for prior relationships — nor even mentioning spouses.)   Justice Pariente favorably quotes a law review article stating:


    Even an arguably “consensual” relationship could end up with a client alleging she was coerced or manipulated into the relationship. An express rule would protect the client from the attorney and the attorney from the client, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal profession.

    Note: the Bryant opinion should be R-rated, but please finish reading this posting before checking it out.  Sneak preview: Lawyer Bryant told his client, “the happier you keep me, the harder I will work.”)   ethicalEsq fully explained his disagreement with absolute prohibitions here, and the current Editor, not surprisingly, concurs.  

     

    The prior rule in Florida banned sexual relations that “exploit” a client.  sunEthics (05/20/04) has a good summary of the changes:


    The revised rule provides that a lawyer may not “engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship.”  Rule 4-1.8(i).  New language provides examples of offending conduct, including demanding sexual relations as a condition of representation, coercing or intimidating a client into acquiescing to sexual relations, or allowing the sexual relationship to cause the lawyer to render incompetent representation.  New language in the Comment provides that a “client” means not only an individual but “a representative of the client.. 

    Justice Pariente continues her nanny role with another concurrence (at page 26), in which she requests “that this rule be assessed periodically to ensure that it operates to guarantee that the attorney-client relationship is not compromised in any regard as a result of an ongoing sexual relationship.”   Wouldn’t that be a great use of scare bar counsel resources?

     


    masks  On the subject of ninnyism over lawyer advertising, see our recent posting, concerning the current legislative push to ban virtually all advertising that “solicits” litigation.  Instead of caving to this legislative pressure to further limit advertising, the Florida Supreme Court chose to remove many restrictions on television and radio advertising, while banning features that are “deceptive, misleading, manipulative, or . . . likely to confuse the viewer,” and insisting that all statements that are required to be included in lawyer ads be “clearly legible if written or intelligible if spoken aloud.” 

     

    Existing paternalistic prohibitions have been eliminated, including:



    • The requirement that verbal and visual portrayals or depictions be “objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney” is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(b)(4).


    • The requirement that illustrations be “directly related and objectively relevant to a viewer’s possible need for legal services” is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(c)(1).)


    As sunEthics explains, under the new rules, “A non-lawyer spokesperson may speak or appear in TV and radio ads, provided the spokesperson ‘is not a celebrity recognizable to the public’ and makes ‘a spoken disclosure identifying the spokesperson as a spokesperson and disclosing that the spokesperson is not an attorney.’” (New Rule 4-7.2(b)(2).)


    ship to label  One final issue: Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5 has also been amended to provide that a lawyer’s costs must be reasonable, and listing factors to be considered in determining reasonable costs.  sunEthics points out (emphasis added) that:


    This new rule can benefit lawyers in at least 2 ways.  First, it contains a “safe harbor” provision specifying that a lawyer’s costs “shall be presumed reasonable” when there is a written attorney-client contract “in which the method is established for charging costs.”  Amended Rule 4-1.5(b).  Second, new language in the Comment to Rule 4-1.5 approves the practice of lawyers using charges for “in-house costs” (such as “copying, faxing, long distance telephone, and computerized research”) and “in-house services” (such as “paralegal services, investigative services, accounting services, and courier services”) as profit centers.  Amended Rule 4-1.5(a), (b) and Comment.

    While the pyj team believes that a lawyer can ethically enter into an agreement with a client that includes specific charges for in-house costs and services, we want to emphasize that determining reasonableness starts with looking at the nature and extent of the disclosure made to the client about the costs.”  Therefore, the revised Comment to the Florida rule stresses (1) general overhead should be accounted for in the lawyer’s fee, and (2) “The lawyer should sufficiently communicate with the client regarding the costs charged to the client so that the client understands the amount of costs being charged or the method for calculation of those costs.


    • pencil  The lawyer should not take advantage of the “captive” nature of the client as a customer of in-house services and costs.  Using an analogy to candy: the price should be similar to that found at your local drug store and supermarket (including mulit-packs and bulk discounts), and not like the cost at the counter of a movie theater.

    May 22, 2004

    Career Advice: Be Hands-On Problem Solvers

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:00 pm

    plan  

     

    A new book by economists Richard Murnane and Frank Levy confirms the guidance Prof. Yabut’s been giving lately to job seekers and students: find a career that’s hands-on and challenging (to avoid both outsourcing and obsolescence).   Of course, the Harvard and MIT professors use fancier language (and a lot of charts), but reach a similar conclusion in The New Division of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the Next Job Market (Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, June 2004).

     

    no u turn neg  You can find a good summary of their findings (and even an important chart), in a Harvard Monthly Q&A (May 2004).  Their insights include:


    • We will eventually return to full employment. But it will be full employment with a different set of jobs—the jobs lost to computerization and to other countries are not coming back. This is the essence of the book—how computers are driving long-term change in the U.S. job market and in the skills the job market now demands, and how the right kind of education creates the essential skills for success in future job markets.
    • “Check red”  We argue that the jobs growing in number share two general skills that computers cannot replicate. One is expert thinking the ability to solve new problems that cannot be solved by rules. (If the problem could be solved by rules, a computer could do it.) The second general skill is complex communication, the ability not only to transmit information, but to convey a particular interpretation of information to others in jobs like teaching, selling, and negotiation.

      • Carpenters, plumbers, and mechanics and other craftsmen can’t be off-shored—they have to work at the site of the problem. But more important, their work can’t be automated because they constantly encounter new problems for which they have to construct new solutions—they are constantly applying expert thinking skills.

    • Lliteracy and math are critical skills necessary to acquire the knowledge to be an expert thinker in any field. The skills needed to be good at complex communication and expert thinking can be taught in any subject area: English, history, science, etc., and need not compete for space in the curriculum.

    The professors have a lot of ideas on how to educate and train a workforce for these high-end, challenging jobs.  As usual, Prof. Yabut reminds the squeamish to stay away from law.

    Welcome to Samuel!!

    Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 1:01 pm

    new arrivals  The law firm of Lamere & Schaeffer put the finishing touches on some excellent work product early this morning — and as usual, senior partner Andrea did virtually all the labor.


    Congratulations Andrea and Evan on the birth of Samuel Lamere Schaeffer.  As Evan reports:



    Vital statistics: 8 lbs., 4 oz.; 21 inches long. In reviewing a draft of this post, Andrea said I should also be sure to add that Sam is “very beautiful.”


    Surely, there will be nothing “standard” about Samuel.


    Update (05-24-04):  Speaking of long-expected, eagerly-awaited work product, congratulations to Bob Ambrogi on the completion of the second edition of his classic: The Essential Guide to the Best (and Worst) Legal Sites on the Web, Second Edition, which is due in June, but available to order right now.

    Older Posts »

    Powered by WordPress