1. EconTalk: Russ Roberts gets the brightest minds in economics to talk about ideas, facts, and theories in a way that’s accessible to both economics newbies and seasoned veterans.
2. Deeper Shades of House: Lars Behrenroth keeps me grooving to new deep house mixes every week.
3. The NY Times Book Review: Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus catches me up with book world news and new book releases. It’s quality stuff even if it’s stuck in a liberal, NYC-centric universe.
4. Resident Advisor: RA offers weekly electronic dance music mixes from up-and-coming DJs and old pros. The quality is consistently good. They’re the Global Underground of podcasts.
5. The Right Doctor: The latest show with Matt Lewis made me put it on this list. It’s smart, full of common sense, and Melissa Clouthier gets into great conversations with her guests.

I failed to play nothing but Nine Inch Nails’ Pretty Hate Machine today. Why? Because twenty years ago Trent Reznor dropped this on the music world.

PHM wasn’t the beginning of industrial music, but it was the genre’s most important album. Reznor combined metal, electronic music, and goth with pop hooks that instantly made him a musical force to be reckoned with. To start up PHM with the instant classic “Head Like a Hole” is to have believed music was going in a new direction. Reznor pulled that feat off a few years before Nirvana changed everything.

NIN was my gateway into the world of electronic music. It started with NIN’s metal crunch and synthetic beats. Then it moved to NIN remixes which opened my ears to bombastic electronica from The Chemical Brothers and The Crystal Method. From there my sonic journey moved to trance and house.

I thank Trent Reznor. He may have never found a way to top his debut album, but he’s given me much enjoyment. PHM is on repeat right now to make up for what I should have been doing all day.

“Nine Inch Nails’ Pretty Hate Machine Turns 20 Today”

Bear walks into store, goes straight for beer cooler

I don’t blame him. It’s what you do in Wisconsin’s northwoods.

Bad news, conservative sports fans, but Rush Limbaugh won’t be a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams. If you’ve been following my tweets (and why aren’t you?) you know I saw this coming. Before you run off to boycott the NFL consider the possibility that Rush Limbaugh erred in his pursuit of the Rams. Yes, the king of talk radio made a mistake. [They’re booting me out of the conservative movement in 3…2…1….]

As Stephen Taylor points out in the NFL it only takes nine votes to block someone from joining the ownership club. Unlike previous potential owners Rush has a history of provoking people. Hey, that’s one reason why we love the guy. He agitates and conveys truth from a media perch no one else has. The downside is provoking a small group of owners against him dooms his chance of being an owner.

On his show Rush correctly described the political dynamic:

I want to say that many people have e-mailed me, and they’re right about this, that this is not about me. Not just about me, this is not about the NFL, it’s not about the St. Louis Rams, it’s not about me. This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is prominent as a conservative. That’s what this is about. Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have.

Conservatism’s enemies saw a chance to hit the biggest voice of the movement and took it.

To all the Limbaugh fans (and I’m one of them) take a step back and look at this from a communications standpoint. Rush failed to treat his quest as a campaign with the end goal being a stake in an NFL team. He played the politics wrong and lost this chance to be an owner. With better preparation the conservative giant would have better anticipated the attacks against him and eased the worries of certain owners during the firestorm.

As soon as he had an inkling to want to own an NFL team Rush needed to start laying the groundwork to make sure there wouldn’t be nine opposing votes. He should have started a process years in advance to soothe owners’ fears that he wouldn’t be an annoyance as an owner. Owners are businessmen who love football, so they would prefer to focus on improving their teams and growing their fan bases instead of dealing with the distraction of the latest fake-controversy created by Rush’s opponents. Running a business is partially about managing risks. Controversy is a risk that can be avoided, so it’s not a surprise NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said what he said.

Easing the concerns of owners would be a long process. It would involve Rush personally meeting owners, getting to know them, and having them get to know him. The man gets along with James Carville; he could’ve handled a bunch of team owners.

I also think an online component could have been helpful to partially compartmentalize Rush’s football passion from his radio show. Imagine a website where Rush Limbaugh fans got together, not to talk politics, but to talk football? Off the top of my head I’m envisioning something like a Pickens Plan but for football. Call it “DittoheadsFootball.com.” There would be forums, live chats during games, and of course fantasy football. Tying it all together would be exclusive football commentary from Rush. It would be an escape from politics for Rush’s radio listeners and also a place where non-political football fans could see another side of Rush.

When DittoheadsFootball.com reached a critical mass and Rush found an opportunity to become an NFL owner he could make a big announcement on the website and ask members to sign a petition backing the idea. Millions of people would sign it, and they wouldn’t all be diehard conservatives. Many (probably not a majority) would be plain-old football fans who knew Rush was a great NFL fan and would make a great owner. Rush would build a movement of public support showing the NFL owners that 1.) he was mainstream; and 2.) that lots of football fans wanted him to join their elite circle.

This campaign would’ve taken a long time. But as Rush has said, “The pursuit of truth is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. Truth always wins when it comes out. I know this for a fact.” It takes time and effort to get the truth out.

Through lots of personal contact with owners and an organized movement behind him Rush would have had a solid shot at becoming an owner. He would have built up good relationships with enough owners, and they would have seen the demonstrated public support for him. Both would have been a valuable help in withstanding Al Sharpton’s attack and the opposition from partisan Democrat DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association.

What I describe above would be long-term preparation. I also think Rush wasn’t ready to counter the Left’s attacks when word got out that he was part of an owners group going after the St. Louis Rams. As soon as I heard the first reports that Rush wanted part of the Rams I knew some professional attention-grabber like Al Sharpton would pounce. I’m not a communications whiz; I’m just a guy who gets paid to play politics on the interwebs. If I saw an attack coming I figured Rush Limbaugh would have too.

If I were heading the Checketts owner group, as soon as Rush was on board I would have hired a PR firm to put together a battle plan. That would have included message development, talking points, opposition research, and weblogger outreach. When Sharpton or someone of his ilk struck, the firm would have struck back hard. An initial counter-punch would have set things up for a highly-anticipated statement from Rush on his radio show. If done well, the one-two punch would have thrown Sharpton off his game. Combine that with the long-term preparations I outlined before and Rush’s ownership bid would have lasted longer than this one.

What ended up happening is Rush was playing from a defensive position. He didn’t say anything when his ownership bid was a rumor, and when DeMaurice Smith told reporters about his opposition Rush casually brushed it aside on Monday’s show. He let his enemies define the battlespace.

I tried to separate the communications strategy from the political controversy, but it can’t be avoided. I hope Rush goes after those MSM outlets who used fake quotes against him. They need to be held accountable for putting their political biases above the search for truth. Maybe suing people is the way to go, or maybe relentless ridicule is a better method.

Is Goodell displaying a double-standard with how he treated Rush and how he dealt with Michael Vick? Definitely. Violence against animals ranks higher as a concern than a guy talking about politics on the radio. But this tells me he thinks animal rights activists have a lot less power to cause him trouble than Rush’s opponents. Is that fair? Is that right? Of course not. But I’m sure Rush has said this a few times on his radio show: “Life ain’t fair.” We all play the hands we’re dealt. We’re responsible for our actions and our lack of actions.

I’m never happy when Al Sharpton gets a victory. After screaming about the NFL, Roger Goodell, DeMaurice Smith, Al Sharpton, the MSM, and the Left don’t forget to look at the radio talk show host himself. As much as I love the guy, the truth is Rush got beat. His failure to lay the groundwork for an ownership bid along with not anticipating the attacks that were sure to happen played a role in his own loss.

Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics. Williamson is a name you should’ve run across if you’ve taken intermediate microeconomics or industrial organization courses. His worked in “new institutional economics” stood on top of Nobel laureate Ronald Coase’s work on why firms exist in the first place. The Nobel Prize committee notes:

Oliver Williamson has argued that markets and hierarchical organizations, such as firms, represent alternative governance structures which differ in their approaches to resolving conflicts of interest. The drawback of markets is that they often entail haggling and disagreement. The drawback of firms is that authority, which mitigates contention, can be abused. Competitive markets work relatively well because buyers and sellers can turn to other trading partners in case of dissent. But when market competition is limited, firms are better suited for conflict resolution than markets.

Ostrom won for her research in how real societies figured out the difficult questions of managing scarce resources. Through field studies she learned people find ways to self-organize and solve their problems. Here’s what the Nobel Prize committee had to say about Ostrom’s work:

Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.

Think evolving standards of culture and custom. Think Edmund Burke. Also, in a related document the committee points out research Ostrom did showing that state collectivism and privatization failed to reduce the degradation of Mongolian grasslands. The lesson to be taken away isn’t that privatization is just as bad as collectivization. Rather, the best solution grows internally from the unique time-and-place-specific knowledge locals have and outsiders don’t.

John Nye summarizes Williamson’s and Ostrom’s work; Stephen Bainbridge explains Williamson’s work; and Don Boudreaux is pleased with the picks.

“Work of 2009 Economics Nobel Laureates Sheds Light on Regulation”

“Death in Clay County: The Green Room Goes Gonzo, or Fear and Loathing in Lower Glennbeckistan”

I wish I could make this stuff up.

Hey, let’s celebrate the “Cultural Revolution” while we’re at it.

“Empire State Building Turns Red-Yellow for China’s 60th”

Agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug died. Even though he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he was never a household name. He should be because you could argue he saved more people than anyone else in Human history. How? His grain research improved crop yields that helped nations like India and Pakistan feed their growing populations. In the introduction to an interview with Reason magazine in 2000, Ronald Bailey wrote:

Borlaug, who unfortunately is far less well-known than doom-sayer [Paul] Ehrlich, is responsible for much of the progress humanity has made against hunger. Despite occasional local famines caused by armed conflicts or political mischief, food is more abundant and cheaper today than ever before in history, due in large part to the work of Borlaug and his colleagues.

Great men do great things. We lost a great man; a true hero.

Godspeed, Norman.

“Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug Dies at 95″