Got Shares? (GotShares.com)

Justice Ginsburg

2011-11-05T16:36:00.000-07:00

California Lawyer (November 2011) has an excellent interview with Justice Ruth Ginsburg. Below is my favorite part:

Q. I'd like you to talk a little bit about the cases that I've spent my life studying, the key gender cases that began in the 1970s, which you litigated and wrote amici briefs for. The 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, had been settled interpretation for, I think, 104 years. What made you think that you could get the courts to overrule more than a century of precedent? 

A: The times. The Court is a reactive institution. It's never in the forefront of social change. When you think of Brown v. Board of Education, it was not only that Thurgood Marshall was a brilliant lawyer. It was the tenor of the times. We had just fought a war against an odious form of racism, and yet our troops through most of World War II were separated by race. Apartheid in America really had to go. Similarly, by 1970 the women's movement was revived, not just in the United States but all over the world. As a great legal scholar once said, the Court should never react to the weather of the day, but inevitably it will react to the climate of the era, and the climate was right for that change. 

Perhaps, at least in a peaceful society, all good things come to those who wait? I've always wondered whether the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Muhammad Ali's status as a conscientious objector would be the same if the case had arrived at the Court a few years earlier.

Movie Quotes

2011-10-22T22:00:00.000-07:00

Adam's Rib (1949): "Lawyers should never marry other lawyers. This is called inbreeding, from which comes idiot children and more lawyers."

"What is marriage? Tell me that. It's a contract. It's the law. Are you going to outsmart that, the way you've outsmarted other laws?" (Spencer Tracy to Katherine Hepburn)

"Assault lies dormant within us all. It requires only circumstance to set it in violent motion." (Hepburn's closing argument)

The Art of the Steal (2009): "One man's conspiracy is another man's political consensus."

Citizen Kane: (1941): Woman: "I don't know many people." Kane: "I know too many people. I guess we're both lonely."

Dial M for Murder (1954): "[P]eople don't commit murder on credit."

Equinox Flower (1958) (not a good movie, but I liked these lines): "Then everyone's inconsistent. Everyone but God. Life is absurd. We're not all perfect. As a scholar said, 'The sum total of inconsistencies is life.'"

The Field (1990):
McCabe: "There's a law stronger than the common law."
Priest: "What's that?"
McCabe: "The law of the land."

The Jane Austen Book Club (2007): "He looks at me like he's the spoon, and I'm the dish of ice cream."

Juno (2007), from the protagonist, a pregnant high school student: "Oh, I'm a legend. The tale of the cautionary whale, you know?"

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) (a very fun dark comedy): "I must admit, he exhibits the most extraordinary capacity I've ever encountered for middle age in a young man of 24."

The Last Kiss (2006) (overall, not a great movie, except for these lines): "Stop talking about love. Every a**hole in the world says he loves somebody. It means nothing. What you feel only matters to you. It's what you do to the people you say you love--that's what matters. [Indeed] It's the only thing that counts."

Lilies of the Field (1963): "To me, it [the chapel] is insurance. To me, life is here on this Earth. I cannot see further, so I cannot believe further. But if they are right about the hereafter, I have my insurance, señor."

The Lion in Winter (1968) (a must-see film): "He came from the North to Paris with a mind like Aristotle's and a form like mortal sin. We shattered the Commandments on the spot."

Mario's Story (2007): "[E]ventually good triumphs, but before it triumphs, a lot of people have to suffer."

Miller's Crossing (1990): "All in all, not a bad guy...if looks, brains, and personality don't count."

My Favorite Year (1982): ‎"Comedy? You can't write comedy in California. It's not depressing enough!"

Nashville (1975): "Congress is run by lawyers. A lawyer is trained for two things, and two things only: to clarify and to confuse. He does whichever is to his client's advantage."

Night of the Hunter (1955): "Open the door, you spawn of the devil's own strumpet!"

Quai des Orfevres (1947): "Maurice is my flame. He may not burn bright, but he lights my way."

Revolutionary Road (2008): "No one forgets the truth, Frank. They just get better at lying."

Slumdog Millionaire (2008): "Money and women: the reasons to make most mistakes in life."

Starting Out in the Evening (2007): "I find very few men of my age interesting. They're like chewing gum--ten minutes of flavor followed by bland repetition."

To Catch a Thief (1955):
Francie: Money handles most people.
John: Do you honestly believe that?
Francie: I've proved it.
John: You're a singular girl.
Francie: Is that good or bad?
John: Oh, it's good, it's quite good. You know what you want. You go out after it and nothing stops you from getting it.
Francie: You make it sound corny.
John: Oh no, you're a jackpot of admirable character traits.
Francie: I already knew that.
John: Yes, I will say you do things with dispatch. No wasted preliminaries. Not only did I enjoy that kiss last night, I was awed by the efficiency behind it.
Francie: Well, I'm a great believer of getting down to essentials.

Venus (2006):
"For most men, a woman's body is the most beautiful thing they will ever see."
"What about for women?"
"Her first child."

Wall Street (2010): "Most people, they lose, they whine and quit. Don't run when you lose, don't whine when it hurts. It's like the first grade...Nobody likes a crybaby."

X-Men 2 (2003):
Storm: Sometimes anger can help you survive.
Nightcrawler: So can faith.

You Can't Take It With You (1938): Lincoln said, "With malice towards none; with charity to all." Nowadays they say, "Think the way I do, or I'll bomb the daylights out of you."

Marvell Technology's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2011)

2011-06-28T19:01:00.000-07:00

Last year, I attended Marvell Technology Group Ltd.'s (MRVL) annual shareholder meeting and praised President/CEO/Chairman Dr. Sehat Sutardja. Dr. Sutardja is Chinese-Indonesian, one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world, and seems both calm and dapper at the same time. One doesn't see very many Asian CEOs, even here in Silicon Valley, and I view his success as proof that the American Dream is alive and well. Since last year's shareholder meeting, however, Marvell stock decreased about 14%, even as the NASDAQ increased about 26%. This year, I was looking forward to hearing why the company stumbled. I wasn't expecting epiphanies, but I could not have predicted a lack of direct answers to my questions; the company's VP of Worldwide Legal Affairs essentially cutting me off; and Investor Relations telling me after the meeting that if I published something "incorrect," I would be "liable."

It all began when I walked into the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Santa Clara, California. Like last year, the food was good--granola, yogurt, berries, water, and other healthy options. I appeared to be one of about six people present who were not working for Marvell. Dr. Sutardja handled most of the formal portion of the meeting and sat at a table in the front of the room with the VP of Worldwide Legal Affairs Thomas Savage and CFO Clyde Hosein. There were six shareholder proposals. At no point in time were shareholders given an explicit opportunity to ask questions or make comments about any of them. The polls opened, then closed shortly thereafter, and we were told that all of the proposals passed. (If North Korean government officials were in charge of shareholder elections, I imagine they wouldn't need to deviate much from Marvell's script.)

The lack of comment on the proposals was particularly interesting because several proposals seemed downright Orwellian. Proposal 5 reduces from three years to just one year the time period for a Director's stock/RSUs to fully vest. See pages 63-64, 10K: "[R]emove the requirement that awards of restricted stock, RSUs, and/or performance units/shares granted...shall not be fully vested until a minimum period of 3 years from the date of grant...Section 11(c)(ii) will be amended so that each Annual RSU Award will vest and become exercisable as to one hundred percent (100%) of the shares...on the earlier of the next general annual meeting or the one-year anniversary of the Annual RSU Award grant date." Basically, company Directors get an opportunity to make more money in one year or less, instead of gradually over three years.

Generally speaking, longer vesting periods incentivize longer term outlooks. For example, if you are supervising a company's officers, and you know your shares will fully vest in one year rather than three, you have an incentive to think in terms of one year performance (short term), not three year performance (longer term). The CFO later appeared to defend the shorter vesting period by arguing that the proposal applied only to Marvell's Directors. Presumably, he meant that officers, not Directors, run the day-to-day operations of the company and continued to be incentivized over the longer term. Yet, this change in vesting periods means the Directors are now incentivized differently than the officers of the same company.

Why is any of this Orwellian? Proposal 2 in the same 10K states, "Our primary business objective is to create long-term value for our shareholders." On the same page, Marvell highlights the company's long term focus: "Long-Term Focused: Promote a long-term focus for our named executive officers through incentive compensation." (page 58, 10K) In short, welcome to Newspeak--even as Marvell is changing its compensation policy to incentivize shorter-term performance by its Directors, it claims it cares most about long-term performance.

When the formal portion of the meeting was over, the company CFO, CEO, and attorney in front of the room failed to ask if anyone had questions. They simply got up and started walking off. I piped up--as I am wont to do when I see something unusual--and said I had some questions. I questioned the company's proposal to shorten the vesting period. The CFO said that viewed together with the other shareholder proposals, it was "logical" to shorten the vesting period. I responded that the proposal incentivized the short term over the long term. That's when I got the answer about the proposal only affecting directors, not officers. The CFO also added that stock compensation was not the primary motivator when deciding a company strategy, and stock prices move based on numerous factors--all of which is true, but why incentivize short term performance at all? Why not make directors hold onto options/RSUs/shares as long as possible before being able to cash out? I pointed out that Marvell's stock price had been abysmal compared to both the S&P 500 and the PHLX Semiconductor Index. Page 38 of Marvell's own 10K shows that while the S&P and SOX showed gains, Marvell's stock price declined by almost 50% during the time period shown. (Later, the Investor Relations contact told me I was "cherry-picking" dates--even after I pointed out I was just citing the company's own materials.)

Given the stock's relatively poor performance, I asked about specific plans for the future. I never got an answer that was satisfactory to me. Someone pointed out all the different markets Marvell was involved in. Good for you, I thought, before saying that mere involvement in different markets is different than being able to actually compete in those markets. I again asked for specific plans to turn around the stock price and asked how the company planned to compete. Dr. Sutardja said that Marvell had started out as a small company and had always managed to compete against larger companies and entities. I still hadn't received an answer that was satisfactory to me about specific plans, but Mr. Thomas Savage then told me I had used up my questions and asked if there were other questions from anyone else. No one else raised their hand, so I politely pointed out that no one had answered my question about the company's specific plans to improve the stock price. At this point, Mr. Savage essentially prevented me from asking further questions in the open format and closed the meeting.

Despite Mr. Savage's actions, Dr. Sutardja was kind enough to talk to me after the meeting. The CFO also chimed in, saying that answering my questions could take three hours, i.e., I was not asking questions that could easily be answered in a short period of time. Dr. Sutardja again reminded me that Marvell started out as a small company and was competing against large companies like Qualcomm (QCOM) and would continue to use "efficient implementation" to differentiate itself. Mr. Savage hovered close by while I was listening to Dr. Sutardja and exited the room with him before I could ask him what he meant by "efficient implementation." As I left the meeting, the VP of Investor Relations made a beeline for me and asked me pointed questions, trying to get an idea of who I was and where I was from ("Who do you work for? Are you with the press?"). I said the company's vague responses to my questions about specific plans did not inspire confidence, and I would be writing about my experience. He told me if I published anything "incorrect," I would be "liable." I asked him if he was threatening me, and he said he wasn't threatening me. I then left the meeting.

Marvell's directors, officers, and employees should realize their failure to provide information about specific turnaround plans is unacceptable when their stock price has drastically underperformed the relevant indices. Telling shareholders that the company has little control over its own stock price is no way to win over anyone. I doubt Marvell wants to hear any of this--but I will defer to George Orwell, especially in light of the company's comment that I may be "liable" for incorrect information: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Disclosure: I own an insignificant number of Marvell (MRVL) shares, and I do not plan on initiating any new positions within the next 72 hours.

Justice Hugo Black on State Secrets

2011-06-17T08:18:00.000-07:00

Justice Hugo Black, concurring opinion, joined by Justice William Douglas, New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 717:

The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic... [P]aramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die...

More here.

CA Chief Justice George on our Justice System

2011-04-17T22:40:00.000-07:00

Chief Justice George, as quoted in California Litigation, Vol. 20, No 1 (Kenneth Babcock, 2007):

The availability of affordable legal assistance even for the middle class is often an illusion, and access to legal assistance for those at the bottom of the economic ladder too frequently is viewed as a luxury totally out of reach. As a result, individuals facing crises that may affect everything from their ability to earn a livelihood to their right to care for their children find themselves required to navigate a legal system that largely is designed for and by specialists in the field--lawyers and judges--or even worse, to stand outside the system, ignorant of or intimidated by the first steps they need to take to avail themselves of its services.

In my humble opinion, more laws do not generally help poor people, because poor people need more money, and more rights do not always or necessarily translate into more money.

Steinbeck on the Measure of Man

2011-04-09T19:33:00.000-07:00

At the end of some my letters, I sometimes include the following passage from Steinbeck:

“Where does discontent start? You are warm enough, but you shiver. You are fed, yet hunger gnaws you. You have been loved, but your yearning wanders in new fields. And to prod all these there’s time, the bastard Time. The end of life is now not so terribly far away--you can see it the way you see the finish line when you come into the stretch--and your mind says, “Have I worked enough? Have I eaten enough? Have I loved enough?” All of these, of course, are the foundation for man’s greatest curse, and perhaps his greatest glory. “What has my life meant so far, and what can it mean in the time left to me?” And now we’re coming to the wicked, poisoned dart: “What have I contributed to the great ledger? What am I worth?” And this isn’t vanity or ambition. Men seem to be born with a debt they can never pay no matter how hard they try. It piles up ahead of them. Man owes something to man. If he ignores the debt it poisons him, and if he tries to make payments the debt only increases, and the quality of his gift is the measure of the man. -- John Steinbeck from Sweet Thursday

The last two sentences are pure poetry, aren't they?

Funny Stuff My Mom Sez

2011-04-04T01:00:00.000-07:00

On voting:

Her: "I don't want my taxes to be raised. Who do I vote for? (showing me Democratic absentee ballot form)

Me: "Then you have to vote Republican."

Her: "No! I won't vote Republican! They take our money and destroy their families. They don't have values or morals. Who was that man who went to Argentina to cheat on his wife?"

Me: "I can't believe Gov. Sanford just raised my taxes."

[P.S. My mom loves Bill Clinton. That man is pure teflon, I tell ya.]

Voting 2010: my mom and I, discussing propositions on the ballot.

Me: Your taxes will go up...

Mom: No!

Me: ...but children's health services will receive more money.

Mom: Wait! This is tricky...

Scolding Me: (English is my mom's second language.)

"You are getting out of the line."

On Pancakes: Saturday morning, 8:00AM.

Me: "Okay, Mom, let's go get some pancakes."

Mom: [excited] "Are we going to IHOP?"

Me: "No, someplace better, called Stacks."

Mom: [incredulously] "Better than IHOP???!!"

Me: [shaking head] "I can't believe you think IHOP is the pinnacle for pancakes."

[Update: she liked Stacks, but didn't think it was significantly better than IHOP.]

On Style:

Me: [On my way out the door, wearing shorts and a t-shirt for my doctor's appointment.]

Mom: "Why don't you wear something nice? People will not respect you dressed like that. Why don't you dress like the Spanish people?"

Me: "Mom, you've never even been to Spain. Sigh."

On Cleanliness:

Mom, checking out my bathroom and unhappy with its uncleanliness:

"How are you going to live with other people? I bet [when it happens] people will complain and the police will come and arrest you."

On X-Mas cards:

Mom: [showing me a proposed holiday card she's written] "Have a blast, happy and wonderful holiday" [sic]

Mom: "So, is it 'holiday' or 'holidays'?"

Me: I can't believe you've written a sentence that is impossible to fix. I bet I can submit this to a record book of some kind.

Dad: It's "holidays."

On X-Mas presents (2010):

Mom: [gives me a mug with the phrase, "Christmas Calories Don't Count."]

Me: I know I collect mugs, so thank you, but this one is for women.

Mom: that's okay, you are getting fat.

On Super Bowl (2011):

Mom: every touchdown is 7 points?
Me: it's 6 points, and if you make a free kick, it's 7.
Mom: you mean if it goes through that thing?
Me: [sigh] Yes. If it goes through the thing, it's an extra point.
Mom: what if it doesn't go through the thing?
Me: Then it's 6 points.
Mom: When is the halftime?
Me: At the half.
Mom: What do you mean the half? The time, or the score?

Bonus:
Mom, on Usher: he stole all his moves from Michael Jackson.

Payback Time, from Mom:

Me, on telephone, leaving someone a message: "I would rather have this [referring to someone who is blunt but passionate] than someone apathetic."

Mom, over-hearing me: "That's not right. It should be 'her,' not 'this.'"

Me: "Unbelievable. You're actually right for once."

Mom, later, texting me: "U should say in face book that I corrected your English. U make fun of my English. now is d pay back time. Let's see what your friends say. I bet they all love me more."

On Nutrition:

Me: "You know how to identify good orange juice, right?"
Mom: "Yes, 'from concentration.'"

Grandma Edition, shopping together:

Grandma (in Farsi): "Is this blouse good?"

Me (in Farsi): "No. It's terrible. Are you able to see well?"

Grandma: "Yes, I can see very well. I can see all the way over there." (pointing to end of store)

Me: (joking) "Then why can't you see the dress in front of you?"

Grandma: "I am going to hit you."

Bonus: why my dad is voting Democrat in 2010: "Bush destroyed America, and now China is going to lead, and most of us will need welfare."

California Lawyer Magazine on Public Pensions

2011-04-02T20:58:00.000-07:00

From California Lawyer, "A Thousand Cuts" by Thomas Brum:

In February 2010 the Pew Center on the States reported that, in the next 30 years, state governments would be on the hook for $3.35 trillion for pensions. Two months later the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research reported that California's three main public pension funds had unfunded liabilities of $425 billion. And last October the Milken Institute reported that, by 2013, the combined liabilities of these three funds will be more than 5.5 times larger than total state general fund revenue...

In California, the state constitution protects public pension benefits, like other contracts, from impairment. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 9.) Described succinctly by the state Supreme Court, "A public employee's pension constitutes an element of compensation, and a vested contractual right to pension benefits accrues upon acceptance of employment." (Betts v. Bd. of Admin., 21 Cal. 3d 859, 863 (1978) (citing Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal. 2d 848 (1947)).)...

[T]he court noted, "Imprudence...is not unconstitutional." (County of Orange v. Ass'n. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, 2011 WL 227711 at *8.)

More here. Unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss how these government benefits were negotiated. Many people don't know that government workers received their compensation packages behind closed doors--away from the average voter's oversight--due to an exception in the Brown Act for labor negotiations. Thus, government union compensation contracts are not the same as ordinary arms-length contracts. Instead, such contracts are the product of union organizing and using superior organization to get better compensation for themselves. But when compensation is negotiated behind closed doors and in a system where residents/voters must pay whatever is negotiated, it is clear that government unions have an advantage that is not necessarily compatible with the interests of the general public.

Private unions are different. If a GM worker is paid a million dollars a year, it does not necessarily concern me, because I do not have to buy a GM product. I have a choice, and if a private union gives themselves overly generous pay packages, they destroy the company and their own work prospects. No such check and balance exists when government unions negotiate overly generous compensation packages. Taxpayers must pay whatever is negotiated behind their backs, no matter how outrageous. If you say the problem is negligent oversight by politicians, I agree, but when the system is designed to favor politicians who cozy up to government unions, it's hard not to blame government unions as well as the voters. Just my two cents.

Mark Twain on Patriotism

2011-03-27T11:08:00.000-07:00

What is patriotism? To me, it's utilizing the freedom to think for yourself and to comment on matters involving your government without fear of reprisal from government employees. Mark Twain seems to agree:

I said that no party held the privilege of dictating to me how I should vote. That if party loyalty was a form of patriotism, I was no patriot, and that I didn’t think I was much of a patriot anyway, for oftener than otherwise what the general body of Americans regarded as the patriotic course was not in accordance with my views; that if there was any valuable difference between being an American and a monarchist it lay in the theory that the American could decide for himself what is patriotic and what isn’t; whereas the king could dictate the monarchist’s patriotism for him–-a decision which was final and must be accepted by the victim; that in my belief I was the only person in the sixty millions–-with Congress and the Administration back of the sixty million–-who was privileged to construct my patriotism for me.

They said “Suppose the country is entering upon a war–-where do you stand then? Do you arrogate yourself the privilege of going your own way in the matter, in the face of the nation?"

“Yes,” I said, “that is my position. If I thought it an unrighteous war I would say so. If I were invited to shoulder a musket in that cause and march under that flag, I would decline. I would not voluntarily march under this country’s flag, nor any other, when it was my private judgment that the country was in the wrong. If the country obliged me to shoulder the musket I could not help myself, but I would never volunteer. To volunteer would be the act of a traitor to myself, and consequently traitor to my country. If I refused to volunteer, I should be called a traitor, I am well aware of that–-but that would not make me at traitor. The unanimous vote of the sixty millions could not make me at traitor. I should still be a patriot, and, in my opinion, the only one in the whole country.

Stirring words. [As seen in Harper's Magazine, April 11, 2011, pp. 35, "Democracy 101," quoting from The Autobiography of Mark Twain, Vol. 1.]

President Eisenhower on American Pride

2011-03-21T11:18:00.000-07:00

President Eisenhower, speech, November 23, 1953:

Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it...

It was: meet anyone face to face with whom you disagree. You could not sneak up on him from behind, or do any damage to him, without suffering the penalty of an outraged citizenry. If you met him face to face and took the same risks he did, you could get away with almost anything, as long as the bullet was in the front...In this country, if someone dislikes you, or accuses you, he must come up in front. He cannot hide behind the shadow. He cannot assassinate you or your character from behind, without suffering the penalties an outraged citizenry will impose.

Ladies and gentlemen, the things that make us proud to be Americans are of the soul and of the spirit. They are not the jewels we wear, or the furs we buy, the houses we live in, the standard of living, even, that we have. All these things are wonderful to the esthetic and to the physical senses.

But let us never forget that the deep things that are American are the soul and the spirit.

Full speech here.

Judge Wilkinson on America

2011-03-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

One of the best articles ever written on any subject is by J. Harvie Wilkinson III, "Toward One America: a Vision in Law." (The Green Bag Almanac and Reader, published 2009; see also 83 NYU Law Review 323)

A 4th Circuit judge laments America's growing divisiveness and presents seven solutions. I'm not going to go into all seven recommendations, but here are some of my favorite parts of the article:

On perspective:

We judges are as a class bereft of acquaintance with the variegated and pluralistic country that we serve.

On the much maligned overreach of the commerce clause:

The silent commerce clause is an indispensable ingredient of national unity.

On community:

Let's restore a constitutional respect for community. It is futile to expect a healthy nation in the absence of a healthy community. Community instills within us the sense that we live for something larger and more meaningful than just ourselves...Communities are built around shared purposes and values, one of which is surely a respect and appreciation for individual rights. But there must likewise be the sense that individuals contribute to, as well as take from, this larger whole of which we as single persons are but parts. To enshrine a sanctity of self in our founding charter without textual or historical warrant may be just as pernicious as the attempt to enshrine the discrimination against those whose personal choices may for good and legitimate reason fail to conform to the majority's own. On many of the great questions of the day, our Constitution is consciously agnostic. Its enumeration of rights is significant, but finite. Its grant of powers to representative government is formidable, but it does not prescribe what substantive ends the exercise of those powers must embody. To bend our Constitution in the direction of autonomy or collectivity is detrimental to our national health.

On polarization:

The search for One America requires less polarization, but not necessarily less partisanship. The two must be distinguished... Partisanship is more of a mixed bag. It can easily proceed too far, but it can also promote vigorous debate and frame electoral choices.

If you get a chance, do look up the full article. Required reading for every American.

Abraham Lincoln on Honest Lawyers

2011-03-18T09:26:00.000-07:00

"Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. Resolve to be honest in all events; and if, in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation." -- Abraham Lincoln

Bonus: from Edward Murrow: "He was one of those civilized individuals who did not insist upon agreement with his political principles as a pre-condition for conversation or friendship."

Robert Frost's Epitaph

2011-03-17T03:52:00.000-07:00

Found an old book of Robert Frost poems: "And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world."

A Poem in San Jose

2011-03-16T00:25:00.000-07:00

The poem below--one of the most beautiful I've ever read--is inscribed in a piece of art in downtown San Jose. If you are ever in downtown San Jose and want to see the poem, go to the Fairmont Hotel on South First Street. It is inscribed on a medium-sized, industrial-looking tableau between the Fairmont Hotel and Bijan's Bakery.

Could be

I only sang because the lonely road was long;

and now the road and I are gone

but not the song.

I only spoke the verse to pay for borrowed time:

and now the clock and I are broken

but not the rhyme.

Possibly,

the self not being fundamental,

eternity

breathes only on the incidental.

—Ernesto Galarza, 1905-1984

Will Government Pensions Need Bailouts?

2011-03-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

According to PLI's news capsules,

State pensions are recovering as the stock market improves, but they still have a long road to financial health, says a recent report. State pension systems had a funding ratio of about 69% for fiscal 2010, an increase from the previous year's ratio of 65%, reports Wilshire Associates. Still, that's not near 2007's estimated average funding ratio of 95%. "The trajectory is up, albeit it's up off a pretty low base," said Steven Foresti, managing director at Wilshire. (From WSJ, March 7, 2011, by Jeannette Neumann)

Here's what really interesting: "Over the next decade, Wilshire projects public pension plans will have a median annual return on their assets of 6.5%." If major pension/hedge funds are predicting just 6.5%, it will be interesting to see the average return for non-institutional investors. Remember: to the extent these government pension funds fail to fully fund themselves, the taxpayer is on the hook for all payouts.

Keith Ellison and Common Sense

2011-03-14T00:13:00.000-07:00

"The best defense against extremist ideologies is social inclusion and civic engagement." Shameful that some people smeared Mohammed Salman Hamdani and recanted only when confronted with his dead, heroic body. More from Rep. Keith Ellison here: Ellison's transcript of prepared remarks for March 10, 2011 Congressional hearings.

Every generation has its Joseph McCarthy, and it appears ours will be Rep. Peter King. Kudos to Rep. Ellison for his common sense.

Ralph Ellison on Finding Himself

2011-03-12T09:57:00.000-08:00

The journey of self-realization is long, windy, but worthy:

"All my life I had been looking for something, and everywhere I turned someone tried to tell me what it was. I accepted their answers too, though they were often in contradiction and even self-contradictory. I was naïve. I was looking for myself and asking everyone except myself questions which I, and only I, could answer. It took me a long time and much painful boomeranging of my expectations to achieve a realization everyone else appears to have been born with: that I am nobody but myself." -- Ralph Ellison

Czesław Miłosz

2011-03-11T11:38:00.000-08:00

From Czesław Miłosz's "Hymn": "The most beautiful bodies are like transparent glass."

I don't know why, but that line from his poem strikes me as indelibly beautiful.

Ken Does It Again

2011-03-10T08:35:00.000-08:00

Over at Popehat, Ken has delivered yet another awe-inspiring post: A Day in the Life of a Defense Lawyer. Enjoy.

Bonus: http://militaryunderdog.com/

Kevin Poulsen on Credit Card Companies

2011-03-09T09:32:00.000-08:00

This month's Metro quotes Kevin Poulsen, who discusses the most pressing credit card issue of our time:

"The financial institutions made a decision that the cost of fraud is acceptable. They decided against replacing the magnetic strip with a chip and a PIN because it would be too expensive."

If you go to Europe, most credit cards have the superior chip-based technology. If you're an American, you ought to be upset--your American credit card companies are treating Europeans better than you.

Social Network: Battle of the Sexes, Modern Version

2011-03-08T11:27:00.000-08:00

Dating is so difficult. A man usually thinks about exactly how he will be able to support a family. He realizes big city society favors two income couples and wonders whether a woman will continue to work after she has children and/or if he will be able to provide as the sole breadwinner. Women tend to believe the aforementioned issues will resolve themselves.

Bonus I: Jack Gilbert, from "Tear It Down": "We find out the heart only by dismantling what the heart knows...By insisting on love we spoil it, get beyond affection and wade mouth-deep into love...We must unlearn the constellations to see the stars."

Bonus II, Random Stats Edition: according to National Geographic (March 2011),

1) Worldwide, 33% are Christian; 21% Muslim; and 13% Hindu; and

2) Worldwide, nationality-wise, 19% are Chinese; 17% are Indian; and 4% American.

My friend commented that the religious numbers would change significantly if we accounted for just practicing members. That's actually an interesting question--at what point is it irrational to call yourself a member of a religious group if your beliefs differ significantly from the majority's? And who decides the norm or the majority? If you're a Muslim in Indonesia, you will have a much different norm than a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. Same thing if you're an Orthodox Jew or a Reform Jew, or an Evangelical Southern Christian vs. an Italian Catholic. Perhaps that's the beauty of religion--it brings people together who would otherwise have no reason to mix or mingle.

President Eisenhower on Unions

2011-03-07T00:36:00.000-08:00

Some people are quoting President Eisenhower to express their support of public sector unions. As I've said over and over again, there are major differences between public and private sector unions. To compare them together as a unified, single entity is foolish, and quoting President Eisenhower in support of public sector unions is beyond foolish. Why? It wasn't until John F. Kennedy was president that government workers were allowed to organize--which is after President Eisenhower's presidency.

In any case, here are some interesting excerpts from President Eisenhower's 1955 speech to the AFL/CIO:

The second principle of this American labor philosophy is this: the economic interest of employer and employee is a mutual prosperity. Their economic future is inseparable... The American worker strives for betterment not by destroying his employer and his employer's business, but by understanding his employer's problems of competition, prices, markets. And the American employer can never forget that, since mass production assumes a mass market, good wages and progressive employment practices for his employee are good business...

The Class Struggle Doctrine of Marx was the invention of a lonely refugee scribbling in a dark recess of the British Museum. He abhorred and detested the middle class...[L]abor relations will be managed best when worked out in honest negotiation between employers and unions, without Government's unwarranted interference.

More from President Eisenhower's December 5, 1955 speech here.

Motto of an American

2011-03-05T01:14:00.000-08:00

I am against unchecked, concentrated power in all forms and permutations. In other words, I am an American who understands the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

California's Finances, a Retrospective

2011-03-04T10:35:00.000-08:00

Below is a snippet from an old November 2009 LAO report--but boy, does it have amazing data. Here is one particularly juicy excerpt:

In General, the Legislature Retains Power Over the Budget. Some observers of the California budget process have asserted that—due to voter–approved propositions, federal law, and court decisions—the state’s budget is unmanageable and basically impossible to balance. In reality, however, the Legislature remains in control of the vast majority of state spending. This is particularly true over the longer term when there is enough time to allow major decisions by the Legislature to be fully implemented. Even in the shorter term, the Legislature generally holds a considerable degree of freedom to adjust state spending. Such decisions are often more restricted by the lack of political consensus as opposed to any structural budgetary constraint.

More here. Voters must realize that almost everything they read from CNN, Fox, or any major media outlet contains some element of bias. In contrast, all states have finance departments that will provide you with the (mostly) unvarnished truth. In California, we have the LAO. For the feds, we have the CBO. Turn off your television, and go forth and read.

Emerson on Trade

2011-03-03T00:27:00.000-08:00

Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his 1844 lecture, "The Young American":

Trade was the strong man that broke it [feudalism] down, and raised a new and unknown power in its place. It is a new agent in the world, and one of great function; it is a very intellectual force. This displaces physical strength, and installs computation, combination, information, science, in its room. It calls out all force of a certain kind that slumbered in the former dynasties...

Trade goes to make the governments insignificant, and to bring every kind of faculty of every individual that can in any manner serve any person, _on sale_. Instead of a huge Army and Navy, and Executive Departments, it converts Government into an Intelligence-Office, where every man may find what he wishes to buy, and expose what he has to sell, not only produce and manufactures, but art, skill, and intellectual and moral values. This is the good and this the evil of trade, that it would put everything into market, talent, beauty, virtue, and man himself...

The `opposition' papers, so called, are on the same side. They attack the great capitalist, but with the aim to make a capitalist of the poor man. The opposition is against those who have money, from those who wish to have money.

Isn't it fascinating to see the great transcendentalist speak so eloquently about trade?

Rumi, the Romantic Alchemist: Copper over Gold

2011-03-02T14:53:00.000-08:00

Rumi: There's courage involved if you want to become truth. There is a broken / open place in a lover...What's the use of old and frozen thought? I want / a howling hurt. This is not a treasury where gold is stored; this is for copper. / We alchemists look for talent that can heat up and change. Lukewarm / won't do. Halfhearted holding back, well-enough getting by? Not here.

Fiscally Responsible? Follow These Resolutions

2011-03-02T11:39:00.000-08:00

An oldie from 2010, but still a goodie:

Don’t vote for any ballot measure that creates an unfunded obligation on the state budget or “locks in” more of the budget.

Constitutional provisions that limit the use of certain tax revenues or impose spending requirements on the budget without providing the resources to fulfill those obligations exacerbate California’s fiscal problems. These provisions range from dedication of sales taxes collected on gasoline to transportation to the “Three Strikes” law establishing minimum sentencing requirements.

Why don't we teach these civics concepts to kids in high school? More here.

Law Quote of the Day

2011-03-01T11:26:00.001-08:00

Dean Roscoe Pound: "The law must be stable and yet cannot stand still."

Netflix Finally Agrees to Caption 80% of Streaming Content!

2011-02-28T19:54:00.000-08:00

Netflix has announced that 80% of its streaming content will be captioned by the end of 2011. It's about time. The issue of online captioning didn't appear to be on CEO Reed Hasting's radar at all in May 2009. That all changed with this May 2009 post.

Thank you so much to everyone who supported the online captioning campaign. We couldn't have done it without you!

Also, thank you to Netflix and CEO Reed Hastings for rising up to the challenge. We know it's not over yet--some people doubt that Netflix can meet its own goal of captioning 80% of its streaming content by the end of 2011--but at least the company finally appears to recognize captioning issue is an important issue.

Disclosure: I have either no shares or an insignificant number of shares in Netflix (NFLX). I continue to be a Netflix member, but have not watched more than a handful of movies online because of the captioning issue.

Movie Recommendation: Gideon's Trumpet

2011-02-28T11:32:00.001-08:00

It's actually a made-for-television film starring Henry Fonda, but it is beautifully done and a must-see. Gideon's Trumpet has everything--great acting and a look behind the scenes of the Supreme Court and our legal system. If you're a high school teacher, please show this film to your students.

Bonus: list of the best movies you've never heard of here.

Retired California Teachers Receive Lump Sums of $500,000

2011-02-28T00:25:00.000-08:00

Oh, those poor, poor California teachers. They only get lump sums of $500,000 when they retire. Wait, what? Oh, you didn't know that? Keep reading.

"Of the 12,568 California educators who retired in fiscal year 2007-08, the median number of years on the job was 29 years. The average CalSTRS pension was $48,180 per year, which was about 62 percent of the average highest salary." See here.

Assuming a 6% rate of return and 29 years of retirement, you and I would have to save up almost $17,200 every single year for 29 years straight to get the same level of retirement income as an average California teacher. Why? Because most of us would have to buy an annuity on the open market to get something similar to a pension.

To give you an idea of just how expensive these pensions are, let's do the math: to get $48K a year for 17 years, we would have to save up a nest egg of about $500,000. Basically, California taxpayers provide the average California teacher with a nest egg of $500,000 upon retirement--which is the market cost of paying someone about $48K a year for 17 years of retirement (e.g., hypo assumes you start teaching at the age of 31, and work 29 years, which means you're 60 years old. You then retire and then expire at 77).

Will most Californians have at least $500,000 when they retire? If not, why are they responsible for guaranteeing the average teacher an annuity worth $500,000? Also, how many of us can afford to save $17,200 a year? Even if private sector employees maxed out their 401(k)s, they couldn't put $17,200 a year in the account. And people still think teachers, on average, are underpaid. Perhaps the newer and younger ones are--but that's not the taxpayers' fault. It's the union's fault for creating and enforcing a compensation system that shoves so many available taxpayer dollars in the back-end of a teacher's career rather than in the front.

P.S. Want to do the annuity calculations yourself? Here is one version of an annuity calculator.

P.P.S. I was really nice, by the way. I didn't even include the cost of the average California teacher's lifetime medical benefits.

Bonus: Actually it looks like I may have underestimated the value of the pension. More here. The Money Blog calculates that as of 3/2011, a $300,000 lump sum would would get you just $1300/mo in annuity payments.

Also, see Margaret Collins, July 1, 2011, “Delay Taking Social Security, Add Annuity to Survive Retirement”: “For example, a contract [annuity] purchased for $95,500 by a 66-year-old couple in Florida may provide $4,262 a year until the death of the surviving spouse and include increases for inflation."

Bonus II: from Joel Klein, The Atlantic, June 2011:

[C]onsider the financial burden that comes with providing lifetime benefits. Given the time between first putting aside the money to fund such a “long-tail exposure” and having to begin paying it, the amount “reserved” by the employer necessarily depends on a host of imprecise assumptions—about the rate of return that the money invested in the pension fund will earn, about how long employees will live, and even about how much overtime employees will work during their last few years, which is normally included in calculations of the amount of the pension. Each dollar set aside this year to cover the ultimate pension exposure must be taken from what would otherwise be current operating dollars.

Consequently, elected officials have had every incentive to make extraordinarily optimistic assumptions about the pension plan—or to simply underfund it—so they can put as little as possible into the reserve. Unfortunately, but predictably, that’s exactly what has happened: most states “assumed” they would get an average 8 percent return on their pension reserves, when in fact they were getting significantly less. Over the past 10 years, for example, New York City’s pension funds earned an average of just 2.5 percent. Now virtually every pension plan in America that covers teachers has huge unfunded liabilities. A recent study by the Manhattan Institute estimated the total current shortfall at close to $1 trillion. There’s only one way to pay for that: take the money from current and future operating budgets, robbing today’s children to pay tomorrow’s pensions.

LeBron James: Justified in Leaving Cleveland?

2011-02-27T00:07:00.000-08:00

Bill Simmons wrote an article unrelated to LeBron James, but it includes the best defense of "The Decision" I've seen so far:

Isn't loyalty a two-way street? When a team does what's best for itself, we call it smart. When a player does the same, we call him selfish. We never think about what a double standard it is.

I'd never thought of it that way before.

Government Unions: Hoodwinking the Public, One Voter at a Time

2011-02-25T00:21:00.000-08:00

If you're a California voter, you've been the victim of a scam perpetuated by the state's public sector unions:

[Actual] CalPERS data shows the average career public employee, who put in at least 30 years of service and retired in the 2008-09 fiscal year, collected a starting pension of $67,000 a year, or 2.5 times the advertised figure [by CalPERS]...

The pension numbers are even higher for the separate local retirement systems that cover employees of the two East Bay county governments. The average was $85,500 for career workers who retired in 2009 from the Contra Costa system, and $83,000 from Alameda County. A majority of these workers also receive Social Security, which could add, very roughly, about another $19,000 to the annual pension.

More here. 1) think California doesn't spend enough on education? 55% of California's general fund will be spent on education (43% on K-12; and 12% on higher education); and 2) think we should tax people more? Think harder. If you're a company and want to expand, are you going to expand someplace where you and your workers have access to cheaper housing, reasonable wages, and lower taxes, or someplace with higher housing costs, higher salaries, and higher taxes?

What about taxing corporations instead of individuals, you ask? From David Walker's book, Comeback America (hardcover, page 121): "we must realize that corporations don't really pay taxes. Rather, they pass along any tax, in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to shareholders." It turns out trickle down economics exists--at least when it comes to taxes.

Bonus I: from Calvin Massey:

In the private sector a union bargains for a greater share of the entity’s revenue and profits. What it can provide in return is greater productivity, accomplished perhaps by work force stability, higher morale, and the belief that the common fate of employer and employee will be enhanced by productivity gains. If this happy event ensues, at the next round of collective bargaining, union workers can and should receive their fair share of the resulting gains.

In the public sector, by contrast, a union is not bargaining for a greater share of the revenue produced by economic activity; it is bargaining for a greater share of revenue that is obtained by force of law – taxation – or, if not a greater share, at least for a constant share of those revenues extracted from the citizens. What a public sector union can and does provide in return is political support for the faction that chooses to increase taxes or the union’s share of existing taxes. If public sector unions deliver on their support, they will be rewarded by ever more generous payments. There is no market that acts as an external monitor of worker compensation; there is only a steady repetition of a corrosive bargain – tax the public ever more in order to maintain political power. That is inimical to responsible government.

It appears Calvin Massey is a law professor at UC Hastings. Bravo!

Bonus II: Christopher Caldwell, FT, 2/25/11:

Public-sector unions have long posed a problem of what the economist Mancur Olson called the “logic of collective action”. Democracy tends to offer benefits to small, well-organised groups (who defend them vigilantly) while spreading the costs among the broader public (in doses that are too small to rally resistance around). The result is a hardening of privilege. What is new in Wisconsin is that those who do not belong to public-employee unions see this logic as clearly as those who do.

Ralph Waldo Emerson on Despotism

2011-02-24T07:19:00.000-08:00

Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his 1844 lecture, "The Young American":

Fathers wish to be the fathers of the minds of their children, and behold with impatience a new character and way of thinking presuming to show itself in their own son or daughter. This feeling, which all their love and pride in the powers of their children cannot subdue, becomes petulance and tyranny when the head of the clan, the emperor of an empire, deals with the same difference of opinion in his subjects. Difference of opinion is the one crime which kings never forgive. An empire is an immense egotism. "I am the State," said the French Louis. When a French ambassador mentioned to Paul of Russia, that a man of consequence in St. Petersburg was interesting himself in some matter, the Czar interrupted him, -- "There is no man of consequence in this empire, but he with whom I am actually speaking; and so long only as I am speaking to him, is he of any consequence." And Nicholas, the present emperor, is reported to have said to his council, "The age is embarrassed with new opinions; rely on me, gentlemen, I shall oppose an iron will to the progress of liberal opinions."

The last line is hilarious, isn't it?

Got Enemies?

2011-02-23T00:47:00.000-08:00

He has no enemy, you say;
My friend, your boast is poor,
He who hath mingled in the fray
Of duty that the brave endure
Must have made foes. If he has none
Small is the work that he has done.
He has hit no traitor on the hip;
Has cast no cup from perjured lip;
Has never turned the wrong to right;
Has been a coward in the fight.

- Alexander Anton von Auersperg

Unintended Consquences: Meredith Menden on Teacher Pay

2011-02-22T00:57:00.000-08:00

Meredith Menden wrote a sarcastic Facebook note titled, "Are you sick of highly paid teachers?" proposing to pay teachers directly like babysitters, i.e., $19.50 a day. $19.50 x 30 kids x 180 days a year = $105,300 a year. Let's take Ms. Menden's idea further and actually consider paying teachers directly. First, we have to figure out how much each of us are paying teachers now.

In 2009, Californians filed about 12.8 million tax returns. (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_Statistics/2009_Filing_Season_Statistics.shtml)

California's annual budget is about $89 billion. The annual budget number is different from the amount available in the general fund. The general fund is basically the state's operating budget and includes money that covers the day-to-day activities of various state programs. The state's annual budget number includes expenses outside the general day-to-day activities of various state agencies and is therefore higher than the amount available for its general fund.

About 40% to 50% of the general fund usually goes to K-12 education. For 2011-2012, when including college funding, about 55% of the general fund will be spent on all education (DOF link here), with about 42.8% spent on K-12 education (see Governor's eBudget summary).

In 2011-2012, Jerry Brown is proposing that we spend $37.7 billion on K-12 education: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/6010/agency.html

So California plans on spending about $38 billion on K-12 education in 2011-2012--and that only includes the amount received from the state. (K-12 schools receive more funding from other sources, but we'll ignore those sources for now.) Each state tax filer is paying about 3K a year on K-12 education. Instead of giving that money to the government each year, why not return it to each taxpayer and add another 1K, even to people who do NOT generally file tax returns (i.e., poor people)?

Under this system, a poor parent would get an additional 4K a year to spend on his or her child's education. A married couple with two children would have 4K to spend on each child's tuition. A married couple with only one child could receive up to 8K. If parents don't spend the full amount on schooling costs, they would be required to spend any excess money in the county where they live. All recipients with K-12 children must spend at least 2K of their 4K on K-12 tuition. Payments and purchases would be tracked using something similar to our current EBT card system.

Adults who have no desire to attend school or who have no children would receive 2K in tax credits but must spend the money within their county of residence. Depending on the state's finances, this proposal could be extended to college students to help them pay for tuition. (Instead of increasing college tuition costs as we're doing now, we might be able to help college students reduce higher education costs).

Taxpayers who earn more than 125K a year in adjusted gross income would not be eligible for the 2K tax credit or 4K tuition credit. Once again, any tax credit not used on tuition or reducing a person's tax liability will be loaded on a card that must be spent on a business physically located in the taxpayer's county of residence.

More ideas: teachers would be hired based on one year contracts. A month before the end of the school year, a majority vote of the parents by secret ballot could remove the teacher. Requiring that all recipients with school-age children must spend at least 2K of their 4K on K-12 tuition gives teachers a *minimum* salary of 60K a year (assuming 30 kids--2 x 30). Parents who have only one child would have to pay 4K a year (2K each is required to be used for school), which would increase the teacher's salary beyond 60K in many cases. The money would go into a common pool and be divided among the different teachers in science, math, English, etc. In exchange for higher pay, teachers would be responsible for their own health care and retirement, just like many people in the private sector. With so many more people buying individual health and dental care plans, the overall cost of individual insurance plans would fall, creating an indirect benefit for poor people, the uninsured, and the self-employed.

If parents want to spend more on teachers, they can give them up to 120K (4 x 30) or more. If you're concerned about poor people in California, many poor people live in the Central Valley and way up north. 60K a year--the minimum salary--is good money in places like Fresno, Bakersfield, outskirts of Sacramento, etc. Of course, millions of poor people live outside of the Central Valley and in more expensive places like L.A., San Jose, etc. Most likely, these parents would have to spend their entire 4K voucher on a local school (if we assume more affluent neighborhoods will vote in higher salaries for teachers). However, poor parents will still have more choices and more of a voice in their children's education because teachers would have to cater directly to them to get their votes at the end of the year. In any case, under this proposal, all poor adults, even those without children, would receive 2K more every single year.

One issue is factoring in the increase in expected tax returns. Obviously, there will be more than 13 million people filing taxes if they know they will get between 2K to 4K. Also, we would have to create a new agency to investigate fraud/kickbacks, supervise the annual secret ballot vote, verify residency, prosecute parents who don't send their kids to school, etc. But if existing funding sources are inadequate, let's assume we could implement at least two measures to cover any expected shortfall: one, raise sales taxes (that's what we're doing now when we have a shortfall); and two, force all government employees making over 100K to take a 15% pay cut down to a minimum of 100K. We may not have to implement either of those measures if we handle additional sources of funding wisely. Lest we forget, we haven't even included federal money and local property taxes, which are around 11% and 21% of K-12 school funding (See here). Those are tens of billions of dollars of existing funding we have not yet discussed or included in our calculations.

Another note: we would have to cut P.E., which means we would teach five subjects instead of six subjects (e.g., English, math, science, social studies, and one elective, e.g., a foreign language, logic, music, etc.). The ambitious high school students could enroll at the local community college if they wanted more classes.

There are some important factors I haven't considered (e.g., what if parents have more than two kids? how do we best count the votes of divorced and/or single parents?), but we can see that existing funding is enough to improve the education system and also assist low-income parents. Whatever we're doing now is not assisting the children of low-income parents, so we ought to be open to all ideas. Why not consider a plan that would help increase accountability, pay teachers more, and help poor people? Most studies show that academic success tends to be influenced most by levels of parental income, parental education, and parental involvement. The proposed idea addresses all three aforementioned factors.

Update:

1) Complaint: not all poor people live in the Central Valley, and private schools are expensive.

Response: the poor people in the larger cities would probably have to use the full amount of their 4K vouchers to attend public schools, but they would still have more choices. Remember that under our current system, poor people must currently enroll their children in a pre-determined school, regardless of whether it is failing or dangerous. Giving parents a voucher for 4K allows them to consider charter schools and to demand more accountability.

Some people have said that private schools cost more than 4K a year. Well, some do, and some don't. Right now, we don't have much competition in schooling, and rich people are the ones with options. However, once we establish a voucher system, it is likely that new charter and new private schools that cost between 2K and 4K annually would crop up and be available to everyone, not just rich people.

And remember: we're not eliminating public schools or forcing anyone to attend a charter school. All we're doing is demonstrating that we can double teacher pay using existing resources (and still have plenty of money left over). All public schools would be required to enroll students with 4K vouchers. The true debate centers around the process the parents would use to determine whether they would have to use 2K or the full 4K amount of their vouchers, i.e., is it a majority vote of the class, school, county, etc.?

2) Complaint: healthcare coverage would be difficult on the private market, because you are switching tens of thousands of teachers from group coverage to individual coverage.

Isn't it true that under Obamacare, insurers must cover all individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions? In any case, the health insurance issue is a separate topic that can be addressed via state or federal legislation.

3) Complaint: the proposed idea eliminates administrators and other non-teaching staff.

The proposed idea eliminates administrators and other non-teaching staff so we can pay most teachers more money. We can modify the plan to add more money for basic maintenance costs, which are not a large portion of California's existing education budget. About 80 to 85% of California's K-12 budget currently goes directly in the pockets of school employees. (http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles/article.asp?title=teachers+in+california) If we can resolve the school employee funding issue, which is about 85% of the battle, we can easily deal with the remaining 15%.

To the extent we cannot replace the remaining funding needs by increasing sales taxes or decreasing the salaries of high earning government employees, remember that we have not included additional sources of funding. Only 61% of K-12 school funding comes from the state. As discussed above, the federal government provides an additional 11% and local property taxes provide another 21%. (See here.) In short, our calculations above have not included tens of billions of dollars of existing funding. Even without including the additional sources of funding, we have devised a system that could potentially double the average teacher salary in California.

4) Complaint: poor kids sometimes receive their only meal of the day at school. What about cafeteria staff?

An additional 2K a year gives parents over eleven dollars a day to replace any missed school lunches (assuming 180 school days). In schools that require the full 4K voucher, we can require the schools to feed children at least once a day. See response to number 3 above. Again, we have not considered other sources of funding from the state, local property taxes, lotto sales, etc.

5) Complaint: what about the existing pension and medical benefit obligations we owe to retired teachers?

The proposed plan eliminates unpredictable, unsustainable liabilities for incoming teachers in exchange for higher pay. Basically, teachers get paid more and taxpayers get more budget flexibility and predictability.

What about existing and retired teachers? The studies I've seen indicate that existing plans to cover such liabilities are underfunded by around $30 to $50 billion. We can apportion a set amount each year from federal or local property taxes to cover existing liabilities owed to retired teachers. If we spread out the funding over thirty years, we should be able to cover existing liabilities. We could also change the way benefits are calculated for existing teachers, such as increasing their contributions to pension and medical plans.

6) Complaint: what about making sure that all students, nationwide, are learning the same basic skills?

Remember: we haven't touched sources of federal money in the above calculations. The federal government usually provides about 11% of education funding in California.

In exchange for accepting federal money, the federal government can require schools to fail students who do not pass a basic competency test at the end of the year. Results would be released before parents vote on whether to retain their child's teacher. Under this method, parents would have a nationwide standard to measure both student and teacher performance while also giving teachers more flexibility in how to teach.

Bonus: Did you know the average California teacher receives the equivalent--at least as of 2011--of about $500,000 when s/he retires? Never heard that before, huh? Funny how the teachers' unions don't mention that. More here.

Judge Ward Has a Blog!

2011-02-21T10:52:00.000-08:00

One of the most fair, diligent, and personable trial judges in Santa Clara County recently retired. Judge Gregory Ward, a Harvard Law graduate, has blessed the blogosphere with his musings on case law and legislation related to California trials. For more, see here: http://www.caltrialpractice.com/

I particularly like this post--"Hey! Keep It Down In There!": http://www.caltrialpractice.com/2011/02/hey-keep-it-down-in-there.html. If you do employment law, you'll really like it.

By the way, Human Resources and corporate in-house counsel are usually not an employee's friend. They typically exist to protect the corporation, not the employee. I'm just sayin'.

Amazing Song by Asobi Seksu

2011-02-20T16:56:00.000-08:00

Collective Bargaining as a Strong-Arm Technique

2011-02-19T23:56:00.001-08:00

More on Wisconsin's labor issues, as seen on Facebook by Robert B:

Collective bargaining is not a right. It is a strong-arm technique utilized by unions to intimidate and force business owners to make concessions. There was a time when unethical business owners needed to be forced to act ethically [because civil laws were weak]. Those times are long past. Ever hear of OSHA?

Your grandfather, after a prolonged strike, ultimately had to cross the picket line and it ruined long term friendships and really hurt him personally. However, he ultimately felt the well being of his family outweighed the pressure from the union. Union leaders today now serve to garner the greatest income and benefits for themselves and members without consideration of the greater needs of the city, state, country, or other non-union neighbors. New hires are forced to join unions and pay union dues that fund lobbyists representing the extreme positions of the union. So your argument that unions stand for fairness is an anachronism that carries little weight in the United States today.

And finally, if I may share my experiences relating to my brief stint as a member of the AFL-CIO, the concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work did not exist in the mind of the union members I worked beside. They took their days pay but worked as little as they could get away with and constantly required supervision to do their fair day's work. It is time for the pendulum to come to rest in the middle where employees work hard to help maximize profitability of their employer and the employer demonstrates appreciation with a fair pay and benefits.

Businesses still have to be forced to act ethically, but Robert's point seems to be that civil laws already do the trick, and adding collective bargaining has swung the balance of political power too far in one direction. Private sector unions do not present the same problems as government unions; however, any unchecked power causes problems. When you add political kickbacks to unchecked power, the public at large usually suffers.

Wisconsin Showdown: Private Sector v. Gov Unions

2011-02-18T14:29:00.000-08:00

People supporting Wisconsin's government workers don't seem to understand they are actually supporting fiscal suicide.

Part 1: Wisconsin is not proposing anything unusual. Almost half the states have already outlawed government unions (i.e., right-to-work states). In all right-to-work states, a family can buy a 4/2 house in a safe neighborhood for less than $180K (at least as of 2011).

While correlation does not equal causation, higher government employment costs generally require higher taxes. Higher taxes tend to favor government workers, not private sector workers. In an ideal system, the private sector does not work to provide an ever-increasing share of resources to government workers; instead, the private sector maximizes the income of non-government workers while minimizing inflation and government costs that do not benefit the public at large.

It appears, however, that government unions tend to do too well in compensation negotiations, especially with Democratic politicians, which means that wherever they exist, they have over-reached. Voters don't usually notice the government's generous compensation schemes until there's a recession, which suddenly exposes the actual costs of government. Indeed, recent data shows that public sector unions lack real checks and balances and tend to work against the interests of the public at large. (See Economist articles cited at the end of this post, showing government workers have negotiated trillions of dollars of benefits for themselves--yes, I said "trillions," with a "t.")

Generally, the more powerful government unions become, the easier it is for them to use non-unionized workers (the general public) to benefit unionized government workers. (Imagine a government-sponsored snowball gaining more and more traction, sucking up compliant politicians along the way.) During a recession, when revenues decline, states that have allowed government unions tend to drive out all but very high earners and union members. This is because politically-connected and politically-protected employees (government unions) and people with unique skills usually have high job security.

Thus, as long as recessions and layoffs exist, if someone wants to own a home in a state with government unions, s/he must either join a union; have sources of income unrelated to the job market (inheritance, a trust); or make a very high income in the private sector. Since not everyone can make a very high income in the private sector, government unions appear to drive out non-unionized middle class and poor residents. Furthermore, as we will see in the second part of this post, not only do government unions tend to work against the interests of the public at large, they drive out jobs and increase unemployment by imposing higher costs on corporations and businesses.

Do you support home ownership for the poor and middle class? Then you ought to figure out whose side you're on--the government unions, who drive up taxes and costs for everyone else, or the middle class and poor, who deserve a shot at buying a home even if they're not in a union.

________________

Part 2: Let's assume we have two states, X and Y. In state X, gov workers must negotiate benefits that are reasonable, because the absence of gov unions forces them to accept reasonable, predictable compensation. In Y, gov unions exist, and they demand and receive millions more annually than in state X. During a recession, State X can more easily cut costs than State Y, which must cut services and raise taxes to pay gov unions. State X's financial flexibility is directly related with its refusal to allow collective bargaining for its government workers.

You are someone who wants to buy a home, an entrepreneur, or a business that is considering expansion. You realize that State X can offer you lower taxes and costs and therefore a better environment to grow your employees and business b/c it has fewer long term fiscal obligations and more financial flexibility.

You also realize that State Y has no choice but to come after businesses and/or potential customers (i.e., taxpayers) to pay off gov unions during a recession. In other words, state Y must raise taxes if its gov unions refuse to agree to substantial pay and benefit cuts. State X, on the other hand, can ask the highest earning members of its government workers to accept lower benefits and salaries, thereby avoiding higher taxes, which reduces the burden on the private sector. State X's ability to demand that its highest earners in the gov workforce accept pay cuts also allows the state to avoid laying off its newer or lower-earning members. Avoiding layoffs allows State X to maintain its services, whereas State Y must cut services or create disincentives for private sector expansion.

Thus, we can see that gov unions are capable of driving investment and private sector jobs to states that lack gov unions, creating a death spiral for states with gov unions (absent a quick economic recovery). In short, if gov unions negotiate unreasonable compensation or refuse to reduce current and long-term compensation during a recession, the state's private sector has an incentive to disfavor expansion in the state.

Bonus: more here, from The Economist ("Three Trillion Dollar Hole," October 14, 2010) and also here, from The Economist ("A Gold-Plated Burden," October 14, 2010):

CHUCK REED is the Democratic mayor of San Jose, California. You might expect him to be an ally of public-sector workers, a powerful lobby in the Golden State. But last month, at a hearing on pension reform held by the Little Hoover Commission, which monitors the state’s government, Mr Reed lamented his crippling public-pensions bill. “City payments for retirement benefits have tripled over the last ten years even though our workforce has declined dramatically, and we have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that the taxpayers must pay,” he said. Mr Reed estimated that the average cost to his city of employing a police officer or firefighter was $180,000 a year. Not only can such workers retire at 50, but some enjoy annual pension payments greater than their salaries. They are also entitled to cost-of-living increases of 3% a year, health and dental insurance for life and lump-sum payments for unused sick leave that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

More here, on one particular difference between the private sector and government sector (data from 2008-2009).

22 states refuse to allow collective bargaining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Was Emerson a Capitalist?

2011-02-18T00:06:00.000-08:00

Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his 1844 lecture, "The Young American":

The philosopher and lover of man have much harm to say of trade; but the historian will see that trade was the principle of Liberty; that trade planted America and destroyed Feudalism; that it makes peace and keeps peace, and it will abolish slavery.

Was Mr. Emerson a proponent of the Keynesian school of economics? Keep reading.

Bonus: We devise sumptuary and relief laws, but the principle of population is always reducing wages to the lowest pittance on which human life can be sustained. We legislate against forestalling and monopoly; we would have a common granary for the poor; but the selfishness which hoards the corn for high prices, is the preventive of famine; and the law of self-preservation is surer policy than any legislation can be. We concoct eleemosynary systems, and it turns out that our charity increases pauperism. We inflate our paper currency, we repair commerce with unlimited credit, and are presently visited with unlimited bankruptcy.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Emerson was no Keynesian :-)

Iron Man 2: the Real Tony Stark?

2011-02-17T15:28:00.000-08:00

I just saw Iron Man 2 (3/5 stars). The first one was much better, but I liked seeing Oracle co-founder and CEO Larry Ellison make a brief appearance in the second film. I suppose if anyone is the real-life version of Tony Stark, it's Larry Ellison. Or does Steve Jobs have a better claim to the title of dashing, outspoken entrepreneur?

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any company or entity.

Race Relations

2011-02-17T03:50:00.000-08:00

I see a lot of interesting debates on Facebook. This one's about race relations, which is always an interesting and controversial topic.

Controversial Person: For every race, tribe, color, and religious person, his/her fate starts and ends with jobs, the economy, adequate purchasing power, and a way to earn that purchasing power without being dependent on the kindness of persons who are of a different tribe, race, religion, or color. If a black man has to be dependent on a white man or welfare for his income, how far removed is he from slavery?

Cool Blue-Collar White Guy: This race subject has always bewildered me--shoot, most of the black people I know are more successful than I. I do not know what it is like to be a minority, however I grew up dirt poor and under-educated, and like most I did not go to the ends of the earth to get an education either....so my point is, it is up to the individual.

The Philosopher: I think it is a mistake to look at the African-American issue as a separate entity in the way Malcolm X makes it sound; it would be natural for him to mount his argument in the tone and rhetoric that he has - he is/was, after all, a black man himself. But the problem is a larger one – one that ‘I grew up dirt poor, under educated…’ comment of the comrade above illustrates rather well: it’s a problem of social construction as a whole. No doubt about it – race does matter, especially in a heterogeneous society like ours. But if you read books by intellectuals like Cornel West and/or Michael Eric Dyson, you’ll see how Malcolm’s message is put in perspective: we must (society at large, dominated by rich, white establishment) stop promoting the myth that a black man is either distant to a gang, or music or sports lifestyle. One may say those are merely stereotypes, but stereotypes, too, are constructed and have purpose. It’s the view of an African-American, permeating as a stereotype, that needs to be demolished (left behind – choose your own metaphor), which in turn will have the constructive and positive effect of better financial understanding, home ownership etc, etc… though not much mentioned, America very much operates on the basis of an unspoken caste system, and that unfortunately is true not just for African Americans, but whites and other races.

I also reject that success in a society is entirely dependent on the individual, but then I also disagree with a society that is merely concerned with equality of opportunity (and not equality of condition).

Cool Blue Collar White Guy: Books and scholars will not solve the problem. Friendships, Strong morals and family will. Furthermore I honestly believe the younger generations are doing this at a much greater rate than anytime in human history. I am 47 and can look you in the eye and honestly say that race or religion has not mattered to me.

Controversial Guy: @Philosopher: one reason African-Americans are stereotyped as athletes is because it is one area where they have been successful on their own and against the majority race.

@Blue Collar Guy: the last Fed Reserve study I read indicated that the only racial group (tracked by the Fed) that had a negative savings/wealth rate were African-Americans. Why is that? African immigrants from Africa tend to do very well in America and save money, so it's not a racial issue. One answer might be that African-Americans in this country have not found their niche outside of sports, which means that in every other category, they compete at a disadvantage with the majority race. As I've said before, never in the history of mankind (outside of apartheid or dictatorships) has the majority race ever allowed minority races to do well to an extent where they displace the majority race. The only way the minority races are able to succeed is by finding a place where they can outperform, based on merit, the majority race. For example, Christians wouldn't or couldn't handle money/interest in the old days, allowing others to handle that area for them. Muslims and Middle Easterners in America have done well because native born majority Americans have been unable to excel in math and science to the same extent as foreign Muslims, Hindus, Indians, Iranians, etc.

As a member of the majority race, Blue Collar Guy, you don't get to be automatically successful--but you get a default head start over racial minorities b/c the number of potentially available jobs is based on your skill set, not the color of your skin. With minority races, as I've posited here, the majority will never allow them to rise too high up in the ranks of government or union jobs and will defer charges of racism by hiring a few visible, compliant and perhaps not very exceptionally smart people (like Michael Steele, etc.). Having said that, so what? We can never dissolve all jobs based on political connections and limited accountability, i.e., union and government jobs, so all we can do is understand certain dynamics and work within those dynamics.

One contention is that political solutions to resolve racial wealth imbalances don't work (see President Johnson's War on Poverty), so we should look at solutions that allow minorities to gain independence and financial stability without relying on the kindness of the majority race. Assuming we want to assist minority communities specifically (rather than assisting all poor people regardless of race), any aid should come in the form of direct money into minority/poor communities, small business grants with someone vetting business plans, and assistance with teaching marketable skills (i.e., almost nothing that is taught in public schools today by unionized teachers).

There's another issue involved here. By attaching their fate to the majority race, minority races might be restricting women's mating choices. This is because only a limited percentage of minority men are allowed to get a part of the majority pie--in other words, the majority's pie will always be at least 51% in terms of gov and union jobs, and anything else that allows the majority to pass laws protecting themselves. This usually means the majority of minority men, at least those who cannot open their own businesses or find a niche, are unable to fully integrate into society on the same level as the majority race. It also means that the successful minority women who do successfully integrate and get a piece of the majority pie end up with fewer same-race men to marry who are on the same level, academically, financially, and geographically.

Cool Blue Collar White Guy: you know this feed is above my simple mind...I will just say that I have many "minority" friends and I am the minority in my neighborhood. I am cool with that...I know most my neighbors have my back, as I do them. I don't need my goverment to tell me whom to hire or to be friends with. That decision is best left with me. I have made the right choices. My "friends" list is a smorgasbord of personalities....all with their own qualities, and I dine there often :)

If our government is a reflection of the people why the disparity ? Or perceived disparity ? Shoot you have to be an attorney just to understand the tax code, let alone the civil rights stuff...and with 2300 pages of healthcare reform with more pork than a Jerry Springer show, I am definitely confused.

Controversial Guy: I totally agree with you when it comes to the ever-increasing laws and complexity of our political process. This phenomena makes it difficult for the average person/voter to stay interested. It has also led to dangerous apathy that will one day mutant into contempt, not just ridicule, name-calling, and Nazi references. We are not there yet, thank goodness. But if we do not move the debate back to realistic, fact-based, and data-driven solutions, we will get there soon enough.

Do California Goverment Unions Hurt Taxpayers?

2011-02-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

Most California local school workers--everyone from gardeners to teachers--are eligible for pensions after just 5 years, as well as lifetime medical benefits after 15 yrs. Meanwhile, most corporate employees must wait until 67 years old to get benefits that are worth much less than those provided to California government employees.

In S.F., without changes, around $500 million a year will be spent paying city employees who no longer work. That means the City will not have $500 million a year to spend on new jobs, welfare, parks and recreation, community programs, or attracting small businesses to S.F.

Using taxes to favor gov workers, especially people who no longer work, has severe consequences for any state that wants to remain competitive. For instance, in 2007, 6% of California's population moved out of state, according to the Pew Center. Many CEOs will not expand in California, citing ABC: "Anywhere But California."

At the end of the day, corporations must be responsive to you and me; otherwise, they will not be able to sell their products and will go bankrupt. Government unions, in contrast, do not need us. Given low voter turnout, unions can effectively deliver 20%+ of votes in local elections to the politician of their choice. Then, unions can use their politicians to increase their benefits on the back end--i.e., pensions, lifetime medical benefits, etc.--where the bill doesn't come due for many decades and becomes another politician's and perhaps even another generation's problem.

The backending of gov employee compensation destroys accountability, because it allows politicians to make ironclad promises that do not activate during their term. For gov unions, the advantage of back-ending gov employee compensation is twofold: first, voters do not see any immediate consequences and think everything is fine; and second, unions can continue to pursue a deliberate strategy of keeping younger, newer employees underpaid so they can use them as propaganda tools, even as their retirees receive unpredictably high and unsustainable compensation. Who suffers the most? Newer and younger people, whom politicians usually ignore because of their low voter turnout and naivete in supporting teachers, police officers, firefighters and other gov employees at any cost.

More on union influence here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/25/californias-public-employee-pension-problem/

Bonus: Will Wilkinson writes an excellent piece on government unions--see here ("Bad Bargain").

Interesting Website on Captioning

2011-02-15T18:05:00.000-08:00

The NIH has some excellent webpages. Here's one on captioning:

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/caption.asp

Please support online captioning so all of us, including the hearing-impaired, can participate on the internet. Thank you.

Religion and Death

2011-02-15T10:29:00.000-08:00

Below is a very controversial debate on Facebook regarding religion. Of course, correlation does not equal causation. Remember that when you hear anyone call a particular religion violent or peaceful.

AC: In the last 250 years, has anyone who openly subscribed to a religion caused more deaths than the Christian-majority British, the Christian-majority Americans, or the Christian-majority Germans? And isn't it interesting that the only group that comes close to the number of killings as Christians are atheists?

Count 'em: African slaves, the Holocaust, Korean War, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Sabra and Shatila, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwandan genocide (the Hutus are primarily Christians), Iraq (again), Abu Ghraib, Pakistan, etc.

CB: Your whole hypothesis is one big logical fallacy. "correlation does not prove causation". You are saying that most wars in the 20th centuries involved Christian governments and therefore you state you are looking for reasons why "one particular religion has been so much more voluminous in killing people than other religions". That is a huge logical jump...you can't just make it and look for reasons. Who knows if there is even a connection. To say that Christianity "caused" WWII or WWI or the Vietnam war is absurd. Therefore to look for reasons why Christians "cause" more wars is just as absurd. Your argument might just as well be why do democracies cause more wars or why do white people cause more wars.

In addition, your history is all messed up on Afghanistan. You are flat wrong on the facts about why we attacked Afghanistan. The war started less than a month after 9/11 and way before any war with Iraq. The stated goal was to defeat Al Qaeda and to demand the Taliban stop allowing Al Qaeda use the country as a base for terrorist operations. It had everything to do with 9/11 and zero to do with Iraq. You must have missed the whole state of the Union when Bush demanded the Taliban stop letting Al Qaeda use their country for that.It was Again, it had zero to do with some kind of base for Iraq. And I'm "surprised' that you are "surprised" about me stating that. In any event, you missed the point of my argument. You argued that Afghanistan was a "Christian" war. That's silly on it's face given the circumstances that lead up to the war.

AC: 1) I never said any religion "caused" more deaths. I fully understand I was arguing correlation rather than causation. Thus, your entire argument involves knocking down something I never said. Let me leave you with the question you and everyone else continues to ignore:

"In any case, no one here has provided any evidence that Christian-majority countries or atheist-majority countries have not killed the most number of people compared to other religions in the last 250 years. Therefore, my original point stands."

The question is why is there such an unusual correlation. No one has been able to answer this question.

2) re: Afghanistan, you completely ignored the potential link between short-sighted Soviet-era policies and modern day problems in Afghanistan.

Even so, let's address the issue you raised: that "It [the war in Afghanistan] had everything to do with 9/11 and zero to do with Iraq." It depends on which part of the war we're discussing, and the answer depends on whether we're discussing the initial 2001 campaign, or the second, more extensive 2003 campaign.

First, we basically captured Kabul and Kandahar in the initial invasion. For whatever reason, we neglected to secure other parts of the country. That meant that two years later, in 2003, the Taliban had returned and continued to destabilize Afghanistan. 2003 was the same year we invaded Iraq. You're assuming that is a coincidence--I do not believe it is. Just like we used Cambodia to prevent further escalation within Vietnam (i.e., Operation Menu), we may have used Iraq in 2003 to prevent further escalation in Afghanistan. In other words, it's possible the accusation of WMDs in Iraq had secondary practical purposes, i.e., preventing further escalation within Afghanistan.

Second, I personally heard General Wesley Clark say that about two weeks after 9/11, he saw plans to invade mostly Muslim countries, including Iraq.

Third, to the extent I called Afghanistan a Christian/atheist war, you missed my point--I said the country destabilized after atheist-majority (USSR) and Christian-majority (U.S.) countries interfered with it decades ago. (I notice you never disputed the aforementioned statement.) My point was that it is possible that our failure to have a Marshall Plan in Afghanistan post-Cold War led to a power void that allowed terrorists to increase their power within a destabilized country. You never disputed that point, either.

In short, our military seems to rely on short-term strategies and alliances when faced with a greater potential perceived threat, and it's not clear if we understand the problems this strategy has caused long term. (By the way, we can apply the same line of questioning to our initial support for Saddam Hussein and then our eventual ouster of him.)

Fourth, we're back at square one, b/c you've ignored my original statement: "In any case, no one here has provided any evidence that Christian-majority countries or atheist-majority countries have not killed the most number of people compared to other religions in the last 250 years." The question is, "What is the reason for this high correlation?"

You should be able to figure out that I'm trying to teach you and everyone else a lesson so the next time you hear someone call Islam a violent religion, or, in your case, casually associate terrorism with "Islamic radicals," perhaps you'll think twice before associating religion with violence. Because it's quite clear which religion has the #1 death count, religiously-speaking, in the last 250 years.

We're left with my more interesting question: if, absent religious and racial similarities, history shows that power tends only to understand power, are smaller countries justified in seeking nuclear weapons? Should we stop worrying and learn to love the nuclear bomb, which will force everyone to cooperate by raising the stakes of war?

Bonus: "A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them." More here.

Coaching Basketball

2011-02-14T00:20:00.000-08:00

In this dribbling drill, the kids have to go around sitting teammates in a weaving fashion. It's fun, especially when the kids try all kinds of "modifications" to stymie the ballhandler. One kid sitting on the edge actually moved next to the wall to prevent anyone from passing him. I thought of the line from Lord of the Rings: "You shall not pass!" :-)

Update: if we apply a legal perspective to the dribbling drill, we can see that some people will always try to game the rules, which is why laws ought to be as narrowly-defined as possible. In other words, the key issue in drafting a law isn't the potential good it can cause, but the potential harm "gamers" can cause.

Also, I just realized I posted this on Valentine's Day. I suppose I like the practice of law, but I love coaching basketball. It's so much fun being able to correct a kid's shooting form or defensive stance and see the player improve within a few hours. Even the advanced players benefit from coaching. I had one kid who is amazing on offense, but not so much on defense (he's smaller compared to others at his grade level). I taught him to immediately go back on defense and try to steal the ball from behind if he gets beat. He did it on Saturday, getting back on defense, stealing the ball, and changing the momentum of a very close game.

Just out of curiosity, if anyone reading this in 2011 has an available job coaching 2nd to 6th graders in basketball anywhere in the world, please let me know. Why 2nd to 6th? I don't have experience coaching 7th to 10th graders, and beyond the 10th grade, coaching is more about physical conditioning, adopting the correct style of play to maximize your players' skill sets, and teamwork than fundamental skills.

Also, pre-hormones, from a teaching perspective, kids are wonderful. By the third grade, they start to get their own personalities and quirks, which is fun to see. After the sixth grade, however, most teenagers tend to immediately rebel against authority, making teaching fundamental skills more difficult. The lesson? Teach 'em when they're young, because after elementary school, if they haven't learned the basic skills, it might very difficult to play catch-up.

Is Christianity a Peaceful Religion?

2011-02-13T21:10:00.000-08:00

Is Christianity the religion of peace? Christianity's founder is on record as saying, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Even if Jesus Christ meant an ideological conflict, it's interesting to note that Christian-majority countries have been the undisputed volume leaders when it comes to killing human beings over the last 250 years--at least compared to every other religion. Think WWI, WWII, Vietnam, the Holocaust, etc.

The Old Testament is even more brutal:

Deuteronomy, Ch 7: "and when the LORD, your God, delivers them up to you and you defeat them, you shall doom them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy...But this is how you must deal with them: Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, chop down their sacred poles, and destroy their idols by fire. For you are a people sacred to the LORD, your God; he has chosen you from all the nations on the face of the earth to be a people peculiarly his own...The LORD will remove all sickness from you; he will not afflict you with any of the malignant diseases that you know from Egypt, but will leave them with all your enemies...The images of their gods you shall destroy by fire. Do not covet the silver or gold on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD, your God."

From Jesus Christ, full quote: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Obviously, being related somehow to the most number of killings in the last 250 years doesn't mean Christianity or Christians are more violent in general. Everyone should know the difference between causation and correlation. This is why I find it interesting that some Americans and American media outlets associate violence with Islam. I saw a more substantial "conversation" on the issue of religion and violence on Facebook, which I am copying below. The first person is responding to a comment about why Americans sometimes associate Islam with violence.

Facebook Debate

MNA: Some random thoughts... I'm generalizing, and "us" does not necessarily include "me." Radical Islamic fundamentalists have said "Death to America" and some people have chosen to take that personally and as a threat to their very well-being. When threatened, people don't always act rationally or accurately judge how serious that threat may really be. Some of it might be the media coverage - much as we are made to believe that things that kill 10 children a year are "dangerous" it's hard to not perceive the Islamic world as dangerous when we see stories of stonings of women accused of adultery, of honor killings and acid attacks. I think we like to believe that we have moved on and become more experienced and civilized... that confronted with the same situations, we would not behave in the same way. Seeing Muslims acting in vengeful ways straight out of the Bible doesn't make us view Muslims as equally "enlightened."

AC: "You" seem to be saying that it is reasonable for Christians and atheists to feel threatened by the actions of a small minority of Muslims acting barbarically. You then argue that Christians would not act the same way when confronted with the same situations, citing acid attacks and capital punishment. You allege that Christians have "moved on" and become more "civilized."

Acid attacks have happened in America, too--look up Bethany Storro, who, according to various reports, covered her face in acid and blamed it on a black person. I've also heard of acid attacks happening in several high schools in America. Is it rational to believe that America is an evil place because of isolated incidents? Of course not, but your words reveal a certain kind of bias based on selective application of general principles.

Also, America, like Middle Eastern countries, has capital punishment. It's hard to see electrocution as somehow better than stoning, but to the extent there is a difference, it is one of degree, not substance. Your comments seem to prove that human beings tend to think in terms of "us vs. them"--even when substantively, there is little difference between us and them. As a result, realists believe that only power convinces stronger nations to be "civilized." This might be what leads leads Iran and other countries to desire nuclear weapons, i.e., a realistic, rational policy of preservation.

But I'm not done yet. I have two words for you and anyone else who thinks Christian nations are civilized or somehow more civilized than other countries and nationalities: Abu Ghraib.

Let me now flip your statements as an academic exercise: Muslims would like to think that Christians are civilized and enlightened people, but when faced with Abu Ghraib, are Muslims and Muslim-majority countries justified in feeling threatened by Christians? The statistical record does indicate that Christian-majority countries have been highly predisposed to war and mass killings in the last 200 years. Taken together with Abu Ghraib and the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on a false allegation involving WMDs, are Muslims nations not justified in being concerned about their survival?

Overall, your comments indicate a selective memory and a willingness to attribute terrible things to Muslims but not to Christians. But my intent is not to single you out. My point is that human beings have a natural tendency to make people who look and act different from them into "The Other." Realists recognize this innate tendency to believe one's own people to be more civilized than "the Other," which sometimes causes tension and major misunderstandings.

MNA: Umm, I said "I think we like to believe" - I did not say we were right in thinking so, or that it is true. I think almost everyone thinks themselves morally superior to others, until put in a position where they have to make hard choices. Then it has nothing to do with race, color, creed or religion - only content of character as to how we rise to the occasion (or don't). There is no bias here, except yours perhaps ;) I think r entire argument was based around Muslims being somehow morally superior, their values leading them to be more peaceable. Speaking of peaceable...it's merely for "protection" that Iran seeks nuclear weapons? That might seem more plausible if they would stop denying the Holocaust and praying for Israel to be wiped off the map.

AC: Iran's president is a moron--let's agree on that right off the bat. However, his point seems to be that Israel emphasizes the Holocaust as a way of making its country's citizens into victims, which then allows them to victimize Palestinians and Muslims in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere (i.e., 2006 Lebanon War). (Most people intuitively believe that if you're a victim, you cannot be an oppressor or aggressor--see battered wife self-defense theory, etc.)

Thus, Iran's president's goal is to de-legitimize the Holocaust so he can paint Israel as an oppressor of Muslims, which is a stupid, grotesque, and ignorant way of approaching the situation. Even so, statements denying the number of deaths in the Holocaust--though unbelievably stupid and grotesque--say nothing about the likelihood of future attacks against Israel. (You seem to be forgetting that it was Christians that killed the Jews in the Holocaust, not Muslims.) Also, an isolated comment about wiping Israel off the map was stated in the passive voice, i.e., similar to saying that you hope that jerk across the street who's been beating up your brother dies soon. So you still lack objective evidence of any intent by Iran to attack Israel, which would be suicide for Iran, a country that's existed for 3000+ years. In other words, you seem to believe that a 3,000 years old civilization led by a Ph.D. civil engineer wants to commit suicide, even though Iran has a record of protecting Jews (see the story of Esther).

Also, Iran has never done to the Jews what America did to Muslims in Abu Ghraib. Based on your line of reasoning, we should believe that America's nuclear weapons are not for self-defense or peaceful purposes post-Abu-Ghraib and Iraq. If Iran ever rounded up the Jews in Iran and tortured them, your line of reasoning might make more sense, but in the absence of widespread human rights abuses against Jews within Iran, your line of reasoning appears based on prejudice and isolated statements rather than facts. Again, it was mostly Christians who rounded up the Jews in Germany and the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also interesting that you fail to mention that in the last 200 years, Israelis have killed more Muslims than Iranians have killed Jews--and yet, despite the historical record, you believe Iran has less credibility than Israel when it comes to wanting protection, even though Israel has nuclear weapons and subjects Muslims in the Gaza Strip to daily human rights abuses, while Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons and does not commit daily human rights abuses against its Jewish residents.

In any case, hasn't your selective memory and reasoning proven my point? That no matter how educated or intelligent a person, he or she is a product of his/her environment and is easily led to accept theories based more on prejudice of the "Other" than facts, logic, and history? We are the country that invaded Iraq for no justifiable reason. Modern history shows that countries, especially Muslim-majority countries, not part of the elite or that do not share a sufficient number of characteristics with the power elite should seek the strongest protection possible as a means of self-defense. Is that not a reasonable conclusion based on the record post-Iraq and post-Abu Ghraib? Or do you think it's illogical for Iran to want protection when it sees what a Christian-majority nation did to Iraq and in Abu Ghraib?

Bonus: according Jewish journalist Roger Cohen, "Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran -- its sophistication and culture -- than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I'm a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran." More here.

Valentine's Edition: Songs about My Love Life

2011-02-11T11:02:00.000-08:00

In my 20's, I would have chosen a different song to characterize my love life; in my early 30's, "Sometimes Love Just Ain't Enough" (Patty Smyth featuring Don Henley) is it.

I wonder if in my 40's, it will be "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely" by Ricky Martin and Christina Aguilera. As long as my theme song in my 50's isn't Pet Shop Boys' "Being Boring," I think I'll be all right.

The problem with the Bay Area in California is that few single people seem to have fiscally conservative habits. The ones who do are probably more risk-averse than the general population and settled down in their 20's. When I mention I would prefer someone who doesn't have any credit card debt, people call me unrealistic.

Although I've lived in large cities all my life, I identify with the smaller-city mentality I've seen in E.B. White's essays: "The quality in New York that insulates its inhabitants from life may simply weaken them as individuals. Perhaps it is healthier to live in a community where, when a cornice falls, you feel the blow; where, when the governor passes, you see at any rate his hat." ("Here is New York")

I am perfectly happy watching movies, playing basketball, coaching youth basketball, and reading books for entertainment. While I enjoy going out to a comedy show or music event once in a while, I don't feel my life would be empty without them. So I continue to wonder why I should pay $500K+ for a house in the Bay Area when I can buy a house for 85K in Nashville, TN or San Marcos, TX and live a similar lifestyle. Is California weather really worth $415K, which is about $700K before taxes?

Mom's Payback Time

2011-02-10T15:06:00.000-08:00

I occasionally post conversations between my mom and me, where I gently and lovingly mock my Mom's interesting use of the English language. Here's one example, relating to the Super Bowl. And here's the most recent one, shortly after the Super Bowl event:

Me, on telephone, leaving someone a message: "I would rather have this [referring to a blunt person] than someone apathetic."

Mom, over-hearing me: "That's not right. It should be 'her,' not 'this.'"

Me: "Unbelievable. You're actually right for once."

Mom, later, texting me: "U should say in face book that I corrected your English. U make fun of my English. now is d pay back time. Let's see what your friends say."

FDR on Public Sector Unions

2011-02-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

Fred Siegel has an interesting article in the WSJ (January 25, 2011) on liberals and government unions:

Liberals were once skeptical of public-sector unionism. In the 1930s, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia warned against it as an infringement on democratic freedoms that threatened the ability of government to represent the broad needs of the citizenry. And in a 1937 letter to the head of an organization of federal workers, FDR noted that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

More here. The more expensive you make something, the less of it you can have. If cops and teachers cost $150K a year, you can't have as many of them--at least not absent massive tax increases that will cause businesses to expand outside the state, thereby harming immigrants and poor persons who rely mostly on the private sector for jobs.

Also, isn't it better to have more teachers and police officers than fewer of them? If so, the more benefits and money you give them, the fewer of them you can hire down the road, especially if you're spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on retired/non-working officers and teachers (in the form of pensions). By switching government workers to 401k plans rather than pensions, the same money we're using to pay non-working government employees could be used to hire more teachers and police officers and to pay them higher starting salaries.

One last point: when government unions cause a significant portion of their members' compensation to be back-ended, i.e., in the form of pensions and lifetime medical benefits, you have two major problems: one, the politicians involved in negotiating the promises won't be around to suffer any consequences if they made unfair, overly generous, and unsustainable promises; and two, budget planning becomes very difficult because governments are not life insurers and cannot accurately or fully predict the costs of their employees' lifetime health care and pension benefits.

Interracial Marriage Stats

2011-02-08T00:28:00.000-08:00

Interesting data on interracial marriage from the Pew Center:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1616/american-marriage-interracial-interethnic

Basically, according to the Pew Center report, 26% of Hispanic women, 9% of white and black women, and 40% of Asian women marry outside their race.

Superbowl Sunday Edition

2011-02-07T00:22:00.000-08:00

My mom and I watched parts of the Super Bowl together. Here's one of our conversations from that day:

Mom: every touchdown is 7 points?

Me: it's 6 points, and if you make a free kick, it's 7.

Mom: you mean if it goes through that thing?

Me: [sigh] Yes. If it goes through the thing, it's an extra point.

Mom: what if it doesn't go through the thing?

Me: Then it's 6 points.

Mom: When is the halftime?

Me: At the half.

Mom: What do you mean the half? The time, or the score?

[P.S. We both liked the halftime show. I have no idea what people expect from a live halftime show, but some people's expectations seem unrealistic.]

Accuray CEO Euan Thomson

2011-02-05T04:01:00.000-08:00

Dr. Euan Thomson, CEO and President of Accuray (ARAY). Congrats to Mr. Thomson for Accuray's most recent results (2011), which drove up the company's share price approximately 30%.

Bonus: review of Accuray's 2010 shareholder meeting here.

Disclosure: I have owned shares of Accuray (I haven't checked, but I might still own a few shares). My ownership positions may change at any time.

Under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.

Milton Friedman on Immigration and Free Markets

2011-02-04T10:42:00.000-08:00

One cannot be pro-socialism and pro-immigration. Immigrants are usually needed for private sector jobs, usually either highly specialized or low paying ones. Despite the prospect of a low paying, tough job, immigrants come to America and other non-socialist countries because they believe their children will be able to have a better life. But most union and socialist jobs are reserved for citizens, not immigrants. Thus, the sina qua non of the immigrant story is a large private sector rather than a large government sector. In other words, someone who is pro-immigrant must be capitalist, not socialist, assuming that socialism means a large government sector.

If you're still not convinced, please listen to Milton Friedman:

[Ch 7] "one of the paradoxes of experience is that, in spite of...historical evidence, it is precisely the minority groups that have frequently furnished the most vocal and numerous advocates of fundamental alterations in a capitalist society. They have tended to attribute to capitalism the residual restrictions they experience rather than to recognize that the free market has been the major factor enabling these restrictions to be as small as they are...the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat grown by a white man or a [black man], by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward his color, the religion, or other characteristics of the people he hires.

Furthermore, and perhaps more important, there is an economic incentive in a free market to separate economic efficiency from other characteristics of the individual. A businessman or an entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Hence, in a free market they will tend to drive him out...

[Ch 1] As this example suggests, the groups in our society that have the most at stake in the preservation and strengthening of competitive capitalism are those minority groups which can most easily become the object of the distrust and enmity of the majority--the African-Americans, the Jews, the foreign-born, to mention only the obvious...[Yet] instead of recognizing that the existence of the free market has protected them from the attitudes of their fellow countrymen, they mistakenly attribute the residual discrimination to the market."

Bonus: Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

CBO Slideshows

2011-02-03T05:00:00.000-08:00

Neutral, non-partisan data is hard to come by these days. Thank goodness for the CBO. Its slideshows can be found here:

http://www.slideshare.net/cbo

One of the CBO's most recent (at least as of 2011) slideshows is about immigration. It includes the total number of immigrants apprehended and lots of other interesting statistics.

One of the Best SNL Skits Ever: Democratic Edition

2011-02-02T00:32:00.000-08:00

Here's a bone to the Democrats--a fantastic 1998 skit that eviscerates the GOP:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/98/98crepublicans.phtml [Season 24, Episode 3: Lucy Lawless]

Henry Hyde: Recently, the Republican Party has been accused of conducting a witch hunt aimed at overhrowing an elected President. Some even say we're in the midst of a coup d'etat. Well, I'm here to say, "You're damn right!" And, you know what, America - what the hell you gonna do about it? Okay? Most of you are too busy watching "Road Rules" and drinking Frappuccinos to go out and vote. We're gonna boot this hillbilly out! And then give tax breaks to the rich! So suck on that! Suck on it a real long time, then suck on it some more! Then keep sucking on it, and then suck a little bit more, and suck some more! And just keep sucking on it! Now, to further drive home how little respect I have for you as a nation, here's my good friend Sen. Jesse Helms.

Jesse Helms: Clinton raised the minimum wage, and I'm gonna cut it in half, mofos! [Will Ferrell as Henry Hyde claps ecstatically.] Everyone one o' ya gonna be workin' at Arby's for $2 an hour! And I'm-a gonna be gettin' off on it!

Republicans are your pals, they want a proud America, they don't want blacks anywhere! Oh.. oh.. I mean, no affirmative action, oh yeah.. Think of good things, America. Think of the TV show "Friends".. think of dancing babies.. fruit roll-ups.. that little kid from "Jerry Maguire".. Beanie Babies.. sharks fighting monkeys.. Ohhhh, you feel good? What's the point of votin'? Go to slee-eep.. slee-eep.

I tend to agree with the Democrats on social issues and with the GOP on economic issues. At the same time, my primary allegiance is to good and peaceful political opposition, because it promotes discussion and forces the other side to re-evaluate, explain, and/or strengthen its positions. Ridicule and satire are two effective forms of peaceful dissent. Just ask Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

Ash Kalra: a Discussion on Unions and Pensions

2011-02-01T00:34:00.000-08:00

Is Ash Kalra a government union puppet? You decide. Below is our discussion, copied from his Facebook wall, on January 27, 2011:

San Jose City Councilmember Ash Kalra: [posts a link to Sarah Palin, who apparently made a gaffe by not fully understanding the Sputnik moment reference in President Obama's recent speech.]

Me: Palin may be a moron, but at least she would never vote to give public sector unions bonuses during a recession :-) Private sector unemployment is 12%, public sector unemployment is around 1%, and you voted to give bonuses to government unions? Do you understand the money that goes to the government unions comes from the private sector?

Ash Kalra: Matt, I don't know what bonuses you are referring to as most of our unions gave money back to balance our budget this last year. And, unlike the private sector, we do not give bonuses anyway. Also, in 2010, the largest segment in the workforce that lost jobs were public sector employees. Everyone is hurting and it does not help to pit the private sector versus the public sector. We need jobs for everyone including those that provide services to our community.

Me: @Ash: you don't know what bonuses I am referring to? See here: http://www.sanjose.com/news/2010/10/28/City_Council_pensions_deficit [Note: I've updated the link because the original SJ Mercury News link requires a password.]

Seems like the "Forgetful Foursome" moniker isn't just hyperbole. [Note: the SJ Mercury News dubbed Ash Kalra, Kansen Chu, Nancy Pyle, and Nora Campos the "Forgetful Foursome" after their vote supporting government pension bonuses. Seven (7) Santa Clara County Council members voted against the pension bonuses, prevailing over the four who voted to give additional pension monies to retired government workers, including some who receive six-figure annual pensions.]

You say that "in 2010, the largest segment in the workforce that lost jobs were public sector workers." This is a misleading statement. In the aggregate, government workers are such a large number, even a 1% decline in their ranks translates into more individual persons unemployed than compared to other individuals in discrete occupations. (According to the BLS, "In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union...Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 42.3%...The largest numbers of union members lived in California." (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)

See also: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HOMfaLGCZIY/THoXdPJM3TI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/GOFeYbeQrMg/s1600/the_protected_class.png

In any case, it's fairly obvious that a 12% unemployment rate in CA's private sector vs. a 1% unemployment rate in CA's public sector is cause for concern. When certain politicians use their discretion to give more money to the public sector during a recession, even when such monies are not contractually required, it's unclear whether they understand Economics 101.

If we want to assist both the private and public sector, we need politicians who understand that a thriving private sector is paramount, especially because the private sector funds the public sector--not the other way around.

Ash Kalra: Matt, I was referring to drops in Silicon Valley in 2010. The public sector was the largest category in job losses. As for the article you dug up, we did not give bonuses. That is the supplemental retirement bonus for retirees that had been paid out for about a decade. The decision was whether to suspend and examine it or keep it in place and examine it. I certainly felt we should keep it in place and examine it since there are some retirees that rely on it and it had zero impact on the general fund and almost zero impact on the pension fund to keep in place while it is being examined. Suspending it was purely symbolic except to some of the retirees that rely on that money. Even on Tuesdays meeting, I asked the staff, as we examine the supplemental payment, to identify those retirees that are truly in need so we can relieve those struggling on the lower end of our retiree pay scale. So, to say we are giving bonuses to government unions is certainly a gross generalization. I have voted time and again assistance to our private sector employers to help them retain and grow their companies and have spent countless hours meeting with CEO's in my district to find ways we can help them succeed including helping them access capital as well as grants and tenant improvement programs offered by the city. It's easy to buy into labels the media chooses to put on me but there is a lot of work I and my Council colleagues are doing to help our private employers.

Me: @Ash: thank you for your response. However, you are making misleading statements. First, by voting to maintain the current supplemental pension bonus plan, you voted to give bonuses to former government employees. You could have chosen to use that money for current government workers, businesses, or deficit reduction. You chose not to do so, which reveals your priorities (i.e., when given a choice, you choose retired government workers over current workers and deficit reduction [or at least a more fully-funded pension account]).

Second, Silicon Valley's public sector lost about 2,600 jobs in 2010, which you allege is a higher number than other individual occupation groups. But all you are doing is taking job losses within a very large group and comparing them to losses within separate, smaller groups.

It's like saying we should maintain bonuses to bankers because the entire financial industry in Silicon Valley (a large, diverse population) suffered more job losses than smaller groups of workers, such as hot dog stand workers, coaches, fishermen, etc. While 2,600 job losses are not something to sniff at, the way you present the information is misleading. [As such], you cause voters to question your judgment and economic knowledge when you vote to increase [or maintain discretionary] payouts to retired government workers during a recession that has caused massive deficits, in part due to the way cities like San Jose calculate pension benefits and payouts.

Perhaps a better question to ask is, "What reforms do you plan on enacting and supporting to ensure that pension payouts to retired government workers do not adversely affect future private and public sector job growth?"

For example, do you plan on lowering the projected pension investment return rate to something close to a riskless rate? Do you plan on increasing the time before which a city employee is eligible for a pension? (Right now, San Jose government workers are eligible for pensions after just 5 years.) [What about basing pension payouts on a worker's average lifetime earnings instead of the final three years, when salaries are the highest?] In short, how do you plan on cutting pension costs, when such costs are clearly causing an adverse impact on city finances, according to the Civil Grand Jury, Stanford University, and [Mayor] Chuck Reed?

Ash Kalra: We voted unanimously on Tuesday to look at all of those options to reduce our pension liability. And, no, I did not vote to increase pension payments. And, the supplemental payment that has been in place for many years is not money that could otherwise be removed from the pension fund for any of the items you listed. They are solely for the benefit of the pensioners, although I do think it is reasonable to reevaluate the program and target the supplemental benefit to those truly in need and have the remainder returned to the pension fund. We also voted to evaluate the program to see whether it will be entirely eliminated or otherwise adjusted.

Me: @Ash: Thank you for correcting me. You voted to maintain, not increase, supplemental pension payouts (which were not contractually required). [In other words, you voted to give discretionary pension payments to non-working government employees, despite the fact that the city's pension plan is currently underfunded.] I look forward to hearing your and other Councilmembers' ideas on fixing our city's budget problems in ways that focus on current public and private sector workers [as well as the unemployed].

Bonus: San Jose's employee pension bill, $63 million a decade ago, is now projected to be $248 million in the upcoming budget year, up from the $194 million that had been anticipated a year ago, even though the city's staff has shrunk from more than 7,000 to fewer than 6,000.

(SJ Mercury News, January 25, 2011, article "San Jose City Council OKs Pension Plan," by James Woolfolk)

If we had switched government workers to 401ks (defined benefit plans) instead of maintaining costly, unpredictable pensions, San Jose would have $248 million to spend on new jobs in 2011 instead of paying government workers who no longer work.

Bonus II: my friend saw the discussion later and emailed me the following message:

Here are some facts and figures from San Jose's chief negotiator, Alex Gurza, regarding the "13th check"--"excess earnings can be declared and transfered to the SRBR ("13th check" pool) even if other actuarial assumptions have not been met and even if the plans are significantly underfunded, as they currently are."

"Largest payments are made to those who've been retired the longest and who served the city longest." These folks often are the ones that were receiving the less enriched benefits enacted in the 2000's; however, very few--perhaps four of five--workers are at or below the poverty line, and that's if you consider ONLY their pension payout. These few workers had only about 8 yrs of service, on average. We don't know if these folks worked elsewhere and have other pensions, 401(k)'s, savings, etc. [Anyone who works eight years for a single employer cannot expect to rely on his pension payments from that single employer as his primary source of income.]

3% automatic COLA [cost of living increases] went into effect for police and fire employees as of 2002. Over the 9 years since, the REAL cost of living rose an avg. of 2% per year. The compounding effect of the 3%-on-3%-on-3%-etc. gives us an average increase of 3.4% each year for these retirees. Just with their REGULAR pension payments, they've outpaced inflation by 12.4% over 9 yrs.

For Federated (the other) employees, they got the 3% COLA in 2006. Since then CPI has risen avg. of 1.8% per year. The compounded 3% COLAs equate to 3.2% gain, on average, over each of the past five years. These retirees have outpaced inflation by 6.8% in five years.

Documentary Recommendations: War on Terror

2011-01-31T14:00:00.000-08:00

Though not for the squeamish, every American adult ought to watch Taxi to the Dark Side (2007). I also recommend watching 2010's documentary, The Oath, before watching Taxi to the Dark Side.

Both documentaries present mostly unfiltered information from first-hand sources, including frontline military personnel and former Al Qaeda members, about Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, and Abu Ghraib.

Mohamed ElBaradei: America's and Egypt's Best Candidate

2011-01-30T20:18:00.000-08:00

Dear President Obama:

Mohammed ElBaradei has given you a gift--your first chance to support a new Middle Eastern leader popular both with the majority of U.S. insiders and his own people. Do not screw this up.

http://twitter.com/ElBaradei

P.S. We didn't elect you b/c we thought you were an economic or legal maven. We elected you because we hoped you'd rise up to the challenge of forging coherent, consistent, and inspirational international policies. What are you waiting for?

Bonus: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2007/cr301007.html

Dwight Howard, Father

2011-01-29T08:17:00.000-08:00

Dwight Howard on raising kids: "“My son is 3. Right now he’s getting to the age where anything he sees he reacts to it and he wants to do it. You have to be aware of everything you say, anything you watch, the people you have around because he watches all that and he learns from that."

I'm happy Dwight understands how kids learn, but the copying of adult behavior doesn't stop until kids hit their teenage years. Your kids will watch you like a hawk and will mimic your behavior until their hormones kick in. I'm just sayin'.

Quote of the Day: Free Speech

2011-01-28T04:01:00.000-08:00

"One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric." -- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971) [Justice Harlan]

Michael Lewis: The Big Short

2011-01-27T02:20:00.000-08:00

“All of a sudden I’ve become this caricature,” said Burry. “I’ve always been able to study up on something and ace something really fast. I thought it was all something special about me. Now it’s like ‘Oh, a lot of Asperger’s people can do that.’ Now I was explained by a disorder.”

More here, at least as of January 2011. If the link doesn't work, check out Michael Lewis' book, The Big Short, for more.

23andMe Results

2011-01-26T00:22:00.000-08:00

I recently received 23andMe DNA results. There's nothing earth-shattering in the report. For example, I have a 1% chance of a heart attack over the next decade. Also, as of January 2011, my carrier statuses indicated that all of the relevant variants were absent for the selected disease categories, including--I kid you not--Maple Syrup Urine Disease Type 1B.

Basically, I'm "typical" in most categories. One category where I have a higher than average risk? Heroin addiction. Yes, it's weird and interesting at the same time, because Alexander the Great introduced opium in the Middle East and Persia. (I was born in Iran, and both my parents are Iranians with a long line of Iranian descendants.) More access to a particular drug in a particular region might skew results relating to the drug's susceptibility, so all genetic data has to be taken with a grain of salt. Below are more selected results, in case you are interested:

In addition to having higher odds of becoming a heroin addict, I am a likely sprinter (i.e., not a long distance runner, built for short bursts of speed and power); resistant to stomach "flu"; I "effectively learn to avoid errors" (although it's entirely unclear how it's possible to analyze this trait from a genetic profile); and I have reduced sensitivity to sweaty odor (Tell me if I stink, people! Apparently, I can't help it :-)

Globally, my genetic similarities most closely match peoples in Southern Europe, then Northern Europe, then the Middle East. I have some similarities with Sephardic/Spanish Jews and Lebanese (Phoenician?) people; ancestrally, 98% of my chromosomes are closely related to Europeans with 2% closely related to Asians.

On my dad's side, it looks like his profile closely matches Southern Europe as well as Iran. From his side, I have similarities with Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Crete, and Italy, as well as modern-day populations of Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Albania. (Note: I don't entirely understand how 23andMe matches specific religions with genes. All human beings are closely linked genetically, so if more Druze than Jews provide data to a particular genetic study, isn't it possible for the researchers to start referencing "Jewish" genes as "Druze" genes? How can a genetic study accurately classify more or fewer study participants from one race or religion than exist in the general population? In other words, isn't it possible to have skewed results if the participants providing genetic data do not match the percentages of races/religions in the actual population?)

On my mom's side, it looks like her profile closely matches Russia/Finland or Morocco (including Basques and the Saami (Lapps) of northern Scandinavia). It sounds improbable to be similar to both Finnish and Moroccan people, but the people known today as Finns apparently split up about 6,000 years ago. Some of them crossed into Morocco, while others continued to modern-day Finland. Also, the Aryans came out of India and moved throughout modern-day Europe, parts of Northern Africa, and parts of the Middle East. (Anyone from two parents and grandparents who were born near a large body of water probably has a diverse genetic mix.)

Regarding the potential link to Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, do I look like actor Hank Azaria or Oded Fehr? I'm not sure. (Note: Oded Fehr is an interesting case--both his parents are Jewish, and his father appears to be of Northern European descent (German) while his mother appears to be of Southern European descent (Spanish).) Persian, Spanish, and Northern African Jews have an interesting history--for starters, look up the Biblical story of Esther; Cordoba or Qurtuba, Spain (and compare Cordoba under Muslim rule to 400 years later, i.e., the beginning of the Catholic Spanish Inquisition); the Golden Age of Arab Rule in Iberia; Maimonides; and the Almohad conquest of Cordoba in 1148.

If I am an Iranian with genetic links to Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, it doesn't surprise me, because my Persian ancestors protected Jews during the Persian Empire. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that important fact from all the inane rhetoric and verbal pissing contests between modern-day Israel and modern-day Iran. Seems like these days, people try to look for reasons to be different or hostile towards one another--even when the facts justify a more nuanced perspective.

Disclaimer: I do not waive my privacy rights in any way, shape, or form. I have only disclosed a small portion of my available results.

More Data

2011-01-25T00:16:00.000-08:00

Data from Pew Center on American demographics:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flows/

Check out California--people have been moving out. If anyone has info on jobs in San Marcos, TX or Nashville, TN, please email me.

Bonus I: Grading the States.

Bonus II: Data on Immigration (2010).

Bonus III: Data on Immigration (2007).

Bonus IV: Immigrants by State (2007). [CIS report]

Adventures in Linguistics and Listening

2011-01-24T00:13:00.000-08:00

I attended a legal seminar on civility where a judge said something I didn't hear. Whatever the judge was saying, I hadn't heard or seen the words used in the same way before, so I wasn't able to process the words. (Most people who know me understand I am severely hearing impaired, but if you don't know that, all you can really notice is that I cannot properly elucidate a few words and have a weird accent when saying particular words.)

About three days later, completely by chance, I read an article using the phrase, Nine Scorpions in a Bottle, referring to Max Lerner's book. I was immediately able to fill in the blanks from three days ago and understand what the judge was saying. This doesn't make sense to me at all. Three days later?

Yet, I had the exact same experience when I went to court my first year. I could not hear anything. Well, I could hear people mouthing words, but my brain was unable to process any of it into comprehensible words. So I would go into court, and judges were saying words like "Case management status," "Neutral evaluation," "judicial arbitration," etc. None of these words are complex or difficult, but they are not generally used in the same order. It wasn't until about six months later that my brain was able to hear and process these words. So it's clear that when it comes to unusual words or words used in an unusual style, I have to either see or fully understand them before I can actually hear them. At the same time, I don't understand the language process at all. Does this mean I have to basically expose myself to most variations of words so I can maintain my ability to process language? Sigh.

Intuit's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2011)

2011-01-21T09:18:00.000-08:00

I attended Intuit's annual shareholder meeting on January 19, 2011. CEO Brad Smith was his usual effervescent, charismatic self and handled the informal presentation. Shareholders were treated to Peet's coffee, Odwalla juice, slices of cake, scones, and fruit as well as a complimentary Quicken 2011 or TurboTax Investments and Rental Property CD. (Unfortunately, I can't use either one because I use TurboTax and Quicken's business versions.)

Among CEO Smith's Powerpoint slides, several stood out:

1. Intuit sees the market shifting from DIY to "Do It for Me." For example, look at Quicken. It automatically downloads information for you and renders much of the accounting process automatic.

2. CEO Smith drew laughs when he said that these days, when someone asks whether you can type 60 words a minute, the answer is still yes--and he then proceeded to mimic the motion of cell phone texting. His point was that Americans are using mobile phones to replace older technology, and Intuit was ahead of the curve.

3. CEO Smith is focusing on growth in Southeast Asia and India, although Intuit does not offer tax prep services in India. Intuit's businesses in India revolve around helping small businesses advertise and acquire paying customers, especially through the use of mobile phone services.

4. One of the coolest new products is Snaptax. Taxpayers filing 1040EZ forms pay only $14.99 when filing their tax returns, which is a good return on investment if you receive any kind of substantial IRS refund. More here.

The Q&A session was interesting. One shareholder, a Mac user, explained his experience buying a Mac and Intuit's Quicken software. He patiently and intelligently explained that Intuit's latest version of Quicken for Mac was terrible--because it was a barebones version of the PC version--causing him to go back to the Apple store and demand a refund. Then, when he arrived back home, he uploaded his much older Quicken program, which had more features than the new version made specifically for Apple.

He said he was "pissed off" with the experience and wondered why Intuit was able to offer TurboTax to Apple users but not Quicken. (In a deliciously sardonic aside, he pointed to his complimentary TurboTax and Quicken CDs and referred to them as a local shareholder's "dividend." Intuit, despite its large cash reserves, does not pay a dividend.)

Mr. Smith explained that his team had chosen to focus on the PC version of Quicken after Apple's woes many years ago. Recently, however, Intuit developed a Quicken for Mac version from scratch called Quicken Essentials. This new software is only a few months old, and Mr. Smith said he hoped customers would understand the difference between Quicken for PC--which has decades' worth of improvements--and Quicken Essentials for Mac, which is a work in progress.

I asked how the government was helping Intuit and how it was hindering Intuit. Obviously, Intuit's tax software business relies on a reasonably good relationship with the government. (Page 20 of Intuit's 10K states, "[T]here have been significant new regulations and heightened focus by the government on these [tax, payroll, payments, financial services and healthcare] areas.")

Mr. Smith said that he hoped for a mutually beneficial partnership with the government. At the same time, the government can be a hindrance when it seeks to provide tax preparation directly to consumers, which is not the government's core competency. Each side should stick with what they do best, said Mr. Smith.

I also asked about improving Quicken with respect to uploading pictures of receipts and invoices. Many businesses keep their receipts and copies of invoices in shoeboxes or envelopes. Why not allow a user to take a picture of a receipt or invoice with his/her camera and upload it or email it to Quicken, which will automatically match the invoice/receipt with the appropriate line item?

One key issue would be whether the IRS will accept e-versions of receipts and invoices as sufficient evidence in case of an audit; however, even without full IRS acceptance, adding an e-receipts feature to Quicken would help small businesses stay organized. Mr. Smith said the company was working on a product called QuickReceipts.

On another note, I was really happy to get the opportunity to briefly chat with Intuit co-founder Scott Cook after the meeting. Mr. Cook, lest we forget, helped Intuit beat Microsoft during its heyday years when it tried to foist Microsoft Money on the public. In an ironic twist, Microsoft's software ventures outside of its dominant operating system software have been failures, primarily because it keeps trying to compete with other natural quasi-natural-monopolies like Intuit and Sony/Nintendo.

I mentioned to Mr. Cook that I wasn't so keen on the idea of looking for growth and profitability in India. India has a very fragmented consumer marketplace, making it very difficult for any company to establish a dominant foothold (which harms a company's ability to increase its margins; it also has poor infrastructure; and most analysts who focus on India use financial projections based on overly optimistic macro factors (i.e., multiply anything by a billion and it looks like you can make lots of money). Mr. Cook politely explained that the first step was to generate revenue, and then profits.

I always enjoy Intuit's annual meetings and encourage shareholders to attend.

Disclosure: I own an insignificant number of Intuit (INTU) shares. I participated in one paid Intuit survey in 2010.

SCU Basketball Beats Gonzaga!

2011-01-20T21:32:00.000-08:00

On November 6, 2010, here's what I wrote about Kevin Foster: "#21 (Kevin Foster) will be the x-factor [this season]. He is blessed with an excellent wingspan and incredible athleticism, but seems a little raw." Well, Foster was the x-factor tonight--and much more. He shredded Gonzaga and scored 36 points, including six treys.

You know the phrase, "He's on fire"? It's incredible to see it right in front of your eyes. One time, Foster was about three feet behind the three-point line but launched a shot anyway, causing me to groan. The next thing I know, the ball hits nothing but the bottom of the net, and the crowd is going wild. Every time he took a three point shot after that, we all knew it was going in.

I had a prime seat. I was sitting two rows across from Brandi Chastain, who came with her son, and I was sitting in front of the coach's mom. The coach's mom is awesome. When Foster started heating up, we had about six minutes left, and the almost capacity crowd could taste the win. But Coach Kerry Keating's mother was so anxious, whenever Foster made a three pointer, she was sitting down, wringing her hands. It wasn't till we were plenty ahead with under three minutes left that she started cheering vociferously like everyone else. You gotta love a Mom who respects the basketball gods.

After the win, almost all the students stormed the court, hugging everyone in sight and screaming "SCU!" After the frenzied celebration, I exited Leavey Center to go back to my car and passed a bunch of students who had set fire to an old couch. The fire department extinguished the small fire quickly, but the students had already had their fun.

What a game. January 20, 2011. We beat Gonzaga. And Kevin Foster had a game we will all remember for the rest of our lives.

Jason Kelly on Toxic Assets

2011-01-20T13:34:00.000-08:00

Jason Kelly has a really interesting perspective on toxic assets--he thinks we are the most toxic asset, or more specifically, the financially illiterate amongst us:

Financially stupid people are America’s most toxic asset. They fail to see the money-trap society around them. They live in a world controlled by corporations seeking to extract as much of their wealth as possible, and the moronic masses open wide for every lure...

They trust false promises of bought-off politicians. They sit mesmerized before advertising campaigns telling them to buy trifles they don’t need using debt they can’t repay. They stumble down the path paved by big business that transfers their income to corporate coffers. They don’t realize that the way of the world is not the way they want to live, then they wonder what happened when they end up broke and hopeless.

More here.

Jeff Rosen's Swearing-In Ceremony: Poorly Planned

2011-01-19T19:23:00.000-08:00

If you missed Jeff Rosen's public swearing-in ceremony on January 19, 2011, don't worry about it. The event was poorly planned, leaving many people waiting outside, unable to get in. Security guards and event personnel locked the doors while the event was happening, leaving me to try the balcony view. However, here's all I saw:

Yup, a security guard escorted me out, even after I explained I had RSVPed and even after two other people exited the balcony. He wouldn't give me his card, so I snapped a picture. Then I, along with many other people, waited downstairs and was able to enter after the event was over. So much for "being on the list." I hope Mr. Rosen's office publishes a transcript of his speech online. From what I understand, Mr. Rosen was very conciliatory towards his predecessor in his speech.

On the way down, I spoke with Moises "Mo" Reyes, Jr., apparently the head of security for the event. He was polite and explained that fire department regulations prevented security from letting in more people; in fact, the existing number of people inside was already over the legal limit, so even when people left, they couldn't let anyone else in. He also explained that security did not plan the event, and the event planning department was in charge. That all makes sense. I wish the guy upstairs would have told me the same thing instead of just grabbing my arm and telling me to leave.

In case you're wondering why people were able to go inside after the event was over, but not during the event, Mr. Reyes Jr. said (paraphrased) he believed fire regulations were more broad for standing room vs. sitting down.

The event wasn't a total loss. First, the food was quite good. I had coffee, fruit, chocolate-dipped strawberries, and about ten chocolate chip cookies. (I'd like to thank Santa Clara County taxpayers for my dinner tonight. [Update: the catering and rental space cost only $6K, with 1/2 going to the City of San Jose; however, there were many county security personnel on duty, so the true cost is probably much higher.] Second, I finally learned why so many public defenders supported Mr. Rosen. I had initially intended to vote for Dolores Carr, the incumbent. I was concerned because Ms. Carr is married to a police officer, but I didn't view a personal relationship as sufficient rationale to justify removing a sitting D.A.

Moreover, the brouhaha about Carr's blanket peremptory strike--which forces a particular judge to withdraw from criminal cases--seemed overblown. If you examine the underlying facts, Carr was upset because a judge had released a child molester despite having the discretion to keep him behind bars. Rosen and Carr were in the D.A.'s office during the time the child molester was released, so I still don't understand why Carr didn't more clearly state that her office disagreed with the judge's release of a child molester and felt that the judge had gone out of her way to blame the D.A.'s office for technical violations rather than using her discretion to keep him behind bars. She could have then said she didn't believe any other judge would have released the child molester, so she didn't anticipate another use of the peremptory strike, which, by the way, is something the legislature specifically makes available to lawyers for precisely this scenario. Of course, there are at least two ways of looking at the blanket strike issue, but Carr seemed to concede fault by not highlighting the particular facts that led her to issue the blanket strike.

In any case, it really bothered me that every single public defender and criminal defense lawyer I knew supported Jeff Rosen. The day before the election, Mr. Rosen left me a message on my answering machine, asking me for my vote. What the heck, I thought. Ms. Carr hadn't seemed to do any substantial campaigning, and I had to admire Mr. Rosen's excellent campaigning skills and endorsements from numerous lawyers I personally knew.

Yet, up to tonight, I hadn't learned exactly why criminal defense lawyers seemed to favor Mr. Rosen over Ms. Carr. I ran into a classmate and defense lawyer, who explained to me that Mr. Rosen had promised an "open discovery" process, whereas Ms. Carr's office (as well as her predecessor's) seemed to have a history of not disclosing all material evidence in good faith. Under Mr. Rosen's new policy, any defense lawyer may go into the D.A.'s office and see all of his/her client's files except for work product and the usual exceptions. If anyone wants to understand why Mr. Rosen's policy makes sense, they should watch the excellent 1993 movie, In the Name of the Father. In the meantime, I hope Mr. Rosen gets used to his popularity and does a better job planning future events.

Disclaimer: unless specifically stated otherwise, no portion of this blog is commercial in nature in any fashion, nor operated for profit. The author sincerely believes that this post addresses issues of public interest. The events discussed above took place in a public government building open to the public. The picture above was taken in a public government building at an event open to the public, and the person photographed did not object to the taking of the picture at the time it was taken.

Playing the Fiddle, Empire Burning Down Edition

2011-01-19T00:54:00.000-08:00

When empires fall, the signs are there, but everyone ignores them. Consider this Facebook conversation with a highly educated woman (from one of the best liberal arts colleges on the West Coast) in her mid-20's:

Teacher: [posts article titled, "Global finance ignores world's poor."]

Me: this isn't anything new--the world has always had extremely poor people, and now it's getting worse. People who favor increasing the minimum wage or increasing salaries for lower level jobs in the U.S. make it harder for us to accept poorer immigrants. For many poor immigrants. their only hope is coming to America (and working in jobs most native-born citizens don't want). The best way to assist poorer people is to lower inflation and provide better social services such as cost-effective access to healthcare and top-level education.

You may also want to think about why we've had success incorporating immigrants into our society even as France has become virulently Islamophobic; Sweden has voted in a party with Nazi origins; and the 9/11 terrorists came from Hamburg, Germany. If you treat poor people as unfortunate things to be helped instead of people who deserve jobs and financial independence from the government, then their existence is dependent on the majority population's benevolence and willingness to spend tax dollars. As we've seen, in recessions, majority populations tend to get conservative very, very quickly unless their minority populations contribute economically.

The greatest thing about being a naturalized American citizen who owns a small business is my independence. The corollary of that individual independence is that my country seeks my love based on voluntary, not coercive terms. My family came here, worked hard, paid taxes, helped raise property values for our neighbors, and succeeded based on merit. It's a shame that so many Americans support inflationary economic policies that make it harder for immigrants and poorer people to achieve independence based on merit rather than unstable, short-term charity.

Teacher: Money is great and wonderful and helpful, but it's still just money. If you really want to help change the lives of the poor, you have to help to empower them, help them help themselves. For example, Surin Farmer Support works with farmers here in Thailand who once were victims of the government taking advantage of them. They were given free fertilizer samples and, once used, their crops became dependent on it. In the end, they were spending just as much on fertilizer as they were yielding extra crops, except with a bunch of health issues as well. With the help of the NGO, the people of Surin have been able to learn about their issues more thoroughly and take action. Their rice is now sold in markets throughout the US.

Me: you said: "If you really want to help change the lives of the poor, you have to help to empower them, help them help themselves."

I agree. A job that involves hard work and income based on merit empowers an individual and gives him/her money, which leads to independence.

And thank you for the article on microfinance. (Surowiecki is one of my favorite writers, BTW.) The article declares that "Microloans make poor borrowers better off. But, on their own, they often don’t do much to make poor countries richer" because the amounts loaned are too small to create a large increase in the number of available jobs. In other words, your article indicates that the problem is not enough money and not enough mid-sized to larger corporations. Do you agree that stronger corporations and more money are goals that most free market, pro-business capitalists seek to attain?

It is our ability to give people jobs that has made us one of the greatest nations in the world. When you give someone a private sector job, you allow them to save money, become independent, become a net financial contributor to society (unlike gov workers or welfare recipients), and provide a future for his/her children. No abstract social policy can provide the opportunities that come from a job; therefore, the greatest help you can give to a poor person (or any person) is a job and low inflation.

Most people get jobs through businesses and corporations, so if you're anti-corporation or anti-business, you're automatically anti-immigrant and anti-individual. Social policies often see human beings as things in need of charity from their superiors, not individuals yearning for independence. Making matters worse, many social policies require bigger government, which requires the gov to print more money, which risks higher inflation. Yet, the #1 enemy of a person's ability to save for the future and support his/her children is inflation. By supporting policies that lead to bigger government, many well-meaning people are actually hurting the people they intend to help. Unlike most social rights, economic rights and policies directly affect inflation and therefore have severe potential consequences for poor people and immigrants. For this reason, whenever anyone says economic rights are the same as social rights; that economics is just a guessing game; or that jobs are "just money," you should be very, very skeptical. Most likely, that person supports economic policies that hurt the poor despite wanting to help them.

Teacher: I think a better way than giving an individual money is to educate them in order for a group of individuals to organize themselves. For example, the scavenging community that I've worked with. Better than giving one of them money so they can buy a motorbike and increase their scavenging revenue would be to help them realize why they're having the issues they're having and ways to fix them. Maybe then they can organize as a group and fight for their rights as scavengers. Or they could find a way to raise money as a community and start to process their own recycling center and cutting out the middle man. It's not just about the individual, it's about the greater good. And the more that people work together, the more people will see a positive result.

Me: it sounds like you're saying unionization is the way to go. But unionization and organized group efforts are futile in an economy that does not create many jobs or that lacks larger businesses. How does unionizing six people help them unless the company is growing and has good growth prospects? Perhaps you mean co-ops, where a group of people pool together their resources to minimize costs and increase their ability to save. That makes more sense, but even co-ops can't do much unless they have jobs and some way to make money. Again, it all comes back to jobs, not the "greater good." The "greater good" is really the ability of a society to give its people jobs, low inflation, and money that doesn't lose its purchasing power. All of these, of course, are economic issues. (BTW, whenever I hear about the "greater good," I think of Chairman Mao :-)

Also, the goal isn't "giving an individual money" but helping him/her earn it. Big difference. Someone who thinks jobs and money are things to be "given" is someone who a) will not hesitate to use the printing press, which will lead to inflation; and b) doesn't understand the difference between gov jobs and private sector jobs. In the private sector, jobs aren't given; ideally, they are created by hard working, innovative individuals who create new products and who compete with others to ensure their products are the best on the market.

Teacher: Let me ask you this. Why is there such a big need for economic reform? And I don't mean the circumstantial things that lead to it, but the real root of it. What has caused this huge divide between the rich and poor? Why are there so many people in the world who don't have jobs? I think unless we (the world) can really understand the root of the problem, it's all just bandages.

Me: I can't provide a short answer to your question about the reasons people are so poor all over the world at 3:30AM :-) But ask yourself these four questions:

1) why is America so much more successful than most other countries when it comes to average and median levels of affluence?

2) why aren't most immigrants clamoring to go to Europe, China, Cuba, etc.?

3) why has America been more successful at assimilating immigrants than any other country in modern history?

4) Why do countries where leaders try to create their version of the "greater good" usually experience net outflows of their own people? (see China, Iran, Cuba, etc.)

Teacher: [ignores all of my questions] There isn't a short answer to my question. That's the point. I don't think you or I could answer it. It's an incredibly complex problem. And I think people, in general, are too quick to find an answer to things, leading to a misunderstanding of the question/problem they're trying to answer. I do it as well, which is one of the things I'm trying to work on in my current position. The point of my asking wasn't for you to give me an answer. The point is to try and sit with the question a bit. Really, really think about it, in a way that maybe you haven't before. Go outside of your gut reaction. It's a really big world out there and there are a lot of things we don't know. Also, I think there's a big difference between what a dictator sees as the "greater good" and a group of people working together in order to create harmony. I also don't think that average to median levels of affluence should be the goal. At least, it's not my goal. I personally think there's a lot that gets lost in the way of human connection when you're trying to attain affluence.

Me: you said, "I think there's a big difference between what a dictator sees as the 'greater good' and a group of people working together in order to create harmony."

You do realize all dictators and their henchmen sincerely believe they are working together to create their own version of harmony, right? Or do you think Hitler/Mao/Khomeni/Palin woke up each morning thinking, "Today, I will be the baddest, most evil person on the planet and destroy harmony"? :-)

See, that's what I've been trying to say--one group's version of harmony is another person's nightmare. That's the reason countries need checks and balances, respect for property and jobs, and a currency that has purchasing power. Once you lose either of those three things, lots of groups of people try to create their own version of "harmony" and people are so desperate, they will vote based on rhetoric and irrelevant factors.

Think about it: if you have a vision of harmony and a group of people stood between you and your vision, wouldn't you take out the group if you could? Of course you would--you might not kill them (initially), but if they're enough of a pain in the arse, and if you really believe they are harming your vision, they will become expendable once you attain power (assuming no checks and balances or a strong judiciary or some other way of legally stopping you from implementing your "harmony" plan).

The quest for the "greater good" has caused so much evil in the world. No one starts out thinking, "I want to be evil." But evil tends to happen when a group of people believe their vision is superior to someone else's, and their vision is based on subjective values and disrespect for property rights.

The same man who once wanted to carry out a "promise to fight for a better world, for a better life for all the poor and exploited" is the same man who later said, "The executions [without due process] by firing squads are not only a necessity for the people of Cuba, but also an imposition of the people."

Teacher: I've never been a fan of Che.

What working for the greater good of people means to me is understand the needs of others and not trying to impose your own agenda on them. It's not about gaining power and taking people out. It's about working with people and realizing that if we see the world as a bunch of individuals that we will treat each other as such and continue to f*ck everyone else over. I personally am doing the best in my life to stop thinking about myself, stop thinking about my family, stop thinking about my country, and see us all as people who are all equally important.

You don't think your vision is superior to others? Because the feeling I've gotten through these conversations is that you believe you know what's right and that everyone else who isn't doing that is acting irrationally (and therefore in an inferior way). Does that make you evil?

I work with mostly boys. But, the whole point of my job is to help them become more educated and better members of society. People who truly know themselves and are compassionate. Not people who believe that getting a job and money is the most they can get out of life. Education shouldn't just be about preparing people for the work force. It's about exploration and preparing people for life.

One of my goals in life is to continue to always increase my compassion and understand for everyone, including those I don't agree with.

I remember once watching a clip of someone from the Westboro Church talking. It's so against everything I believe in, and I can't help but see it as hate. But, at the same time, here's someone who so strongly believes what she's doing is right. That she is trying her hardest to save people she believes are going to have to infer the wrath of God. She believes these ideas in her heart just as much as I believe mine. And for that, I can understand.

Another example stems from my reaction to the documentary Stevie. It's about a man who is arrested for child molestation. But, you see his story and begin to understand the pain this man was forced to experience while growing up. His childhood was ruined and led him exactly to the place he ended up. How much of that is his fault? I can understand.

Me: I do believe my theory of economic rights is superior to other theories, but my theory is different from yours because it has inherent checks and balances and is based on logic and history, not subjective feelings. [Earlier, in a lengthy Facebook debate with multiple people] I demonstrated why economic rights are superior to non-economic rights, and the only objections I saw were that my questions and theories were "unfair" or presented "false choices"--objections based on subjective feelings, not logic. (I continue to be amazed that anyone would say that food and money are equal to abstract rights divorced from economic considerations.)

Also, as stated above, my theory of economic rights contains inherent checks and balances against overreaching and evil in its respect for individual liberty, low inflation, and property rights. Your theory, based on subjective ideas such as compassion and exploration, is exactly the opposite of mine--it has no inherent check against overreaching or coercion, and it actually seems to disrespect property rights by looking down on jobs and money instead of holding these values in the highest regard.

Any theory based on some subjective worldview and the idea that we are all equal (instead of the idea that we are unequal but should be given equal opportunities to succeed and accept the unequal results) is bound to lead to a disrespect of property rights and individual liberty.

BTW, if Thailand's economy fails to grow, the English skills you are teaching your students will make them very marketable in the black market and tourism industry. You'd better hope Thailand produces enough legit jobs for your students. If Thailand fails to prioritize its economy and instead pursues compassion, exploration, or some other subjective goal, some of your boys may grow up to be intermediaries between affluent English speakers and their own people. In other words, their destiny will be linked to outsiders. And they will have you to thank.

As I've already explained, for most poor people, economic rights take precedence over social rights. It's interesting to see relatively rich white people railing against the idea that "getting a job and money" isn't the most important thing in life and saying that "education shouldn't just be about preparing people for the work force." You almost never see any actual poor person making similar statements. Perhaps it's because poor people hate being poor and want to be (relatively) rich like us.

Teacher: I've heard poor people make statements like that. They were people fighting to preserve the right to keep their culture that was being taken away by large scale development projects. Development projects that would offer jobs, but also take away the way of life that they hold very dear. They chose culture and have been fighting the battle for over 10 years.

And, just so you know, you come off as an offensive know it all.

Me: like most Californians, you've been fed bromides through our public school system. In order for you to grasp the concepts I'm trying to impart, you must first accept that your education was incomplete. It is very, very hard for anyone to accept that s/he has an incomplete education. It's a lot easier to think the guy who disagrees with you is just an offensive a-hole. (And that's why most idealists who lack respect for property rights and who come bearing visions of harmony wipe out dissidents when they gain power.)

The problem with you and most Americans is that they have too much unjustified self-confidence and can't humble themselves long enough to learn something outside of their own field. But rather than tell themselves, "I don't understand anything about economics and should learn more," most Americans instead seek to unleash their subjective visions of harmony on the world. In doing so, they are harming the very people they seek to help.

Teacher: You are more than welcome to believe that. I'm confident in my personal assessments of my strengths and weaknesses. Have fun fighting your fight.

Me: if you really want to test your strengths and weaknesses, read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I know you read a lot, and this book will take you maybe three hours to read at most. Let me know if you ever do read the book.

[She later deleted me as a friend on Facebook. No word on whether she read Mr. Friedman's book.]

Judge Kozinski and Judge Cantil-Sakauye: SCU Discussion

2011-01-18T00:51:00.000-08:00

Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye discussed civility at Santa Clara University on January 12, 2011.

Some quick facts: Judge Cantil-Sakauye is the current California Supreme Court Chief Justice and was appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Judge Kozinski is the Chief Judge for the 9th Circuit. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, appointed him at the age of 35 to his first judgeship. Both judges are ethnic minorities. Both judges were appointed by Republican governors.

I think Kozinski looks like Rehnquist, but that's just my take. Maybe it's the glasses--they both seem to wear the same type of glasses. Below are some highlights from the SCU discussion:

Judge Kozinski, in response to a question about civility in discussions: judges should call it like they see it; sometimes, when people mention civility, they mean "toning it down" for people who disagree with them. [Do you see why I like this guy?]

In response to whether judges get along with each other: courts get along famously--"they keep marrying each other." [This is funny, but it also indicates that many judges are sheltered from normal society and the private sector.]

IP cases are the most contentious [cases].

On diversity: I "would not be comfortable on a court with all white guys." [Judge Cantil-Sakauye commented that she had no problems being on a court with all white guys, drawing some laughter, presumably because she has experience serving on non-diverse courts and committees. Judge Kozinski commented that when he went to law school in 1975, women already represented a significant portion of his graduating class.]

On Yale Law: at Yale, "they don't teach you law at all," he said, drawing laughter from the audience.

On televised court hearings: we've had them in my appellate court since the 1990's as part of a pilot program that eventually became permanent.

Judge Cantil-Sakauye: "My first client is the rule of law."

Criticizing opposing counsel and making personal attacks distracts from the arguments. When I see that, I flip over the page and look at the lawyer's bar number [which shows how much experience s/he has], because experienced lawyers don't do that.

She essentially confirmed that there had been a California Supreme Court judge who was senile, and his colleagues had covered up the judge's senility. However, she denied that there was a "code of silence," saying, there is a "code of respect, not silence."

On judicial elections and corporate campaign donations: bankrolling judicial candidates "makes for a suspicious foundation" and causes people to "wonder about the soundness of opinions."

On her election to the California Supreme Court during the contentious 2010 elections: she was concerned because of her unique last name (ethnic and hyphenated). She said, "Never underestimate the power of 'Mr. No'" in an election year where voters are fed up with existing political players.

On diversity: it "broadens the discussion." For example, is some behavior heinous or a product of the environment?

Is the U.S. Justice System Broken?

2011-01-17T00:01:00.000-08:00

Fascinating discussion about whether the U.S. justice system is broken. Full transcript here.

Santa Clara Law Professor David Friedman actually manages to outwit Judge Kozinski in some places. (Go SCU!) But Kozinski still sounds pretty darn funny:

Judge Alex Kozinski [joking]: You know what I find? I find that half of the people love my opinions and half hate them. The first half is called the winners, and the other half is called the losers. I’ve never had somebody come up to me and say, you wrote a great opinion sticking it to me. Never.

Judge Kozinski on reverse condemnation:

The government makes mistakes in all sorts of ways that it does business, and if it were perfect, we would have a very different government and it would be a lot less costly. That is the nature of life that people make mistakes, and it is the nature of government that the government is making mistakes. The question is, are the costs of these mistakes internalized?...The question of whether or not you get just compensation, the question of whether something is a public use—-let me tell you what the debate is about there. The debate is about not whether it’s a public use or not. The question is: who decides? Do executive and legislative branch officials make that decision, or does it get decided by judges? Now, I like the idea that you think that judges and juries ought to make that decision, but actually I think there’s a lot to be said for saying that the decision of whether or not something is a public use gets made by the legislature.

Bonus: David Friedman:

I cannot resist my favorite quote on just this subject: “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naiveté than in trying to restrain government from many of its favorite abuses and entrusting the enforcement of this restraint to judges; that is to say to men who had been lawyers; that is to say to men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” Now, if someone can just find for me where Mencken said that, I can make sure I’ve got the quote right. Mine is by memory.

Congrats to David Friedman for going toe-to-toe with Judge Kozinski and walking away unscathed.

Wisdom

2011-01-14T00:28:00.000-08:00

Wisdom from an online dater's profile:

For most of my life I thought I wanted to be an attorney until I realized that most people don't go see an attorney when things are going well in their lives. I don't want to spend the rest of my working years cleaning up other people's messes. Now I'm considering interior design or event planning.

She's only 22 years old. Very precocious if you ask me.

Unions and Courts: Harming Taxpayers?

2011-01-13T15:27:00.000-08:00

The Atlantic--generally an excellent, unbiased magazine--posted commentary from a visiting writer that defended unions. I responded with the following comment:

The writer glosses over the long-term, unpredictable, and unsustainable financial obligations bargained for by government workers over the past 10 yrs--none of which would have been possible without unions and politicians in bed together, screwing taxpayers.

The UC system is planning on having its employees contribute just 5% of their salaries for a pension in 2013 while California taxpayers contribute 10%. This is their idea of "reform"--a measly 5% savings rate for retirement benefits that might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more on the open annuity market. (See http://universityofcalifornia.edu/youruniversity/archive/2011/january/uc-retiree-benefit-plan-to-change.html, Carolyn McMillan, "UC retiree benefit plans to change": "The changes approved require both UC and its employees to contribute more to the pension fund, with employees contributing 5 percent of pay to their pensions by July 2012 and UC contributing 10 percent.")

The problem with unions voting themselves higher benefits is the lack of usual checks and balances, which leads to corruption across all government branches. Even the court system has seemingly gotten into the act: "More than 100 new judgeships were added in the past decade, judicial pay increased almost 46 percent—to $178,789—and annual spending on trial court operations climbed to more than $3 billion."

"In 1998 the AOC's budget was about $77 million; last year it was $138.9 million—or if you include the court facilities budget, $320 million."

"The AOC's staffing has increased from 268 full-time employees in 1998 to 878 as of last March, and about a quarter of those workers are paid $100,000 a year or more."

"At the courts of appeal, for example, he says 46 percent of employees earn more than $100,000; the figure is 38 percent at the California Highway Patrol and 27 percent at the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection." [California Lawyer, January 2011]

(http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913375&evid=1)

The judicial branch collaborating with politicians, who are themselves in bed with unions, especially unionized police officers, firefighters, and prison guards? Who will look out for the average taxpayer and small businessowner, I wonder?

Documentary Recommendation: Marcus Dupree

2011-01-13T09:01:00.000-08:00

I highly recommend ESPN's documentary about Marcus Dupree, The Best There Never Was.

http://30for30.espn.com/film/the-best-that-never-was.html

A touching, tragic, and heartwarming story about an amazingly talented football player and his quest to play in the NFL.

Public Sector Pensions: True/False Quiz

2011-01-12T02:15:00.000-08:00

Questions for anyone who supports public sector pensions.

1. True or false? It is ideal to make all California taxpayers personally liable for financial obligations of potentially trillions of dollars to 12% of state workers.

2. True or false? If a financial manager fails to produce 8% returns over the course of 15, 20, or 30 years, he is either incompetent or has mismanaged funds.

3. True or false? Despite the fact that CalPERs bought actual land and commodities like timber in addition to stocks, it still failed to diversify its holdings over the past ten years.

4. True or false? As fund assets increase, it is easier to produce 8% gains.

5. True or false? As fund assets reach the hundreds of billions, it becomes harder to produce consistent gains because it becomes harder to effectively invest in all types of investments.

6. True or false? Warren Buffett, Stanford University, and Chuck Reed are lying to us or are uninformed when they warn us that government pensions in their current form are unsustainable and we should switch to a two-tier pension system.

7. In your opinion, what percentage of mutual funds run by professional managers have weathered the 2008-2009 recession? What makes you believe CalPERs will be in the top group of professional money managers in the future, given their performance in 2008-2009? If Bernanke and Greenspan couldn't see the housing crisis coming, why do you think a CalPERs money manager will?

8. True or false? It is ideal to rely on professional managers--most of whom have proven themselves incompetent over the past ten years--to prevent California taxpayers from being personally liable for potentially trillions of dollars of benefits to just 12% of state workers.

9. Almost all of California's public pensions assume an 8% average annual growth rate. Somewhere, there is a mutual fund manager who can manage the state's pension money and promise 8% annual gains. Do you have your money with him or her? If so, can I have the person's contact information?

10. Have you invested at least 25K in non-401k assets over the past seven years? (The reason I ask is because you would have a better idea of how difficult it is to get 8% a year, even over the long run.)

Even the big funds chase performance and have to mix up asset allocations. That involves the potential for human error no matter what. At some point, public pension supporters are just arguing that 12% of state workers should be immune from investment mistakes while the other 88% cover their arse.

Also, note that I did not mention private unions in this thread. It is a separate discussion, b/c private corporations, unlike states, can more easily declare bankruptcy to shed themselves of any long term obligations. The issue in the corporate union realm is how to ensure proper funding of the PGGC while minimizing the cost to taxpayers and consumers.

Furthermore, the best argument against private sector unions is that they harm younger and newer workers by enacting artificial barriers to getting a job; therefore, one can argue that unions limit worker mobility and freedom, especially for younger workers and immigrants.

In addition, being pro-union (or socialist) usually means you favor restricting work for immigrants in favor of native-born citizens. This is because most union jobs go to citizens, not new immigrants. It's not inherently wrong to believe that citizens should get preference over immigrants for jobs, but it depends on what kind of society you want, i.e., a faster-growing, dynamic society--or a society that votes themselves benefits to a specific class of people at the expense of future growth. But again, that's a separate discussion, and this "quiz" was designed to apply only to public sector unions and benefits.

Movie Recommendation: Finishing the Game

2011-01-11T12:21:00.000-08:00

If you haven't seen Finishing the Game (2007), you are missing a hilarious film. 4/5 stars. It's about a group of filmmakers who discover an unfinished Bruce Lee movie. They try to do a remake with a new actor. The search for the new actor includes a white guy who thinks he's half-Chinese; a guy named Breeze Lee; and a Korean and Colombian couple from Alabama.

Bonus: if you want to watch an excellent thriller, check out Shutter Island (2010).

Gordon Brown: Book Recommendation

2011-01-11T00:05:00.000-08:00

I recently read Gordon Brown's book, Beyond the Crash. I am very surprised it did not generate more publicity and discussion. An excellent book, but one with very idealistic solutions.

Random Bonus: from Thomas Paine: "My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder."

As of 2011, we are still in Afghanistan and Iraq. American taxpayer dollars still support some theory of war and peace in the Middle East that is apparent to the Pentagon but not to the average citizen.

Thomas Paine on America

2011-01-10T09:52:00.000-08:00

Thomas Paine, from The Rights of Man:

If there is a country in the world where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expense. Their taxes are few, because their government is just: and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.

More here.

John Wooden, Teacher

2011-01-07T00:32:00.000-08:00

John Wooden was not only a great coach, but a wonderful human being. I thoroughly enjoyed this Charlie Rose interview:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11055

"No written word, no oral plea can teach our youth what they should be. Nor all the books on all the shelves, it’s what the teachers are themselves."

I like to say John Wooden was old school before old school, but he was also on the cutting edge:

BILL RUSSELL: He was one of the few coaches that would...let his team fast break in the ‘50s. Most of the coaches would not let their team fast break.

RIP, Coach.

Pensions, New Jersey Corruption Style

2011-01-06T08:03:00.000-08:00

I can't believe I didn't see this article when it first came out:

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/11/the-secret-sauce-behind-bloated-state-pensions.html#posts

Anyone who wants to defend pensions for public employees needs to click on the link above. Remember: government unions tend to have major pull with legislatures, because in some cities, the union machine puts a candidate ahead by 20% to 30% immediately. That's what happens when only about 50 to 60% of eligible voters show up on election days.

I feel sorry for New Jersey taxpayers and wish Governor Christopher Christie well.

India: the Good Stuff

2011-01-04T11:49:00.000-08:00

1. The Grand New Delhi, located on Nelson Mandela Rd, New Delhi, 110070, is an amazing hotel. I've never stayed in a 5 star hotel before, but this had to be a 5 star hotel. The building is beautiful, reasonably near the airport, and customer service is consistently fantastic. Although customer service in India generally leaves much to be desired, The Grand New Delhi delivered perfect service. I highly recommend it for everyone, including disabled travelers--the hotel went out of its way to accommodate my hearing impairment (personal wake up calls, etc.). Thank you to everyone at The Grand New Delhi.

2. At the last minute, I wanted to see a dentist to get a basic checkup. I ended up at Ganga Ram Hospital, where I saw a line of people waiting to see dentists. The dentist spoke perfect English, took a look at me, and was able to answer all of my questions. When I tried to pay him for the short consultation, he refused payment.

Doctors and dentists who work in charitable hospitals are the real heroes, if you ask me. The dentist I saw probably assisted 20 to 35 people that day, either at no charge or low bono. Most dentists in India are also available if you want to hire them for something more than a checkup. Prices are much lower than in the United States, and many dentists are trained in the United States' best schools.

3. If you go to India, remember that elders are respected. I liked how everyone called older people either Auntie, Uncle, Sir, or Madam. Maybe Sidney Poiter visited India before he starred in the excellent film, To Sir, With Love.

4. India's film industry has true diversity. Almost all the Indian movies I've seen include Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. India is very diverse, and one reason the country works is because no one seems marginalized in the media.

Also, although India doesn't get along with Pakistan, its government and media do an excellent job separating Indian Muslims from Pakistani Muslims. America could learn a thing or two about fighting terrorism from India. Despite its own 9/11--the 26/11 Mumbai attacks--India's government and media have steadfastly refused to castigate its own citizens. Perhaps the 2002 Gujarat massacre of Muslims in India may have played a part in India's softer tone--I don't know.

5. India has freedom of speech and freedom of press. Newspapers in India are fantastic. Almost every issue slams government corruption. WikiLeaks was front-page news, and all the articles had substantive analysis. America's founding fathers would be proud of India's media. I am sad to say this, but India's media is clearly better than the pablum America's media passes off as "news."

6. You can feel India's energy everywhere. As Robert Kunzig wrote in National Geographic (Jan 2011), "People, people, people, people--yes. But also an overwhelming sense of energy, of striving, of aspiration."

7. Fareed Zakaria has a brother, Arshad Zakaria. I recently read Gasparino's Sellout, which mentioned Arshad. (Sellout is an excellent book, by the way.) I searched and searched for speeches by Arshad, and finally found an interesting roundtable discussion where Arshad summarizes India very well:

Let me start by giving you some of the three or four interesting things that you will see, which are different from some of the other Asian economies. The first thing you see is that the Indian culture is essentially like an occidental culture. It is a Western culture. So in simple ways, when we have investors over, they feel completely comfortable with the Indian business community and to a smaller extent with the political community, mainly because India has a large agricultural population. But you do have a culture where it's very comfortable for Westerners to fit in on a social basis.

That ties in with what I think is the second point, which is that the language of business in India is English. I think one of the big changes that’s taken place in the world is the language of the global multinational is now English. That interestingly gives India an advantage not just over other emerging markets, but over some of the European countries as well because a lot of people learned it in school to the extent where they’ve not only mastered the language but also the nuances of system and culture — it’s sort of like being in London or the United States. When you travel on roads where you may see a bull or a cow on the side of the road, you’re reminded quickly that you’re not in London, but once you get into a new building, which is being priced at New York or London prices because of this infrastructure issue, you will see from a societal basis that India has quite an advantage.

I think the other thing you focus on is the fact that India, again, is truly a democracy, where you’ve had smooth transitions of power, which allow you to see all the ups and downs of democracy. You have a free press, which is both a good thing and a bad thing. You’ve got TV channels sensationalizing everything, very much like Westerners are used to. There is very much a strong Western influence.

I'd say the biggest issue other than infrastructure that you'd find when you go there, especially if you go to northern India, is the poverty and the scale of poverty. It is, I think, incredibly telling when you look at it and it’s something that people aren’t used to. I would say that’s why there are a decent number of people who will leave feeling uncomfortable without being able to pinpoint why. It’s unlike a lot of places because the poverty sits right next to the wealth. So you’ll see the best roads in Bombay with slums right next door. The proximity of poverty with incredible wealth is something you see clearly in India, and the scale of it is tremendous. And that’s just something that, no matter what you’re expecting, tends to shock some people.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Bonus: I wrote a five part series about my experiences in India. The first part can be found here.

Judges on Judges

2011-01-03T09:56:00.000-08:00

I attended a legal seminar, and some of the judges had several interesting comments. One said that he enjoyed being a judge because we live in a secular society, and the rule of the law binds us all together. Judges, therefore, are the physical manifestation of this common bond, and it is a privilege to be one. [Brilliant comment from a brilliant judge. I always enjoy listening to JF.]

Another judge said that he enjoyed being a lawyer because he enjoyed advocacy. He said he never went home and thought, "Yes! [fist-pump] I really issued a heck of a decision today!"

A judge said that lawyers should "keep it real" in their motions and papers. (Don't try to "sell" the judge something.) He also said we live in a TV culture today, so visual aids are important in jury trials.

Another judge indicated that lawyers should use only their best arguments and not try to include every single possible argument.

Debate on Health and Healthcare

2011-01-02T07:31:00.000-08:00

Status Update from Lawyer/Solo Practitioner: Eff you, Kaiser. I'm not paying $352 a month for health insurance in 2011. I don't smoke, I exercise, I'm not involved in any risky activities, and I avoid liquor. You people saw me about five times in 2010 and don't even provide me with my hearing aids or dental work. Does anyone have any advice for other health insurance options?

P.S. The biggest long-term medical expenditures will be on Medicare. Do you see what I mean when I say that current American society is financially stealing from the young to benefit the old? Do you really expect us to continue to be the world's superpower when we spend ever-increasing resources--already about 50% of federal tax revenues--on senior citizens? Money is finite. One dollar spent on senior citizens--who've had their chance to save money, have families, and buy homes--is a dollar not spent on the young, who have yet to have families, buy homes, and utilize compound interest.

Rob: Do you drive a car?

Lawyer: Yes, and I have the med pay option on my car insurance.

Older people drive, too. Why not let them pay a higher share of overall insurance costs, given that they've had an additional 30 years to save up for it and have also benefited from the real estate boom--unlike most people under 35 years old? Americans don't understand that the real threat against our way of life isn't Al Qaeda, Iran, or Iraq--it's older people and government workers voting in benefits for themselves at the expense of the young and unborn.

Trent: I have great insurance. Don't use it..have a DR/Hospital phobia. Only go if injured.

Laura: I feel ur pain. I was looking to switch from Anthem BC to Kaiser but rates at Kaiser were slightly higher..

Roger: Start smoking and drinking and engaging in risky activities.

Mary: I've got to point out that I'm certain there are plenty of elderly Republicans reaping the healthcare benefits for which you hold all Democrats responsible.

Lawyer: yes, but the GOP is trying to cut universal healthcare coverage while the Dems passed it, which has caused my premiums to increase drastically over the past three years. I will now have to get a reduced benefit health insurance plan b/c of the Dems. You want me to give them a medal for passing lame, watered-down, insurance-company-friendly legislation? I'd rather cut programs Tea-Party-style if it means I save money.

BTW, isn't it lovely being in a union, where taxpayers like me pay for fed, state, and local gov employees' benefits even as our own costs increase? Ah, those Dems--looking out for their unions. You want me to support a party that doesn't care about small businesses, young people, families, or inflation? I'll take the war-loving whack-jobs over the alternative, b/c the GOP has promised to cut spending and government programs. And Obama's pay freeze on federal gov workers doesn't go far enough--he should have cut salaries by 15% for anyone making more than 75K/year, including himself.

Mary: Oh, and we opened up 3 [police] dispatcher positions today. Check out the CalOpps link on my page, I encourage you to apply.

Lawyer: Re: dispatcher positions, so the government is expanding while the private sector and consumer spending is declining? This will totally work...as long as the laws of economics and math don't apply.

Mary: we aren't expanding. We are perpetually shortstaffed. As a matter of fact, I'm finishing up day 2 of 6, with a 68 hour workweek. For lack of a more appropriate term, I am dog arsed tired... So please, apply, and encourage others to also. I'd love to have my weekends...in all seriousness. I'm thankful for job security, but this still is no cakewalk. :-(

Lawyer: no well-paying job's a cakewalk. If we keep inflation under control, have a balanced budget, and stop relying on accounting gimmicks and constant bond issues, we can hire more gov workers. The private sector is getting more squeezed than the public sector--I've never seen so many hi-tech working so hard b/c of job cuts. Many engineers I know are working 19 hour days...with no job security, pensions, or lifetime medical benefits. The real problem is that so much of our taxes are going into the pockets of retired gov workers, which leaves your department with less money to hire workers now. Why can't more people see this simple fact? Public pensions cost current jobs and are unaffordable during a recession.

Also, if the private sector economy improves, the issue of gov benefits will not be at the forefront of budget discussions. Thus, the best thing gov workers can do is help the private sector get back on its feet.

Until just recently, the Dems controlled Congress for the last four years. All I see is my costs going up and my income getting more and more unstable. In fact, I've begun representing more gov and union employees now than ever before. It's scary to think that I am getting fewer calls from private sector workers because they just aren't enough of them working anymore, and the ones who have jobs are probably not willing to rock the boat under any circumstances. Sigh.

Mary: I credit divorce :-)

Lawyer: It's all a big mess, isn't it?

Mary: So in a way we are paying your salary too then?....

Lawyer: yes, except it's completely voluntary, and if I don't perform well or provide a service better than my competition, I don't get paid. Also, my services create no long term, unpredictable costs to taxpayers, and my fees are negotiable. Oh, and I have no job security or guaranteed income stream from taxpayers. So yes, to an uninformed person, it's exactly the same thing :-)

In the gov world, if you're incompetent or if they don't like you, they tend to reduce your duties and stick you in a corner somewhere until you retire. In the real world, if you don't perform, you get fired, and I might be able to get you a severance package, perhaps between three and twelve months. (It's usually easier to get a severance if you see a lawyer before you get fired, BTW.) Unlike the gov, the effects of a bad employee in the private sector are finite and definite.

Mary: I will absolutely agree with you in that sense. It is infuriating and a slap in the face to all of us that DO come to work and give our jobs and the public our all when we see substandard employees retained and given the same pay.

FWIW, the union really doesn't do everything in the best interest of even its members. I'm fighting what seems an uphill battle on right vs wrong, negligent retention and nepotism...not to mention favoritism and inappropriate relations among ranks. The union's stance is, "well let's see how it pans out." Um, for the $1,000 I pay you each year in membership fees alone, that answer isn't gonna fly! So I applied for the job in question when it opened...my interview was yesterday.

Lawyer: Some unions do a great job protecting their workers, but some are terrible when it comes to protecting the rank and file, especially in some California county hospitals. That's why some union members come to me for advice, even though their union should be the one assisting them. (Hey union reps, you might want to return a phone call once in a while and keep your members appraised of deadlines, including the deadlines to file grievances. I'm just sayin'.)

British Citizen: I love the NHS [national healthcare system in the U.K., which is free for British citizens.]

Rick: I cannot believe I'm attempting to defend Obama, but blaming Obama and fed govt employees for the high cost of your crappy health insurance is just silly and childish. Let me get this right; G.W. Bush and the Republican policies (dragging our troops into Iraq costing us billions of dollars a year, deregulating banks and insurance companies allowing multi billion dollar profits for those companies and their CEOs at the peril of poor and middle class Americans, and more...) took this country into the worst recession in our history since the Great Depression. Now, Obama has been trying to get the country out of recession, stabilize our economy, and yet help millions of Americans who lack any type of health insurance (a very sad condition for any civilized country) and regulate those greedy bank executives. There are many wealthy corporate executives, including the ones at insurance cos, that see their corrupt money-making ways endangered, hence are raising the cost of your less than adequate health insurance to compensate for it. If there are blames to go around, it should be directed to greedy and corrupt corporate executives and their lobbyists and Republican policies, not federal govt employees and the new Health Care law.

Lawyer: it's perfectly consistent to criticize Bush II and also increased healthcare costs. My comments were directed at Congress, which has been in Democratic hands for the last four years. Bush II was a moron, but like any American president, he doesn't have much control over domestic spending. Outside of of a war situation, an American president is just the mouthpiece for his party, especially if his or her party controls Congress.

I don't think the Dems realized that insurance companies would jack up policy premiums so quickly. And I still don't see any plan on their side to deal with the increased premiums.

[Speaking of unfinished business, we also need better financial regulation--we still have not solved the "too big to fail" problem, which is actually worse than before (all the big banks got even bigger).]

With respect to health care, I remember our president saying that the expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting the fat from programs internally, especially Medicare. I supported that and continue to support anything that will cut long term, unpredictable fiscal obligations. I never heard our president say anything about me paying 10 to 15% increased premiums each year for the past three years.

I recently got a pain in a tooth. I have no dental coverage, b/c individual dental coverage plans are generally worthless. (There aren't enough individuals buying dental insurance to make the plans beneficial or worthy of consideration.) I am going to India soon. I am not sure if I should wait to go to India and get dental care there on my vacation, or just pay up here. I am going to take Advil and see what happens in the meantime. It's a bit astounding to me how our country talks so much about small businesses and entrepreneurs and yet does nothing to assist us except when it comes to retirement plans (like individual 401ks, SEPs, etc).

Rick: I completely share your sentiment re rising cost and lower quality of health and dental insurance. Our president and the Congress need to address the outrageous cost of living, including dental and health insurance costs. It's incredible that US corporations are making record breaking profits while unemployment rate and cost of living continue to rise, and the average American is hurting. And then, there are elected politicians who argue less govt and more tax breaks for the wealthy. Meanwhile our country stands in a mountain full of debt which if not properly addressed will break our back. But hey let's give the wealthy more tax breaks so they can enjoy their yachts, luxury cars, and Tiffany & Co jewels, because the rich can stimulate the economy better than average Americans. And let's deregulate big banks, insurance companies and other large corporations and let them make more profits for their executives while they treat their employees like slaves...advantages of smaller government and less regulations.

Lawyer: this post was never about "smaller government," which is a different discussion. My post was about a poorly conceived healthcare law that has caused my premiums to increase 10 to 15% annually over the last three years, when the Democrats controlled Congress. The Dems passed a healthcare law that was supposed to be paid by cutting spending, not increasing premiums. They apparently did not anticipate insurance companies increasing premiums quickly or did not pass a healthcare law properly drafted to protect the young and middle class.

Insurance companies are a necessary evil that keep healthcare costs in check. Without them, our long-term healthcare costs would be even higher. We ought to have better procedures for contesting denials of care and reimbursement, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that insurance companies prevent healthcare costs from spiraling out of control.

Democrats like to joke that Republicans want older people to die quickly, and the GOP talks about rationing and death panels, but no one is questioning the wisdom of paying billions of dollars annually to give grandma and grandpa an additional 6 months of life and all the morphine they want. How did healthcare costs increase so much in 30 years? Is it b/c we used to let older people and people with terminal illnesses die comfortably instead of doing everything we could to prolong their last six months of life? How did Americans survive 30 years ago without Xanax, Prozac, etc.? Are we a more healthy society than we were 30 years ago?

The medical doctor who helped draft the original healthcare bill knew that healthcare expenses during the last six months of a patient's life were outrageous and needed to be reduced. In other words, the Democrats did in fact try to pass a law rationing medical care, which would have been a significant achievement. But insurance and drug companies quickly realized that the original bill would cut their profits and watered down the legislation using GOP scare tactics of "death panels." Now, instead of paying for universal coverage via spending cuts, people like me, you, your children, and the middle class will be paying for it. And it's b/c Americans were too naive to understand that rationing over the last six months of a patient's life is necessary to control healthcare costs.

Rick: I agree with end result of your proposal, but the way to get there should be better articulated than to cut govt employee salaries or reduce the size of govt agencies. Now, if studies prove wasteful spending in certain areas of govt, then yes they should be cut off. Govt should be here to protect the citizens not to waste their tax money.

Quotes: Happy New Year

2011-01-01T00:51:00.000-08:00

And what does the Lord require of you? Only to act justly, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God. -- Micah 6:8

It’s good to leave each day behind,
like flowing water, free of sadness.
Yesterday is gone and its tale told.
Today new seeds are growing.
-- Jalaluddin Rumi

Good is not that your possessions, wealth and power... increase, but good is that your knowledge increases and your insight grows more powerful, and that the people are proud to serve God. For when you do good, you praise God. -- Imam Ali

Man has three friends on whose company he relies. First, wealth which goes with him only while good fortune lasts. Second, his relatives [but] they go only as far as the grave, [and] leave him there. The third friend, his good deeds, go with him beyond the grave. -- the Talmud

Quote of the Day: Wartime Edition

2010-12-28T16:23:00.000-08:00

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...Is there no other way the world may live?

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953

Gender Gap

2010-12-27T00:12:00.000-08:00

The WSJ sometimes disappoints me. In an article dated November 18, 2010 by Pui-Wing Tam, it tried to put the lack of diversity on corporate boards in the best possible light:

Some 56% of Silicon Valley companies now have at least one woman director on their board, up from 51% in 2009 and 41% in 2003...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658204575611141839403062.html

There are usually between nine and twelve directors on a board. The study cited above is based on corporate boards that include "at least one woman." Basically, the WSJ is lending support to the idea that diversity is progressing because Boards have added a single woman. Moreover, having a single woman on a Board apparently equals reaching "critical mass":

"There's been a growing critical mass of women on boards" in Silicon Valley, and "now it's really come to fruition," says Jonathan Visbal of Spencer Stuart, who co-wrote the study.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. The only person quoted in the article who doesn't look moronic is Autodesk's general counsel:

"You want board members with divergent experiences and viewpoints, and that leads you down the path of diversity" in directors, says Pascal Di Fronzo, Autodesk's general counsel.

That makes sense. Applauding the addition of a single woman to a Board of Directors does not.

E.B. White

2010-12-25T00:52:00.000-08:00

Quotes from E.B. White's essays:

"I think the Court again heard clearly the simple theme that ennobles our Constitution: that no one shall be made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe because of nonconformity."

"The quality in New York that insulates its inhabitants from life may simply weaken them as individuals. Perhaps it is healthier to live in a community where, when a cornice falls, you feel the blow; where, when the governor passes, you see at any rate his hat." ("Here is New York")

"This place has been too much for them; they sit languishing in a cheap restaurant over a speechless meal."

I'm Baaaaack

2010-12-23T17:10:00.000-08:00

Good news--I am back in California. My sister is coming tomorrow, so the family will be together for X-Mas!

Virgin Airlines in Delhi, How I Hate Thee

2010-12-22T05:08:00.001-08:00

I am now in London, and my sister is safe and sound in the States. Each and every Virgin employee refused to read the Articles I've highlighted and gave me the company line: delays due to weather conditions do not require Virgin to put anyone up in a hotel for more than one night. Even when I pointed out that my situation is different because I have a confirmed outgoing flight that is more than 48 hours away and my flight is international, no one seemed to care.

The problem with Virgin is that no one except one main manager seems to have any authority to do anything. Unless you get in touch with the main manager, each and every other employee seems to do his or her best to actively inconvenience you. For example, when I landed in Heathrow, the first employee at the Virgin counter told me no flights were being scheduled, so I would have to stick to my original departure date of Dec 26 to SFO. (This was actually an improvement over the Virgin employee I first talked to when I came to Delhi's airport--she told me I shouldn't have showed up because no flights were leaving to London that day. I later got a flight to London after speaking to the top manager and explaining the Virgin employee who came to the hotel told me I would be able to fly out that day.)

In London, I asked a Virgin employee about a hotel, and she referred me to another desk. I went to the desk, located in a different building, but that desk was empty. The second Virgin person I spoke to at a different counter told me Virgin would not put me in any hotel because all hotels were booked. His direct manager said the same thing. I finally got in touch with someone who appeared to be the very top Virgin manager. After just a minute of hearing my situation, this top level manager told the Virgin employee to put me in a hotel overnight and get me out on another flight as soon as possible. Then, within ten minutes, the employee who said that I couldn't get an earlier departure time or get a hotel because all of them were booked offered me a hotel (though only for one night) and a new flight leaving on Dec 23. Unbelievable.

Also, it turns out that the idiots at Virgin's Delhi operations actually wrote in my PNR or flight data information sheet that I had agreed to pay 75 pounds to get them to change my flight details. Outright lies.

The airline industry is the worst-run major business in the world. Anytime employees don't read their own rules carefully; have no discretion to assist customers fully without someone else's approval; and actually have disincentives to assist customers to get something done, disaster and fraud await.

Also, I just found out that a fellow traveller from Delhi, the last person there on Dec 19, managed to speak to the head of Delhi airport and get back to the States on Continental Airlines the same night. Virgin's Delhi employees have treated its passengers differently based on a random set of factors and engaged in a pattern of either negligent or intentional misrepresentations. First they told us they couldn't get us on other airlines, and I've personally spoken to three people leaving on partner airlines (all of the three people who got to leave stayed the longest and complained persistently). Then Virgin's Delhi employees told us they had no obligation to put us in a hotel at all, which is false. (After I was in the airport for 7 hours, they put me and others in a hotel, but failed to tell the hotel that they were paying for my stay for more than one night, even though they had booked me to leave a whopping six days later--which they said was the only confirmed outgoing flight from Delhi to London at that time.)

Finally, a London Virgin operations employee told me that Virgin had no hotels available, but then offered me a hotel after a high level manager intervened. Unfortunately, Virgin offered me a hotel for only one night even though my new flight is scheduled to leave on December 23--two nights from now. What the heck am I supposed to do on December 22, I asked? Virgin's London operations didn't seem to care one bit. I managed to get accommodations on my own for two nights.

One last thing: several Virgin employees in Delhi would not provide me with their names. At my Delhi hotel, outside in a public area, I took a picture of the only Virgin employee I saw to have some way of identifying her, and she hounded me for the next several hours, demanding I delete her picture. When she ran into me prior to my departure at the gate, she actually tried to withhold my passport, causing me to snatch it out of her hand to get it. When I asked for her manager, she refused to get her manager immediately, saying she was busy. (Of course I had to get through the gate and couldn't wait.) I asked for her name before I would delete her picture, and she refused to give me her name. (I deleted her picture later on, after I was on my way to Heathrow.)

Names on Virgin's Delhi employee badges are in ten point font and difficult to see. Yet all the badges have the following meaningless words in large, bold font: "Vanil Upto." It's as if Virgin's India employees want to avoid easy ways for passengers to hold them responsible later on. The "best" part? The Virgin employee who showed up on December 21 didn't recognize the name of the Virgin employee who came on December 20 to the hotel to provide us with information. And she wondered why I wanted her name for identification purposes. She had told me Virgin would cover my entire hotel stay once I got to London, which turned out to be false. What a disaster Virgin has turned out to be. Still, I give props to Virgin's top level manager at Heathrow, who managed to help me get an earlier flight to SFO. Thank you, good sir.

India: Passengers Should Look at Conditions of Carriage

2010-12-20T11:47:00.000-08:00

People keeping up with this blog know I am stranded in Delhi because Virgin and most airlines have canceled their flights to Heathrow. I've complained about Virgin's local Delhi representatives providing either conflicting information or no information at all. Now, it's about 1AM, and I've finally turned on my legal brain. After getting massively upset about the airline's failure to communicate properly, I went online and looked up my airline's Conditions of Carriage. I finally have a good idea about what I am entitled to from Virgin.

In case of cancellations, Virgin's Conditions of Carriage refer you to Article 9. From there you can see that 9.3 and its subsections apply. 9.3.1.1 indicates that passengers "may choose one of the following three remedies" in case of cancellation. One of the options includes re-routing at a later date (see 9.3.1.1(c). According to 9.3.1.3, if the re-routing means that the "reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the next day after the scheduled departure date of the cancelled flight," then passengers are entitled to assistance specified in Articles 9.5.1.2 and 9.5.1.3.

In my case, the re-routing changed my flight from December 19 to December 25--much longer than just the next day--meaning that I am entitled to the assistance in Articles 9.5.1.2 and 9.5.1.3, unless the airline reasonably expects that the "provision of such assistance would cause delay." A reasonable construction of the exception--which is used throughout the contract, including in situations of a mere delay rather than a cancellation--probably means that an airline might have the discretion to keep you at the airport if giving you assistance (i.e., hotel room, transportation to a hotel room, etc.) would cause a delay in getting you on your re-routed flight. Otherwise, the exception would swallow the rule, as some lawyers like to say.

I don't think it is reasonable to say that the expectation of a delay allows any airline to re-rout you, give you a new confirmed booking, and then later demand you take an earlier flight just because it's more convenient or cheaper for the airline. Once you and the airline have agreed to a confirmed booking to a date that is more than the next day, you have a new contract that requires the airline to get you out on those new agreed upon dates. Therefore, there would be no "delay" caused by a passenger unless staying in a hotel would cause the passenger to miss his upcoming re-routed flight. I imagine this might be an issue if an airline is stuck in the middle of nowhere, is waiting for a re-routed flight in two days, and the nearest hotel is two or more days away. In that case, it seems reasonable for the airline to require passengers to stay in the airport to ensure there is no delay. In my case, however, my hotel is 20 minutes from the airport, and there is little expectation of a delay by staying here.

So what do Articles 9.5.1.2 and 9.5.1.3 allow? 9.5.1.2 allows assistance of a "hotel accommodation if a stay of one or more nights, or a stay additional to that intended by you, becomes necessary." Basically, when the airline representative told me Virgin was only required to put me up for one night, he was wrong.

9.5.1.3 allows transport from the airport to the hotel. Other provisions allow two telephone calls or faxes or e-mails. (Remember, that's "or," not "and," but the restriction of "two" may only apply to phone calls. The language is unclear.)

So there we have it. Check your conditions of carriage online whenever you are stuck in a hotel and have questions about what your airline is required to provide you. Note: this posting is not intended to be legal advice. As always, you cannot rely on any statements made on this blog--my writings are merely my impressions as a layperson trying to navigate our crazy, unpredictable world. If you find something useful, that's wonderful; however, you must always do your own due diligence.

Update: all of my work didn't convince anyone at Virgin that they had incorrect information, but at least now I am now in London. Each and every Virgin employee refuses to read the Articles I've highlighted and gives me the company line: delays due to weather conditions do not require Virgin to put anyone up in a hotel for more than one night. Even when I point out that my situation is different because I have a confirmed outgoing flight that is more than 48 hours away and my flight is international, no one seems to care.