Carlos Miller has an interesting blog. If you're into photos, police, and/or the First Amendment, check it out here.
Hat tip to Popehat. Here is "Ken" pontificating below:
I’m grateful to cops, as a group. They do a frequently awful job under frequently abysmal conditions. That job is necessary to our safety. They deserve thanks for that — as do many other groups in our society. But I fall off the “hero” bus when people suggest that I owe individual cops respect no matter how they behave, and that I owe cops an obligation to look the other way when they ignore the rule of law, and that we ought to cut cops a break when they act like bullies any more than we would cut a break to a thug in an alley.
Can I get an "Amen"?
"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." -- Robert Frost
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Buffalo Bills Must Be Cursed
This post was inspired by the September 14, 2009's New England vs. Buffalo Bills NFL football game. New England scored two touchdowns in the last two minutes to win by one point.
I still can't believe how Buffalo grasped defeat from the jaws of victory in the last two minutes. I only caught the end of the game, and I am convinced--the Bills are cursed. Here are the facts:
1. O.J. Simpson was a Buffalo Bill. 'Nuff said.
2. In 1991, the Bills lose Super Bowl XXV by one point. It is the closest Super Bowl in history.
3. Monday Night Football, September 14, 2009. Bills lose by (surprise!) one point. Now, there are stomach-punch games, and there are stomach-evisceration games. This one was the latter.
4. Four consecutive Super Bowl losses from 1990 to 1993.
5. Four words: Scott Norwood, wide right. (Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, it seems. Somehow, that makes it worse.)
6. Terrell Owens. (I happen to like T.O., but I'm sure every QB he's played with is rooting for the Bills to fail and happy T.O. has to tolerate harsh winters.)
I still can't believe how Buffalo grasped defeat from the jaws of victory in the last two minutes. I only caught the end of the game, and I am convinced--the Bills are cursed. Here are the facts:
1. O.J. Simpson was a Buffalo Bill. 'Nuff said.
2. In 1991, the Bills lose Super Bowl XXV by one point. It is the closest Super Bowl in history.
3. Monday Night Football, September 14, 2009. Bills lose by (surprise!) one point. Now, there are stomach-punch games, and there are stomach-evisceration games. This one was the latter.
4. Four consecutive Super Bowl losses from 1990 to 1993.
5. Four words: Scott Norwood, wide right. (Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, it seems. Somehow, that makes it worse.)
6. Terrell Owens. (I happen to like T.O., but I'm sure every QB he's played with is rooting for the Bills to fail and happy T.O. has to tolerate harsh winters.)
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Judicial Opinion Slams Birther Movement
Praise the Lord for this [Warning: PDF file] judicial opinion against Orly Taitz and the Obama "Birther" movement. Taitz argued that a military doctor shouldn't have to deploy to Iraq until President Obama produces a legitimate birth certificate, thereby proving he really is our Commander in Chief. Here are my favorite lines from the opinion:
Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation.
Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles...
[If Plaintiff is allowed to prevail,] Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the President’s legitimacy as Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff’s place.
This judge was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Update: Ms. Taitz is in trouble again. This time, it isn't quite so pretty. See here for details.
Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation.
Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles...
[If Plaintiff is allowed to prevail,] Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the President’s legitimacy as Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff’s place.
This judge was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Update: Ms. Taitz is in trouble again. This time, it isn't quite so pretty. See here for details.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Annie Le and Raymond Clark
Annie Le's homicide makes me very worried. If a vivacious, bright woman's life can be cast aside so easily and so brutally, whom among us can really feel safe? (It doesn't help that I have a small sister who spends some time in an East Coast lab doing research. Like Ms. Le, she was also born in the Bay Area.)
As much as I am saddened by Ms. Le's death, I disagree with the rush to judgment against the alleged perpetrator, Raymond Clark III. We already have a media story titled, "Picture emerges of Yale suspect as controlling." Other news reports refer to him as a "control freak."
On what facts does the media base this subjective slant? Apparently, Clark got upset if lab workers wouldn't wear shoe covers, presumably because he had to clean up after them. Other news reports mentioned issues with girls...when the 24 years-old Clark was in high school.
I don't know Clark. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I just know I am upset at the media's rush to judgment based on such flimsy facts/hearsay. In this country, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. It sickens me to think that we might be crucifying a young man's reputation because he ticked off a few employees in a lab.
Surprisingly, the media reports haven't bothered to explain some obvious irregularities. For example, why was Clark living in a Super 8 motel? All the news articles talk about Super 8. If he's a lab tech with a girlfriend (Jennifer Hromadka), why is he living in a Super 8 hotel? Is Yale using the Super 8 as temporary housing for lab techs? Seems like a simple issue to clarify, no?
Also, I hope New Haven officials quit calling the homicide "workplace violence." When I think of workplace violence, I think of laid-off employees shooting their bosses in a murderous rampage. Choking someone to death and then putting her in a small, hidden crawl space seems too pre-meditated to be deemed "workplace violence." It also doesn't seem anything like an ordinary workplace shooting, even if it is just as heinous. By the way, did the murderer not think anyone would eventually notice Le missing, especially with an upcoming wedding date? Did he presume that everyone would assume they were dealing with a runaway bride?
In any case, here's why I think the case isn't completely cut-and-dry, despite the DNA evidence. Apparently, Clark worked as a lab tech since 2004. He must have known about the card system and the video cameras, which record everyone going in and out of the building. Therefore, he would have known that nothing would show Le walking out of the building, meaning the "runaway bride" theory wouldn't work. The cameras and card check system seem like something only an idiot would overlook, and I presume you don't get to work at Yale if you're stupid.
In the end, I'm perturbed, because the crime scene seems unnecessarily violent and sloppy, but at the same time, the murderer hid the body so well, the police were stumped for several days. Perhaps Clark snapped and went after Le for some perceived slight, or he was madly jealous of her. But if he snapped suddenly, would he really think about the hidden crawl space so quickly after the murder? I don't think people walk around with back-up plans about where to hide a body "just in case." The subsequent action of hiding Le in a hidden crawl space seems to require a ready knowledge of the blueprints for the building or at least some very quick thinking post-murder.
Also, I'm sorry to suggest these things, but there must have been a large suitcase or some large bags in the building. Le's murderer could have put Le in a large bag, even if it was just a garbage bag, and then removed her from the building. (What idiot leaves a decomposing body in a place where the smell would eventually tip everyone off?) If the murderer intended to take the body out sometime, why not just do it right then and there or soon thereafter? He had from Wednesday until Friday to go back to the lab and dispose of the body. If you're thinking it would hard to transport 90 pounds out of the building inconspicuously, fine--but would you leave the body where the police would eventually find it?
I don't know if Clark is guilty or not guilty. When I wrote this, it was late, I was tired, I was upset at the media's reporting, and I felt like playing devil's advocate. I hope they find the bastard who did this and put him in jail for life. [Update: Clark pled guilty and is serving 44 years.] If Clark did it, then I am happy he is in custody. I pray God will look after Ms. Le's family.
One side note: the New Haven police aren't known for being geniuses. The 1998 homicide case of Suzanne Jovin is still unsolved, and the New Haven police accused and pursued the wrong man in that case. Jovin's case is particularly interesting because she wrote her senior thesis on Osama bin Laden's threat to the United States.
[This post has been updated since its original publication.]
As much as I am saddened by Ms. Le's death, I disagree with the rush to judgment against the alleged perpetrator, Raymond Clark III. We already have a media story titled, "Picture emerges of Yale suspect as controlling." Other news reports refer to him as a "control freak."
On what facts does the media base this subjective slant? Apparently, Clark got upset if lab workers wouldn't wear shoe covers, presumably because he had to clean up after them. Other news reports mentioned issues with girls...when the 24 years-old Clark was in high school.
I don't know Clark. I don't know if he's guilty or not. I just know I am upset at the media's rush to judgment based on such flimsy facts/hearsay. In this country, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. It sickens me to think that we might be crucifying a young man's reputation because he ticked off a few employees in a lab.
Surprisingly, the media reports haven't bothered to explain some obvious irregularities. For example, why was Clark living in a Super 8 motel? All the news articles talk about Super 8. If he's a lab tech with a girlfriend (Jennifer Hromadka), why is he living in a Super 8 hotel? Is Yale using the Super 8 as temporary housing for lab techs? Seems like a simple issue to clarify, no?
Also, I hope New Haven officials quit calling the homicide "workplace violence." When I think of workplace violence, I think of laid-off employees shooting their bosses in a murderous rampage. Choking someone to death and then putting her in a small, hidden crawl space seems too pre-meditated to be deemed "workplace violence." It also doesn't seem anything like an ordinary workplace shooting, even if it is just as heinous. By the way, did the murderer not think anyone would eventually notice Le missing, especially with an upcoming wedding date? Did he presume that everyone would assume they were dealing with a runaway bride?
In any case, here's why I think the case isn't completely cut-and-dry, despite the DNA evidence. Apparently, Clark worked as a lab tech since 2004. He must have known about the card system and the video cameras, which record everyone going in and out of the building. Therefore, he would have known that nothing would show Le walking out of the building, meaning the "runaway bride" theory wouldn't work. The cameras and card check system seem like something only an idiot would overlook, and I presume you don't get to work at Yale if you're stupid.
In the end, I'm perturbed, because the crime scene seems unnecessarily violent and sloppy, but at the same time, the murderer hid the body so well, the police were stumped for several days. Perhaps Clark snapped and went after Le for some perceived slight, or he was madly jealous of her. But if he snapped suddenly, would he really think about the hidden crawl space so quickly after the murder? I don't think people walk around with back-up plans about where to hide a body "just in case." The subsequent action of hiding Le in a hidden crawl space seems to require a ready knowledge of the blueprints for the building or at least some very quick thinking post-murder.
Also, I'm sorry to suggest these things, but there must have been a large suitcase or some large bags in the building. Le's murderer could have put Le in a large bag, even if it was just a garbage bag, and then removed her from the building. (What idiot leaves a decomposing body in a place where the smell would eventually tip everyone off?) If the murderer intended to take the body out sometime, why not just do it right then and there or soon thereafter? He had from Wednesday until Friday to go back to the lab and dispose of the body. If you're thinking it would hard to transport 90 pounds out of the building inconspicuously, fine--but would you leave the body where the police would eventually find it?
I don't know if Clark is guilty or not guilty. When I wrote this, it was late, I was tired, I was upset at the media's reporting, and I felt like playing devil's advocate. I hope they find the bastard who did this and put him in jail for life. [Update: Clark pled guilty and is serving 44 years.] If Clark did it, then I am happy he is in custody. I pray God will look after Ms. Le's family.
One side note: the New Haven police aren't known for being geniuses. The 1998 homicide case of Suzanne Jovin is still unsolved, and the New Haven police accused and pursued the wrong man in that case. Jovin's case is particularly interesting because she wrote her senior thesis on Osama bin Laden's threat to the United States.
[This post has been updated since its original publication.]
If You're Thinking about Going into Law...
This ABA article should be required reading for all you aspiring law students.
Broken down by age group, the median salary of law grads who never passed the bar was $32,000 before they reached the age of 30 (compared to $48,000 for lawyers and $35,600 for college grads), $48,000 from the ages of 30 to 39 (compared to $64,000 for lawyers and $42,000 for college grads), $54,000 between the ages of 40 and 49 (compared to $83,600 for lawyers and $46,250 for college grads), and $62,849 between the ages of 50 and 59 (compared to $86,400 for lawyers and $48,416 for college grads).
Did you see the median salary for most law grads under 30 years old? Yes, your eyes are clear--it's $48,000/yr. The lesson: don't go into law just because you think the money is wonderful.
For your information, 2009 annual tuition at my alma mater’s full time law program is $38,040, or $114,120 total. At a local night law school, total tuition for a law degree is $51,156. The aforementioned tuition numbers do not include books, study aids, or bar prep courses, which can add an additional $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost of the J.D.
Why is there such a wide disparity in tuition costs between my law school and the night school? My school's alumni network is much different. I know some graduates from the night law school, and all of them are solo practitioners. Nothing wrong with being a solo (I'm one), but I don't know of any big or even small firms where this night school's grads have hiring authority. In contrast, both of my jobs out of law school were given to me by former alumni.
I am happy I managed to pay off my student loans. I had a generous housing situation, but I still had to minimize unavoidable expenses, like food, gas, suits, a reliable car, insurance, etc. I remember eating mostly peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for three years post-graduation. A few times, I forgot to pack my lunch, and I just didn't eat that day. Also, although I love coffee, I avoided Starbucks like the plague. An attorney/mentor (a fellow alumnus, by the way), would buy me lunch once a month, and I looked forward to those lunches more than he will ever know. Now, we take turns paying for lunch, which is nice.
Before I forget, I will leave you with one story about my friend/mentor. When I first met him, I had no idea he was a big shot lawyer. I got to know him because he and I both love movies, he is down-to-earth, and he seemed like a really cool guy. One time, he casually mentioned that he had taken a weekend vacation with his family, and somehow, the cost came up. It was 8,000 dollars. My eyes got wide, my head jerked back, and I remember saying, "8 thousand dollars? For one weekend? How is that possible?" The only thing going through my mind was, "That's two full years of undergrad tuition at UC Davis!" I hope my friend/mentor doesn't remember that day. He hasn't said anything about it, but since then, he's never mentioned the price of any of his vacations.
Broken down by age group, the median salary of law grads who never passed the bar was $32,000 before they reached the age of 30 (compared to $48,000 for lawyers and $35,600 for college grads), $48,000 from the ages of 30 to 39 (compared to $64,000 for lawyers and $42,000 for college grads), $54,000 between the ages of 40 and 49 (compared to $83,600 for lawyers and $46,250 for college grads), and $62,849 between the ages of 50 and 59 (compared to $86,400 for lawyers and $48,416 for college grads).
Did you see the median salary for most law grads under 30 years old? Yes, your eyes are clear--it's $48,000/yr. The lesson: don't go into law just because you think the money is wonderful.
For your information, 2009 annual tuition at my alma mater’s full time law program is $38,040, or $114,120 total. At a local night law school, total tuition for a law degree is $51,156. The aforementioned tuition numbers do not include books, study aids, or bar prep courses, which can add an additional $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost of the J.D.
Why is there such a wide disparity in tuition costs between my law school and the night school? My school's alumni network is much different. I know some graduates from the night law school, and all of them are solo practitioners. Nothing wrong with being a solo (I'm one), but I don't know of any big or even small firms where this night school's grads have hiring authority. In contrast, both of my jobs out of law school were given to me by former alumni.
I am happy I managed to pay off my student loans. I had a generous housing situation, but I still had to minimize unavoidable expenses, like food, gas, suits, a reliable car, insurance, etc. I remember eating mostly peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for three years post-graduation. A few times, I forgot to pack my lunch, and I just didn't eat that day. Also, although I love coffee, I avoided Starbucks like the plague. An attorney/mentor (a fellow alumnus, by the way), would buy me lunch once a month, and I looked forward to those lunches more than he will ever know. Now, we take turns paying for lunch, which is nice.
Before I forget, I will leave you with one story about my friend/mentor. When I first met him, I had no idea he was a big shot lawyer. I got to know him because he and I both love movies, he is down-to-earth, and he seemed like a really cool guy. One time, he casually mentioned that he had taken a weekend vacation with his family, and somehow, the cost came up. It was 8,000 dollars. My eyes got wide, my head jerked back, and I remember saying, "8 thousand dollars? For one weekend? How is that possible?" The only thing going through my mind was, "That's two full years of undergrad tuition at UC Davis!" I hope my friend/mentor doesn't remember that day. He hasn't said anything about it, but since then, he's never mentioned the price of any of his vacations.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Law: Honesty
It's been a long day. I am still in my office. Here is my quote of the night:
No law will make an honest man dishonest, nor will any law cause dishonest men to become honest. Laws may scare dishonest men from doing dishonest acts, but at what cost? All laws increase the chances of an honest man getting caught in the government's or a lawyer's web. All laws also provide paper ammunition to an honest man's enemies. If some laws have no relation to improving honesty and morality in society, then the case for eliminating laws rather than passing new ones becomes clear.
Yes, it needs refining. I'll work on it.
No law will make an honest man dishonest, nor will any law cause dishonest men to become honest. Laws may scare dishonest men from doing dishonest acts, but at what cost? All laws increase the chances of an honest man getting caught in the government's or a lawyer's web. All laws also provide paper ammunition to an honest man's enemies. If some laws have no relation to improving honesty and morality in society, then the case for eliminating laws rather than passing new ones becomes clear.
Yes, it needs refining. I'll work on it.
Should State Bars Shield Judges from Criticism?
If you're a lawyer, should your free speech rights be curtailed? Before you criticize judges, see here for NYT article (John Schwartz, 9/12/09). The Florida State Bar reprimanded Sean Conway, an attorney, for his blog posts about local judges.
Personally, I am very conflicted. On the one hand, we should respect judicial independence, and we already allow judges to issue gag orders to prevent jury prejudice. But other than judges and lawyers--who are most familiar with the legal system--who else is able to provide reliable information on our court system?
In the final analysis, judges are government employees, not kings and queens. They are 1/3 of our representative government. It makes little sense to shield them from criticism, assuming such criticism does not negatively prejudice the parties in the case. In short, judicial criticism should turn on how the criticism affects the parties, not lawyers or judges.
David Feige, from New York, posted an interesting comment:
Judicial accountability is critical. Awful criminal court judges too often fly below the radar, eviscerating critical constitutional protections, and harming the mostly poor and disenfranchised who appear before them. It is here, more than almost anywhere that free open debate, and even freewheeling and critical commentary should be encouraged, not chilled.
Real judges have the temperament to roll with the punches, and admire and encourage argument in order to bring the truth to the fore. The fact that a judge seeks to squelch discussion, and intimidate opponents says everything one needs to know about their fitness to judge.
Amen, David.
Personally, I am very conflicted. On the one hand, we should respect judicial independence, and we already allow judges to issue gag orders to prevent jury prejudice. But other than judges and lawyers--who are most familiar with the legal system--who else is able to provide reliable information on our court system?
In the final analysis, judges are government employees, not kings and queens. They are 1/3 of our representative government. It makes little sense to shield them from criticism, assuming such criticism does not negatively prejudice the parties in the case. In short, judicial criticism should turn on how the criticism affects the parties, not lawyers or judges.
David Feige, from New York, posted an interesting comment:
Judicial accountability is critical. Awful criminal court judges too often fly below the radar, eviscerating critical constitutional protections, and harming the mostly poor and disenfranchised who appear before them. It is here, more than almost anywhere that free open debate, and even freewheeling and critical commentary should be encouraged, not chilled.
Real judges have the temperament to roll with the punches, and admire and encourage argument in order to bring the truth to the fore. The fact that a judge seeks to squelch discussion, and intimidate opponents says everything one needs to know about their fitness to judge.
Amen, David.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Barry Ritholtz on 9/11
Barry Ritholtz talks about Bush and 9/11 here. A snippet:
When people ask why I dislike the presidency of George W. Bush, it was that colossal failure to rise to greatness on that occasion, and indeed, to engage in a series of decisions that not just in retrospect, but at the time, simply reflected terrible judgment.
Unlike many others, I only blame W in small part for ignoring the warning pre-9/11. But for the catastrophic series of decisions that followed, I hold him 100% accountable.
After 9/11, the entire world supported the United States of America. Iranians held candlelight vigils. NATO pledged immediate support. What the heck happened from September 2001 to November 2008, and why did it take so long for Americans to reject Bush's policies?
The comments on Barry's blog are also worth reading--here's one from "How the Common Man Sees It":
Though we are quite in agreement on economic matters, I am a conservative Christian that disagrees with you on many issues and I have told you so many times.
This one is not one of them.
One of the greatest failings of the modern conservative movement is its inability to admit when it was wrong. The desire to circle the wagons is only making their circle smaller. That provides for even less protection in the long run. I am beginning to believe that conservatives created, or at least inflamed the rebellion of the ’50’s and ’60’s due to rigidness alone. I just hope we learn in time so that we aren’t lost in the wilderness for another generation. The Western world can no longer afford a one party state.
HERE is my post on terrorism, titled, "The Unusual Suspects."
More links:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/zmsamit.html
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_frasca
http://blogs.state.gov/
When people ask why I dislike the presidency of George W. Bush, it was that colossal failure to rise to greatness on that occasion, and indeed, to engage in a series of decisions that not just in retrospect, but at the time, simply reflected terrible judgment.
Unlike many others, I only blame W in small part for ignoring the warning pre-9/11. But for the catastrophic series of decisions that followed, I hold him 100% accountable.
After 9/11, the entire world supported the United States of America. Iranians held candlelight vigils. NATO pledged immediate support. What the heck happened from September 2001 to November 2008, and why did it take so long for Americans to reject Bush's policies?
The comments on Barry's blog are also worth reading--here's one from "How the Common Man Sees It":
Though we are quite in agreement on economic matters, I am a conservative Christian that disagrees with you on many issues and I have told you so many times.
This one is not one of them.
One of the greatest failings of the modern conservative movement is its inability to admit when it was wrong. The desire to circle the wagons is only making their circle smaller. That provides for even less protection in the long run. I am beginning to believe that conservatives created, or at least inflamed the rebellion of the ’50’s and ’60’s due to rigidness alone. I just hope we learn in time so that we aren’t lost in the wilderness for another generation. The Western world can no longer afford a one party state.
HERE is my post on terrorism, titled, "The Unusual Suspects."
More links:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/zmsamit.html
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_frasca
http://blogs.state.gov/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
SCU Magazine's Interview with Avraham Burg
Santa Clara University's Professor Farid Senzai interviews Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset (i.e., Israel's Parliament/Congress). Here is the interview (Scroll down to "An interview with Avraham Burg," Santa Clara University Magazine, Fall 2009)
On "Never Again":
Among the Jewish people, there are two kinds of people who came out of Auschwitz: Those who say never again is never again for Jews; and, therefore, let’s have the biggest walls around us and the deepest shelters on top of us, and make sure that no Jew will be ever persecuted. The others—and I belong to their fav, or their body—say never again means never again to anybody around the world. I have to do my utmost to prevent the indifference to the "other", whoever he or she may be: the raped woman in Darfur, the boy in the inner city of Detroit.
On Peace in the Middle East:
More on Israel here.
On "Never Again":
Among the Jewish people, there are two kinds of people who came out of Auschwitz: Those who say never again is never again for Jews; and, therefore, let’s have the biggest walls around us and the deepest shelters on top of us, and make sure that no Jew will be ever persecuted. The others—and I belong to their fav, or their body—say never again means never again to anybody around the world. I have to do my utmost to prevent the indifference to the "other", whoever he or she may be: the raped woman in Darfur, the boy in the inner city of Detroit.
On Peace in the Middle East:
Let me tell you an anecdote: There was a day I was driving my car on the eve of the Jewish New Year in Jerusalem. The air conditioner was broken, the heat impossible, the traffic jam like only in Jerusalem on the eve of the New Year—and on top of it, there was a bomb threat and the city was stuck. I was sitting with my then-7-year-old son and my 80-some-year-old father. My son was very short-tempered: He was hungry, he wanted to pee—you know the drill.
He said, “Daddy, how the hell do you want to make peace with these Arabs who bomb us at the eve of the New Year?”
I was contemplating: Should I simply silence him? Should I give him a philosophical answer? Should I just ignore it? I was sitting there angry at the traffic, angry at the weather, and then from the backseat my own father, who had escaped from Berlin in September '39—-imagine, the very last second—-said to my son: “I want you to listen very carefully. I felt at the time that there would never be peace between us and Germany. Whatever they did to us is a thousand times worse than what we do to the Palestinians and what the Palestinians are doing to us. Now we’re 40 years after the Holocaust. Here, peace with Germany. In your lifetime you will see peace with the Palestinians."
Monday, September 14, 2009
Is Christianity the Key to Civilization?
[Update: Arnold Kling corrects me, pointing out that he "was explaining what I think conservatives believe, not what I believe." Mr. Kling's blog post now states, "Again, these are what I think of as conservative beliefs, not what I believe." My post below has changed to reflect Mr. Kling's correction.]
Arnold Kling summarizes what conservatives believe, saying, "Christianity is the key to civilization and, dare one say it, the most progressive force in history." For his full post, see here.
Commenter Tom Hickey dismantles the so-called conservative argument handily:
I added the following comments:
If Christianity is the key to civilization, then what about the Persian Empire, which was non-Christian? Plenty of evidence shows that great civilizations may be non-Christian--see Incas, Angkor, etc.
Moreover, assuming that violent oppression and unnecessary/excessive killings of civilians and innocent persons is not progressive, your thesis fails. If, for example, Christianity was the most progressive force in history, then why did an overwhelming number of American Christians tolerate the peculiar institution of slavery? [Could it because Christ himself never took an express stand against slavery?] Why did an overwhelming number of American Christians deem non-whites inferior and less deserving of equal legal protection for numerous decades? Why did American Christians, with the backing of state governments, use police dogs and fire hoses on non-violent civil rights protesters? If we agree that Southerners are more Christian than non-Southerners, then the last 100 years seem to rebut the idea that Christianity and civilized society go hand in hand; after all, fewer places in American have been more Christian and less progressive than the South.
Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th century killings and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In fact, Christian-led governments and their soldiers have caused the most violent losses of human life over the past hundred years. See, for example, Washington's America and the Native Americans; Lincoln's America and the Civil War; Hitler's Germany; Nixon's America and Vietnam/"Operation Menu"; Truman's America and Hiroshima; Bush I's America and Iraq; Bush II's America and Iraq/Afghanistan. This violent historical record doesn't mean Christianity is wrong or inherently evil--it just means that people in power tend to oppress others who are different, regardless of religion.
Some people may argue that the aforementioned Christian-led killings were made with good intentions, but try your progressive religious argument on the millions of innocent African (slaves), Native American, Jewish, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Iraqi, and Afghan civilians who have been murdered by Christian-led governments.
In the end, I suppose it depends on your particular viewpoint. If you're an American Christian in the year 2009, America is a progressive place. As a result, I can understand why some American Christians would associate progressiveness with Christianity. However, as the death tolls above indicate, no religion can call itself progressive or truly peaceful--whoever is in power at any particular time kills whomever they consider to be "the other." Religious differences are one way of inventing "otherness" and superiority, which allows our conscience to avoid responsibility for the deaths we cause.
Being from Silicon Valley, I may be biased, but I agree with Tom Hickey: "Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization." Assuming all religions may incorporate and contribute to technological advances, then associating any particular religion with progress is a subjective, historically-myopic, and divisive exercise.
[More here on religious assimilation.]
Burke A. has an excellent response to my comment:
I don't think conservatives believe that civilizations didn't exist before Christianity. Just that the enlightenment and our current American civilization is a product of that values system. Christians were/are not a more moral people, in fact the Christian ideology is a refutation of that very idea. Christianity didn't somehow support slavery because some Christians were apologists for it. Slavery is a human institution far older than Christianity, and most of the fervent abolitionists were zealous Christians.
Nor is it Christianity reflexively anti-science. Unless you think that there should be no restrictions on what a scientist can do, regardless of the effects on other people. Sure the Religious Right opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, but they certainly aren't opposed to all kinds of science. They just disagree with the moral judgments that certain scientists are making. And frankly, scientists are no more qualified to make those judgments than religious zealots, because Science is equipped to ask how, not why, or whether something is moral. It's outside the domain of science's expertise.
Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th Century wars and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In the past hundred years, evidence shows that majority-Christian civilizations were the most violent of all. In fact, the one entity that has caused the most loss in human life over the past century has been Christian governments and their soldiers...
What about Mao's China, and the bloody wars of tribal humans? I'd say that Christians were no more or less violent than other cultures--we are just more aware of the violence of nominally Christian populations, because that culture is dominant in the Western world and that is the history we study. I also think you are making an error of attribution if you assume that Christianity is the cause of the violence. Just as you attribute the blame of slavery to Christianity. Did Christians practice slavery? Sure, but they were the first people to offer opposition to the institution and eventually make it illegal. To paraphrase, Christianity is the worst belief system on earth, except for all others.
My response to Burke A. is below:
If we eliminate wartime deaths, then you are correct--Mao and Stalin, both non-Christians, caused the most deaths in the 20th century (we'll go ahead and equate being bombed to death with being starved to death, even though part of me doesn't feel right about that comparison).
As for slavery, however, didn't the Islamic Prophet Mohammad condemn slavery on the basis of color/ethnicity centuries before most Christians accepted that such slavery was morally wrong? See, for example, the story of Bilal ibn Rabah.
Also, compared to Judaism and Islam, wasn't Christianity late in condemning slavery on the basis of color or ethnicity? [Jesus Christ does not condemn slavery anywhere in the written record, nor does the New Testament.] For most of its history, Christian America seemed to have few qualms about mistreating/raping slaves or treating persons more harshly because of the color of their skin. In contrast, it appears that Islamic societies tolerated slavery but required better treatment of slaves. Of course, without a written historical record from slaves themselves, it's anyone's guess how they were actually treated, but evidence is clear that Islamic law and culture frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.
According to Prof. Jonathan Brockopp, for example, "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time." [See also work by Professor Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah aka Salman al-Ouda.]
Arnold Kling summarizes what conservatives believe, saying, "Christianity is the key to civilization and, dare one say it, the most progressive force in history." For his full post, see here.
Commenter Tom Hickey dismantles the so-called conservative argument handily:
There are several inconsistencies with this picture.
1. It seems obvious that instead of going downhill, human progress is improving with technological advancement that has vastly improved life for 99% of the the people in developed societies. Christendom was feudal. These "lost virtues" are basically a variation of the romantic ideal of the "noble savage" and the lost "Golden Age."
2. Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization. Christianity has been and continues to be the enemy of science. As technology enabled leisure for universal education, life became more rational and intelligent, allowing for the establishment of democratic societies. The Enlightenment thinking that lead to democracy was not based in Christian values as much a rational thought that revolted against imposition of ideology. The founding Fathers were not "Christians" in the sense that many use this term today, and many were Deists.
3. Free markets have often led to the "social degradation" that conservatives decry, and many conservatives think that restrictions in the form of censorship could have prevented this loosening of social norms. It can reasonably be argued that the pursuit of profit has led to the pushing of the envelope of social norms, not "social degradation" pushing business. This is the old, "the devil made me do it," excuse.
Finally, caricaturing liberalism/progressivism as believing that wisdom resides with progressive elites is setting up a straw man. That is just ideological bias that fails to grasp what liberalism is about, not a reasoned statement of genuine issues. Liberalism/Progressivism is broadly based on J. S. Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism.
I added the following comments:
If Christianity is the key to civilization, then what about the Persian Empire, which was non-Christian? Plenty of evidence shows that great civilizations may be non-Christian--see Incas, Angkor, etc.
Moreover, assuming that violent oppression and unnecessary/excessive killings of civilians and innocent persons is not progressive, your thesis fails. If, for example, Christianity was the most progressive force in history, then why did an overwhelming number of American Christians tolerate the peculiar institution of slavery? [Could it because Christ himself never took an express stand against slavery?] Why did an overwhelming number of American Christians deem non-whites inferior and less deserving of equal legal protection for numerous decades? Why did American Christians, with the backing of state governments, use police dogs and fire hoses on non-violent civil rights protesters? If we agree that Southerners are more Christian than non-Southerners, then the last 100 years seem to rebut the idea that Christianity and civilized society go hand in hand; after all, fewer places in American have been more Christian and less progressive than the South.
Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th century killings and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In fact, Christian-led governments and their soldiers have caused the most violent losses of human life over the past hundred years. See, for example, Washington's America and the Native Americans; Lincoln's America and the Civil War; Hitler's Germany; Nixon's America and Vietnam/"Operation Menu"; Truman's America and Hiroshima; Bush I's America and Iraq; Bush II's America and Iraq/Afghanistan. This violent historical record doesn't mean Christianity is wrong or inherently evil--it just means that people in power tend to oppress others who are different, regardless of religion.
Some people may argue that the aforementioned Christian-led killings were made with good intentions, but try your progressive religious argument on the millions of innocent African (slaves), Native American, Jewish, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Iraqi, and Afghan civilians who have been murdered by Christian-led governments.
In the end, I suppose it depends on your particular viewpoint. If you're an American Christian in the year 2009, America is a progressive place. As a result, I can understand why some American Christians would associate progressiveness with Christianity. However, as the death tolls above indicate, no religion can call itself progressive or truly peaceful--whoever is in power at any particular time kills whomever they consider to be "the other." Religious differences are one way of inventing "otherness" and superiority, which allows our conscience to avoid responsibility for the deaths we cause.
Being from Silicon Valley, I may be biased, but I agree with Tom Hickey: "Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization." Assuming all religions may incorporate and contribute to technological advances, then associating any particular religion with progress is a subjective, historically-myopic, and divisive exercise.
[More here on religious assimilation.]
Burke A. has an excellent response to my comment:
I don't think conservatives believe that civilizations didn't exist before Christianity. Just that the enlightenment and our current American civilization is a product of that values system. Christians were/are not a more moral people, in fact the Christian ideology is a refutation of that very idea. Christianity didn't somehow support slavery because some Christians were apologists for it. Slavery is a human institution far older than Christianity, and most of the fervent abolitionists were zealous Christians.
Nor is it Christianity reflexively anti-science. Unless you think that there should be no restrictions on what a scientist can do, regardless of the effects on other people. Sure the Religious Right opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, but they certainly aren't opposed to all kinds of science. They just disagree with the moral judgments that certain scientists are making. And frankly, scientists are no more qualified to make those judgments than religious zealots, because Science is equipped to ask how, not why, or whether something is moral. It's outside the domain of science's expertise.
Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th Century wars and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In the past hundred years, evidence shows that majority-Christian civilizations were the most violent of all. In fact, the one entity that has caused the most loss in human life over the past century has been Christian governments and their soldiers...
What about Mao's China, and the bloody wars of tribal humans? I'd say that Christians were no more or less violent than other cultures--we are just more aware of the violence of nominally Christian populations, because that culture is dominant in the Western world and that is the history we study. I also think you are making an error of attribution if you assume that Christianity is the cause of the violence. Just as you attribute the blame of slavery to Christianity. Did Christians practice slavery? Sure, but they were the first people to offer opposition to the institution and eventually make it illegal. To paraphrase, Christianity is the worst belief system on earth, except for all others.
My response to Burke A. is below:
If we eliminate wartime deaths, then you are correct--Mao and Stalin, both non-Christians, caused the most deaths in the 20th century (we'll go ahead and equate being bombed to death with being starved to death, even though part of me doesn't feel right about that comparison).
As for slavery, however, didn't the Islamic Prophet Mohammad condemn slavery on the basis of color/ethnicity centuries before most Christians accepted that such slavery was morally wrong? See, for example, the story of Bilal ibn Rabah.
Also, compared to Judaism and Islam, wasn't Christianity late in condemning slavery on the basis of color or ethnicity? [Jesus Christ does not condemn slavery anywhere in the written record, nor does the New Testament.] For most of its history, Christian America seemed to have few qualms about mistreating/raping slaves or treating persons more harshly because of the color of their skin. In contrast, it appears that Islamic societies tolerated slavery but required better treatment of slaves. Of course, without a written historical record from slaves themselves, it's anyone's guess how they were actually treated, but evidence is clear that Islamic law and culture frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.
According to Prof. Jonathan Brockopp, for example, "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time." [See also work by Professor Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah aka Salman al-Ouda.]
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Economics Blog and Natural Gas
I can't believe I just learned about Loren Steffy's economics blog.
Here's one post on the Baker-Hughes/BJS merger and the price of natural gas. An analyst states that the deal makes sense if natural gas prices will return to at least $6.50 per thousand cubic feet by 2011.
I own some BJS shares. I wish there was a better way to play the price of natural gas than UNG and GAZ. Both rely on natural gas futures, not the price of natural gas itself. In addition, neither FCG nor ENY reliably track the price of natural gas because of contango.
Wall Street has invented numerous exotic products, including ways to profit from precious metals; indeed, gold and silver investors have several reliable options. But when it comes to creating a way to track the price of natural gas, suddenly, Wall Street is stumped.
Some people contend that a reliable tracking product must store the underlying physical commodity, and it is almost impossible to store sufficient amounts of natural gas. Yet, storage problems didn't stop Wall Street from having Gold and Silver ETFs. If Wall Street has products that hold gold and silver, why not natural gas?
Thousands of investors think the price of natural gas may double in two to three years. UNG, for example, trades tens of millions of shares daily. There must be many willing buyers interested in a better natural gas investment vehicle. What other investment opportunity might produce 80+% gains in less than three years? Despite thousands of investors willing to risk investing in a natural-gas-price tracking product, there is no reliable way to invest. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Here's one post on the Baker-Hughes/BJS merger and the price of natural gas. An analyst states that the deal makes sense if natural gas prices will return to at least $6.50 per thousand cubic feet by 2011.
I own some BJS shares. I wish there was a better way to play the price of natural gas than UNG and GAZ. Both rely on natural gas futures, not the price of natural gas itself. In addition, neither FCG nor ENY reliably track the price of natural gas because of contango.
Wall Street has invented numerous exotic products, including ways to profit from precious metals; indeed, gold and silver investors have several reliable options. But when it comes to creating a way to track the price of natural gas, suddenly, Wall Street is stumped.
Some people contend that a reliable tracking product must store the underlying physical commodity, and it is almost impossible to store sufficient amounts of natural gas. Yet, storage problems didn't stop Wall Street from having Gold and Silver ETFs. If Wall Street has products that hold gold and silver, why not natural gas?
Thousands of investors think the price of natural gas may double in two to three years. UNG, for example, trades tens of millions of shares daily. There must be many willing buyers interested in a better natural gas investment vehicle. What other investment opportunity might produce 80+% gains in less than three years? Despite thousands of investors willing to risk investing in a natural-gas-price tracking product, there is no reliable way to invest. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Fewer Educated Women Having Kids
According to the Rutgers University Marriage Project, the higher a woman's education level, the less likely it is that she will have children:
Women with four-year college degrees or better are more likely to be childless than women with lower levels of educational attainment. In 2006, for example, slightly more than twenty-four percent of women, 40 to 44 years of age, with a bachelor’s degree, and 27.4 percent of women, 40 to 44 years of age, with graduate or professional degrees were childless compared to only 14.9 percent of those without a high school degree.
Sources: Tim B. Heaton, Cardell K. Jacobson, Kimberlee Holland, “Persistence and Change in the Decision to Remain Childless,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999), 531-39. 7; and Jane Lawler Dye, Fertility of American Women: 2006, Current Population Report P20- 558, Washington, D.C: US Census Bureau (2008): Table 2, 5.
Where's Susan Faludi when you need her?
Women with four-year college degrees or better are more likely to be childless than women with lower levels of educational attainment. In 2006, for example, slightly more than twenty-four percent of women, 40 to 44 years of age, with a bachelor’s degree, and 27.4 percent of women, 40 to 44 years of age, with graduate or professional degrees were childless compared to only 14.9 percent of those without a high school degree.
Sources: Tim B. Heaton, Cardell K. Jacobson, Kimberlee Holland, “Persistence and Change in the Decision to Remain Childless,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999), 531-39. 7; and Jane Lawler Dye, Fertility of American Women: 2006, Current Population Report P20- 558, Washington, D.C: US Census Bureau (2008): Table 2, 5.
Where's Susan Faludi when you need her?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Can't Make Noises the Government Doesn't Like
Check out Penal Code 415:
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Is it just me, or do (2) and (3) sound unconstitutionally vague?
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
Is it just me, or do (2) and (3) sound unconstitutionally vague?
September 11 and Terrorism
Here is my previous post on terrorism and the likely future suspects. In my humble opinion, American Muslims do not generally represent a serious threat to any state's security. Every group, however, has radicals, and we ought to focus on the methods governments should use to monitor perceived radicals. In short, balancing civil liberties with security is the real debate.
May God bless all the victims of 9/11, including their surviving families, and post-9/11 hate crime victims.
May God bless all the victims of 9/11, including their surviving families, and post-9/11 hate crime victims.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Joe Wilson, Republican from South Carolina
First, Governor Sanford, now Joe Wilson. South Carolina can't seem to elect decent representatives. During President Obama's recent speech, Republican Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" Below is my letter to Mr. Wilson's office, asking him to resign. Feel free to copy and send to joe.wilson@mail.house.gov
Mr. Wilson:
Your conduct at President Obama's recent speech was unacceptable. You are dealing with the President of the United States of America, not a pitcher at a baseball game. Your heckling was boorish and showed disrespect to our Commander in Chief. Your apology is insufficient.
Please resign immediately. The great state of South Carolina has already suffered so much. It deserves new faces and credible reputations to represent its residents.
Mr. Wilson:
Your conduct at President Obama's recent speech was unacceptable. You are dealing with the President of the United States of America, not a pitcher at a baseball game. Your heckling was boorish and showed disrespect to our Commander in Chief. Your apology is insufficient.
Please resign immediately. The great state of South Carolina has already suffered so much. It deserves new faces and credible reputations to represent its residents.
Law and Justice as Two Separate Concepts
Do you believe the law and justice go hand in hand? If so, get your drink of choice, sit down, and prepared to be shell-shocked. Unquestionably the most stunning piece I have read in recent memory:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
("Trial by Fire," by David Grann)
I am completely numb after reading it. My friend Samantha S. says, "the law is not about 'justice'--it is about application of rules. It isn't perfect, but it is all we have."
Follow-up here. From the New Yorker's comments section: "The most telling irony... what the State of Texas listed as the cause of death for Cameron Todd Willingham: homicide. One fact they absolutely got right."
More here on public defenders, Gideon, and access to justice.
Bonus: how much does it cost to execute someone? Answer is here.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
("Trial by Fire," by David Grann)
I am completely numb after reading it. My friend Samantha S. says, "the law is not about 'justice'--it is about application of rules. It isn't perfect, but it is all we have."
Follow-up here. From the New Yorker's comments section: "The most telling irony... what the State of Texas listed as the cause of death for Cameron Todd Willingham: homicide. One fact they absolutely got right."
More here on public defenders, Gideon, and access to justice.
Bonus: how much does it cost to execute someone? Answer is here.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Extra-judicial Bonds
Once in a while, I come across an interesting comment on internet message boards. The following comment, from seamusmcdermott, is about our justice system:
This case highlights a problem in the justice system. Judges, prosecutors and police fraternize with one another and form extrajudicial bonds. These bonds reach into the courtroom with undue frequency, resulting in a system that leans unfairly towards the prosecution's case.
Judges need to be beyond such influences, but they aren't. Go to any courthouse (Hall of Justice?) in the Bay Area and visit the cafeteria. You'll see what I'm talking about. This isn't discussed much because people are largely unaware of it, or don't care, or WANT people convicted, even if they didn't commit the crime for which they are charged.
Stuff like this was behind the case recently where DNA evidence exculpated 55 death row inmates in Illinois. And the prosecutors STILL wanted to execute them, even though the DNA evidence clearly showed them to be innocent. Crazy, huh? And prosecutors are protected from civil action in these cases.
This case highlights a problem in the justice system. Judges, prosecutors and police fraternize with one another and form extrajudicial bonds. These bonds reach into the courtroom with undue frequency, resulting in a system that leans unfairly towards the prosecution's case.
Judges need to be beyond such influences, but they aren't. Go to any courthouse (Hall of Justice?) in the Bay Area and visit the cafeteria. You'll see what I'm talking about. This isn't discussed much because people are largely unaware of it, or don't care, or WANT people convicted, even if they didn't commit the crime for which they are charged.
Stuff like this was behind the case recently where DNA evidence exculpated 55 death row inmates in Illinois. And the prosecutors STILL wanted to execute them, even though the DNA evidence clearly showed them to be innocent. Crazy, huh? And prosecutors are protected from civil action in these cases.
Mark Cuban and Unpaid Internships
I'm a huge fan of Mark Cuban. If reincarnation exists, I'd like to be reincarnated as him. Mr. Cuban recently blogged about unpaid internships and the maze of regulations involved in creating a legal unpaid intern position. See here. My response is below:
Mark’s HR representative is mostly correct. I handle labor and employment cases in California, and I tell my clients never to hire an [unpaid] intern unless they go through an authorized college program. Overall, as a business owner as well as a plaintiffs' employment lawyer, I see both the pro-business and pro-employee sides of employment issues.
Mr. Cuban and the minimum wage supporters are both correct. Mr. Cuban is correct in stating that potential employees have lost an opportunity because of the law’s expansive liability. The min-wage group is also correct when it contends that unpaid internships favor affluent and middle-class children who can afford to work without pay for some time. One can hold both positions without any contradiction.
Mr. Cuban, however, weakens his argument by refusing to acknowledge that internships favor more affluent kids. It is true that a poor kid from the ghetto could work two or three jobs–something Mr. Cuban did–and use public transportation to get valuable experience, but the overwhelming majority of the participants would not fall into the aforementioned category.
Mr. Cuban contends that it is not impossible for poor kids to participate and benefit from unpaid internships. Again, true, but when the overwhelming majority of unpaid interns are not poor kids or are supported by parents, it should be clear that unpaid internships tend to discriminate against poorer students, adults, and teenagers.
What is the solution? We need to revamp our entire educational system. Most education in America is no better than government-subsidized babysitting. When you compare American high school graduates with high school graduates from India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Norway, etc., the differences are stunning. Many international students specialize in a particular area and are familiar with a particular field when they graduate high school or college. American schools, in contrast, refuse to track students, equating “tracking” with stigmatizing. Other countries have no such qualms, which results in a less egalitarian, but more workforce-ready society.
America’s biggest problem (and positive) is its idealism and the idea that all students must be educated through college. Other countries actively weed out under-performers from colleges and even high schools. A more selective educational system will not go over very well in egalitarian-minded America until we realize we are failing our children in an increasingly globalized economy. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing some wonderful things with charter schools, but it’s not enough. Teachers’ unions–which represent teachers, i.e., government workers, not children–are very powerful and will resist any educational overhaul.
Ultimately, if you want to blame someone for our unfair economic system, which favors rich kids and penalizes poorer kids, blame the American educational system and the teachers’ unions. An American high school diploma and college degree mean nothing these days. Think about why our degrees and diplomas have become worthless in proving workforce readiness. (Hint: it isn’t because of Mark Cuban.) Think about why employers want to see people work on the job before hiring them as employees. Think about whether an unpaid internship is useful in determining whether an employee and employer may find each other mutually beneficial. Ask yourself, “Does a person’s willingness to work for free indicate dedication and long-term interest?” Also, remember that no one is saying that the intern’s unpaid status should be permanent or long-term–I think Mr. Cuban is saying that an unpaid internship is a short-term “trial” period to determine whether a particular project or worker is capable of generating revenue for both the employee and the employer. In any case, don’t blame Mr. Cuban for trying to find hard workers. He’s just a realist, not a blood-sucking capitalist.
[This post has been slightly modified since its original publication.]
Mark’s HR representative is mostly correct. I handle labor and employment cases in California, and I tell my clients never to hire an [unpaid] intern unless they go through an authorized college program. Overall, as a business owner as well as a plaintiffs' employment lawyer, I see both the pro-business and pro-employee sides of employment issues.
Mr. Cuban and the minimum wage supporters are both correct. Mr. Cuban is correct in stating that potential employees have lost an opportunity because of the law’s expansive liability. The min-wage group is also correct when it contends that unpaid internships favor affluent and middle-class children who can afford to work without pay for some time. One can hold both positions without any contradiction.
Mr. Cuban, however, weakens his argument by refusing to acknowledge that internships favor more affluent kids. It is true that a poor kid from the ghetto could work two or three jobs–something Mr. Cuban did–and use public transportation to get valuable experience, but the overwhelming majority of the participants would not fall into the aforementioned category.
Mr. Cuban contends that it is not impossible for poor kids to participate and benefit from unpaid internships. Again, true, but when the overwhelming majority of unpaid interns are not poor kids or are supported by parents, it should be clear that unpaid internships tend to discriminate against poorer students, adults, and teenagers.
What is the solution? We need to revamp our entire educational system. Most education in America is no better than government-subsidized babysitting. When you compare American high school graduates with high school graduates from India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Norway, etc., the differences are stunning. Many international students specialize in a particular area and are familiar with a particular field when they graduate high school or college. American schools, in contrast, refuse to track students, equating “tracking” with stigmatizing. Other countries have no such qualms, which results in a less egalitarian, but more workforce-ready society.
America’s biggest problem (and positive) is its idealism and the idea that all students must be educated through college. Other countries actively weed out under-performers from colleges and even high schools. A more selective educational system will not go over very well in egalitarian-minded America until we realize we are failing our children in an increasingly globalized economy. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is doing some wonderful things with charter schools, but it’s not enough. Teachers’ unions–which represent teachers, i.e., government workers, not children–are very powerful and will resist any educational overhaul.
Ultimately, if you want to blame someone for our unfair economic system, which favors rich kids and penalizes poorer kids, blame the American educational system and the teachers’ unions. An American high school diploma and college degree mean nothing these days. Think about why our degrees and diplomas have become worthless in proving workforce readiness. (Hint: it isn’t because of Mark Cuban.) Think about why employers want to see people work on the job before hiring them as employees. Think about whether an unpaid internship is useful in determining whether an employee and employer may find each other mutually beneficial. Ask yourself, “Does a person’s willingness to work for free indicate dedication and long-term interest?” Also, remember that no one is saying that the intern’s unpaid status should be permanent or long-term–I think Mr. Cuban is saying that an unpaid internship is a short-term “trial” period to determine whether a particular project or worker is capable of generating revenue for both the employee and the employer. In any case, don’t blame Mr. Cuban for trying to find hard workers. He’s just a realist, not a blood-sucking capitalist.
[This post has been slightly modified since its original publication.]
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
My Experience as a Lawyer
From what I see, people either distrust corporations or the government. If you tell me which you distrust more, I can probably tell you whether you're a Republican or Democrat.
But if we set aside politics, the first problem with laws is that small businesses--an essential part of our economy--get entangled in regulations that should be designed only for major corporations.
The second problem is that these small businesses--many of them immigrant-owned--don't have litigation budgets or cannot afford to pay a lawyer in advance to comply with every technical law. It just seems unfair that Mr. Cambodian Donut Shop Owner has to learn about some technical violation only when he gets served with a lawsuit and has to go lawyer-hunting.
The third problem is that government doesn't do enough to help these small businesses, even as it taxes them heavily and relies on revenue from them.
The fourth problem--and why change is so difficult--is that major corporations essentially control much of the legislation (when they're not writing it) and heavily influence Congress.
Overall, there are many laws we ought to have, but not if they also apply to small businesses. It's a shame we don't impose minimum revenue requirements on small businesses before subjecting them to thousands of pages of hard-to-understand laws.
But if we set aside politics, the first problem with laws is that small businesses--an essential part of our economy--get entangled in regulations that should be designed only for major corporations.
The second problem is that these small businesses--many of them immigrant-owned--don't have litigation budgets or cannot afford to pay a lawyer in advance to comply with every technical law. It just seems unfair that Mr. Cambodian Donut Shop Owner has to learn about some technical violation only when he gets served with a lawsuit and has to go lawyer-hunting.
The third problem is that government doesn't do enough to help these small businesses, even as it taxes them heavily and relies on revenue from them.
The fourth problem--and why change is so difficult--is that major corporations essentially control much of the legislation (when they're not writing it) and heavily influence Congress.
Overall, there are many laws we ought to have, but not if they also apply to small businesses. It's a shame we don't impose minimum revenue requirements on small businesses before subjecting them to thousands of pages of hard-to-understand laws.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Thought Experiment: Utilitarianism
I am borrowing the following hypothetical from Slawek W.:
John invents a cure for cancer. It is a pill, very easily made, in fact, one could make it with ingredients found in every household. He successfully demonstrates the effectiveness of this cure on several volunteers, after which he announces to the world that he has no intention of ever releasing any information about this cure. He further announces that the instructions to produce this cure have been implanted somewhere in his body in a soluble capsule which will completely dissolve in a week along with the instructions.
Let's suppose that a surgical search for this implant would end John's life.
Let's further suppose that there is absolutely no way that you can reason with John to change his mind, and you cannot reverse engineer the cure by studying the cured patients.
Now, the general population is asked what the best course of action is in this situation. John has the knowledge to eradicate cancer forever but he has no intention of sharing this information for whatever reason. Also, there is no way to forcefully retrieve this information without causing John's death in the process.
What would you propose should be done and why? Would it matter if John was your 16 years old son?
__________
My exchange with Slawek is below:
Me: I am going to assume your scenario refers to all cancers, not just one strain of cancer. Why am I getting visions of Howard Roark and his architecture plans? Actually, that's the problem with your scenario: we're not talking about architecture--we're talking about someone unreasonably withholding vital information that we know will save millions of lives. Again, the key tipping point is the fact that we know that John has the cure for cancer. Thus, this isn't like torture, where we must question the validity of the information or whether the source has the information. Here, we know the cure for cancer exists within this man and will save millions of lives. At some point, shouldn't individual liberty give way to assured benefits for all of humankind--assuming all other avenues have been exhausted completely? Your situation is extremely complex because we are taking a human life, so we are not discussing liberty per se, but a man's life. My answer? I don't know.
Slawek: You needlessly see a dilemma here. Let me simplify this for you: John is your 16 year old son. Are you still unsure of what course of action is to be taken?
Me: Yes, because I cannot envision a scenario where my son would withhold life-sustaining medicine from the public when threatened with death. The more likely scenario is that I would represent him and demand billions of dollars in exchange for the cure. Private property is not always sacred--that's why we allow condemnation proceedings, as long as the government pays proper compensation.
Your hypothetical is complex because we're not talking about property, but about guaranteed results affecting human lives. Your scenario is an offshoot of the age-old question of whether you would shoot one person to save a thousand. When I first saw that question, I thought two things: 1) I wouldn't personally shoot anyone; 2) it wouldn't matter anyway, because someone cruel enough to offer that kind of Catch-22 choice would probably kill everyone regardless of my decision. So, what's my answer to your hypothetical? There is no good answer. That's my answer.
Slawek: Let me further constrain this scenario: nobody cruel or crazy can do anything to John. Whatever you decide will be done. What do you decide should be done?
If you have a solid foundation of morals and virtues, which is applied to every single individual in the same way then the answer is simple: nothing should be done. You cannot decide to deprive a man of his life (his property) for another man's benefit, unless you agree that another man can deprive you of yours. To agree to this is to reject your life.
If you cannot decide what you would do in this situation then your moral foundation is convoluted and contradictory. The test of your morality is the ability to apply it to every situation without making concessions or creating exceptions for certain situations. Whatever applies to another man, applies in the same way to you.
What if the subject in question would be me? The answer is clear unless you lack the basic instinct of the will to live.
Me: It isn't that simple, because under your scenario, all options lead to at least one guaranteed death. Overall, I do believe a person may act so unreasonably as to forfeit his right to live; however, your scenario is complex, because John isn't interfering in another person's life. He's holding back progress, but that's not interference per se--it's unreasonable unselfishness. Thus, the simplified question is whether unreasonable unselfishness may result in a justified loss of life. I will give you the lawyer's answer: "It depends."
Slawek: Your analysis is wrong. One option leads to murder, the other option leaves everything unchanged. The scenario is anything but complex. It poses simple questions: would you have your son killed to help millions of people? would you want people to kill you to help millions of people?
My answer is simple: no. I would not have anyone killed for the benefit of another man. no exceptions.
I could have also thrown in that your other son is dying of cancer which would really have made for an awkward scenario. The right answer in that case would have been the same: you don't take one man's property (life) to benefit another.
Me: Do you agree that not doing something may result in death? Here, not sharing the cure will result in either a) the guaranteed deaths of millions of people; or b) the guaranteed death of one person. Again, there is no dispute that all options lead to at least one death where action or inaction is the proximate cause of the death(s). Thus, to label one option"murder" and another "the refusal to sustain life" is splitting hairs. Overall, the question is whether unreasonable selfishness may cause a man to forfeit his right to life when his death will save millions of lives.
Let me throw the question back to you: would you shoot Hitler if you had the chance?
Slawek: Doing nothing does not result in anyone's death, it leaves the situation unchanged. Not helping someone is not the same thing as hurting them. It is not hair splitting, these are entirely different things.
The intentional murder of a person is an entirely different affair from not helping someone. You prosecute a man for murder, you don't prosecute a doctor who was on vacation when a man died of a heart attack.
Also, are you metaphorically comparing Hitler, a man who directed the murder of millions of innocent people, to John who did absolutely nothing?"
You can only decide to kill John for the benefit of other if you accept the premise that his life does not belong to him. By accepting this, you must also accept that your life does not belong to you. There cannot be a functioning society based on this premise.
Me: There is a difference between someone who lacks the power to save lives and someone who voluntarily refuses to save lives based on irrational and unreasonable selfishness.
In any case, if you wanted to prove a point about universal healthcare, you've used an ineffective hypothetical. The real issues with universal healthcare are cost control and levels of coverage, not a mad scientist's unreasonable refusal to save lives.
Slawek: Irrational and unreasonable? We'll never come to a conclusion if you start injecting subjectivity into this. Don't you find it irrational and unreasonably selfish for a heart surgeon to go on a 6 month vacation? He could be saving lives instead. How irrational and unreasonably selfish of him.
This has got nothing to do with universal health care. Not a single thing. I wanted for people who care to read it to realize that their moral framework is flawed and weak. It is in fact so weak that everyone that read this note would refuse to answer. Not give the wrong answer, mind you, but simply refuse to answer. You were intrigued enough to try to find flaws in the scenario, but still, you didn't answer. You've done every single thing not to answer so far.
You won't decide what to do in John's case because you'd see a contradiction in your actions. You don't want to kill John, but you do want millions of people to be saved from a terminal disease. But why do you just not say: kill John?
Bonus: more thought-provoking questions here.
John invents a cure for cancer. It is a pill, very easily made, in fact, one could make it with ingredients found in every household. He successfully demonstrates the effectiveness of this cure on several volunteers, after which he announces to the world that he has no intention of ever releasing any information about this cure. He further announces that the instructions to produce this cure have been implanted somewhere in his body in a soluble capsule which will completely dissolve in a week along with the instructions.
Let's suppose that a surgical search for this implant would end John's life.
Let's further suppose that there is absolutely no way that you can reason with John to change his mind, and you cannot reverse engineer the cure by studying the cured patients.
Now, the general population is asked what the best course of action is in this situation. John has the knowledge to eradicate cancer forever but he has no intention of sharing this information for whatever reason. Also, there is no way to forcefully retrieve this information without causing John's death in the process.
What would you propose should be done and why? Would it matter if John was your 16 years old son?
__________
My exchange with Slawek is below:
Me: I am going to assume your scenario refers to all cancers, not just one strain of cancer. Why am I getting visions of Howard Roark and his architecture plans? Actually, that's the problem with your scenario: we're not talking about architecture--we're talking about someone unreasonably withholding vital information that we know will save millions of lives. Again, the key tipping point is the fact that we know that John has the cure for cancer. Thus, this isn't like torture, where we must question the validity of the information or whether the source has the information. Here, we know the cure for cancer exists within this man and will save millions of lives. At some point, shouldn't individual liberty give way to assured benefits for all of humankind--assuming all other avenues have been exhausted completely? Your situation is extremely complex because we are taking a human life, so we are not discussing liberty per se, but a man's life. My answer? I don't know.
Slawek: You needlessly see a dilemma here. Let me simplify this for you: John is your 16 year old son. Are you still unsure of what course of action is to be taken?
Me: Yes, because I cannot envision a scenario where my son would withhold life-sustaining medicine from the public when threatened with death. The more likely scenario is that I would represent him and demand billions of dollars in exchange for the cure. Private property is not always sacred--that's why we allow condemnation proceedings, as long as the government pays proper compensation.
Your hypothetical is complex because we're not talking about property, but about guaranteed results affecting human lives. Your scenario is an offshoot of the age-old question of whether you would shoot one person to save a thousand. When I first saw that question, I thought two things: 1) I wouldn't personally shoot anyone; 2) it wouldn't matter anyway, because someone cruel enough to offer that kind of Catch-22 choice would probably kill everyone regardless of my decision. So, what's my answer to your hypothetical? There is no good answer. That's my answer.
Slawek: Let me further constrain this scenario: nobody cruel or crazy can do anything to John. Whatever you decide will be done. What do you decide should be done?
If you have a solid foundation of morals and virtues, which is applied to every single individual in the same way then the answer is simple: nothing should be done. You cannot decide to deprive a man of his life (his property) for another man's benefit, unless you agree that another man can deprive you of yours. To agree to this is to reject your life.
If you cannot decide what you would do in this situation then your moral foundation is convoluted and contradictory. The test of your morality is the ability to apply it to every situation without making concessions or creating exceptions for certain situations. Whatever applies to another man, applies in the same way to you.
What if the subject in question would be me? The answer is clear unless you lack the basic instinct of the will to live.
Me: It isn't that simple, because under your scenario, all options lead to at least one guaranteed death. Overall, I do believe a person may act so unreasonably as to forfeit his right to live; however, your scenario is complex, because John isn't interfering in another person's life. He's holding back progress, but that's not interference per se--it's unreasonable unselfishness. Thus, the simplified question is whether unreasonable unselfishness may result in a justified loss of life. I will give you the lawyer's answer: "It depends."
Slawek: Your analysis is wrong. One option leads to murder, the other option leaves everything unchanged. The scenario is anything but complex. It poses simple questions: would you have your son killed to help millions of people? would you want people to kill you to help millions of people?
My answer is simple: no. I would not have anyone killed for the benefit of another man. no exceptions.
I could have also thrown in that your other son is dying of cancer which would really have made for an awkward scenario. The right answer in that case would have been the same: you don't take one man's property (life) to benefit another.
Me: Do you agree that not doing something may result in death? Here, not sharing the cure will result in either a) the guaranteed deaths of millions of people; or b) the guaranteed death of one person. Again, there is no dispute that all options lead to at least one death where action or inaction is the proximate cause of the death(s). Thus, to label one option"murder" and another "the refusal to sustain life" is splitting hairs. Overall, the question is whether unreasonable selfishness may cause a man to forfeit his right to life when his death will save millions of lives.
Let me throw the question back to you: would you shoot Hitler if you had the chance?
Slawek: Doing nothing does not result in anyone's death, it leaves the situation unchanged. Not helping someone is not the same thing as hurting them. It is not hair splitting, these are entirely different things.
The intentional murder of a person is an entirely different affair from not helping someone. You prosecute a man for murder, you don't prosecute a doctor who was on vacation when a man died of a heart attack.
Also, are you metaphorically comparing Hitler, a man who directed the murder of millions of innocent people, to John who did absolutely nothing?"
You can only decide to kill John for the benefit of other if you accept the premise that his life does not belong to him. By accepting this, you must also accept that your life does not belong to you. There cannot be a functioning society based on this premise.
Me: There is a difference between someone who lacks the power to save lives and someone who voluntarily refuses to save lives based on irrational and unreasonable selfishness.
In any case, if you wanted to prove a point about universal healthcare, you've used an ineffective hypothetical. The real issues with universal healthcare are cost control and levels of coverage, not a mad scientist's unreasonable refusal to save lives.
Slawek: Irrational and unreasonable? We'll never come to a conclusion if you start injecting subjectivity into this. Don't you find it irrational and unreasonably selfish for a heart surgeon to go on a 6 month vacation? He could be saving lives instead. How irrational and unreasonably selfish of him.
This has got nothing to do with universal health care. Not a single thing. I wanted for people who care to read it to realize that their moral framework is flawed and weak. It is in fact so weak that everyone that read this note would refuse to answer. Not give the wrong answer, mind you, but simply refuse to answer. You were intrigued enough to try to find flaws in the scenario, but still, you didn't answer. You've done every single thing not to answer so far.
You won't decide what to do in John's case because you'd see a contradiction in your actions. You don't want to kill John, but you do want millions of people to be saved from a terminal disease. But why do you just not say: kill John?
Bonus: more thought-provoking questions here.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Funny Blog
This is a hilarious fake advice column. Make sure you read the one about the coworker who is never satisfied with his food. (Search for "lunch date.") I almost died laughing.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Old American Bills
This is what American money used to look like. Beautiful, isn't it?
I saw the money at a great donut shop in Campbell, CA. If you want to see for yourself, here is the address:
Maple Leaf Donuts
2329 S Winchester Blvd
Campbell, CA 95008
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Advice from a Spokane, WA Public Defender
The following was posted on craigslist on "2009-04-26, 7:43AM PDT." It's fascinating, because it shows you the side of law most people don't hear from--the under-appreciated and overworked public defender. Enjoy.
First, let me say I love my job and it is a privilege to work for my clients. I wish I could do more for them. That being said, there are a few things that need to be discussed.
You have the right to remain silent. So SHUT THE F*** UP. Those cops are completely serious when they say your statements can and will be used against you. There's just no need to babble on like it's a drink and dial session. They are just pretending to like you and be interested in you.
When you come to court, consider your dress. If you're charged with a DUI, don't wear a Budweiser shirt. If you have some miscellaneous drug charge, think twice about clothing with a marijuana leaf on it or a t-shirt with the "UniBonger" on it. Long sleeves are very nice for covering tattoos and track marks. Try not to be visibly drunk when you show up.
Consider bathing and brushing your teeth. This is just as a courtesy to me who has to stand by you in court. Smoking 5 generic cigarettes to cover up your bad breath is not the same as brushing. Try not to cough and spit on my while you speak and further transmit your strep, flu, and hepatitis A through Z.
I'm a lawyer, not your fairy godmother. I probably won't find a loophole or technicality for you, so don't be pissed off. I didn't beat up your girlfriend, steal that car, rob that liquor store, sell that crystal meth, or rape that 13 year old. By the time we meet, much of your fate has been sealed, so don't be too surprised by your limited options and that I'm the one telling you about them.
Don't think you'll improve my interest in your case by yelling at me, telling me I'm not doing anything for you, calling me a public pretender or complaining to my supervisor. This does not inspire me, it makes me hate you and want to work with you even less.
It does not help if you leave me nine messages in 17 minutes. Especially if you leave them all on Saturday night and early Sunday morning. This just makes me want to stab you in the eye when we finally meet.
For the guys: Don't think I'm amused when you flirt or offer to "do me." You can't successfully rob a convenience store, forge a signature, pawn stolen merchandise, get through a day without drinking, control your temper, or talk your way out of a routine traffic stop. I figure your performance in other areas is just as spectacular, and the thought of your shriveled unwashed body near me makes me want to kill you and then myself.
For the girls: I know your life is rougher than mine and you have no resources. I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you leave your abusive pimp/boyfriend, that you stop taking meth, or that your stop stealing sh*t. I do wish you'd stop beating the crap out of your kids and leaving your needles out for them to play with because you aren't allowing them to have a life that is any better than yours.
For the morons: Your second grade teacher was right: neatness counts. Just clean up! When you rob the store, don't leave your wallet. When you drive into the front of the bank, don't leave the front license plate. When you rape/assault/rob a woman on the street, don't leave behind your cell phone. After you abuse your girlfriend, don't leave a note saying that you're sorry.
If you are being chased by the cops and you have dope in your pocket, dump it. These cops are not geniuses. They are out of shape and want to go to Krispy Kreme and most of all go home. They will not scour the woods or the streets for your 2 grams of meth. But they will check your pockets, idiot. 2 grams is not worth six months of jail.
Don't be offended and say you were harassed because the security was following you all over the store. Girl, you were wearing an electronic ankle bracelet with your mini skirt. And you were stealing. That's not harassment, that's good store security.
And those kids you churn out: how is it possible? You're out there breeding like feral cats. What exactly is the attraction of having sex with other meth addicts? You are lacking in the most basic aspects of hygiene, deathly pale, greasy, grey-toothed, twitchy and covered with open sores. How can you be having sex? You make my baby-whoring crack head clients look positively radiant by comparison.
"I didn't put it all the way in." Not a defense.
"All the money is gone now." Not a defense
"The b*tch deserved it." Not a defense.
"But that dope was so stepped on, I barely got high." Not a defense.
"She didn't look thirteen." Possibly a defense; it depends.
"She didn't look six." Never a defense, you just need to die.
For those rare clients that say thank you, leave a voice mail, send a card or flowers, you are very welcome. I keep them all, and they keep me going more than my pitiful COLA increase.
For the idiots who ask me how I sleep at night: I sleep just fine, thank you. There's nothing wrong with any of my clients that could not have been fixed with money or the presence of at least one caring adult in their lives. But that window has closed, and that loss diminishes us all.
First, let me say I love my job and it is a privilege to work for my clients. I wish I could do more for them. That being said, there are a few things that need to be discussed.
You have the right to remain silent. So SHUT THE F*** UP. Those cops are completely serious when they say your statements can and will be used against you. There's just no need to babble on like it's a drink and dial session. They are just pretending to like you and be interested in you.
When you come to court, consider your dress. If you're charged with a DUI, don't wear a Budweiser shirt. If you have some miscellaneous drug charge, think twice about clothing with a marijuana leaf on it or a t-shirt with the "UniBonger" on it. Long sleeves are very nice for covering tattoos and track marks. Try not to be visibly drunk when you show up.
Consider bathing and brushing your teeth. This is just as a courtesy to me who has to stand by you in court. Smoking 5 generic cigarettes to cover up your bad breath is not the same as brushing. Try not to cough and spit on my while you speak and further transmit your strep, flu, and hepatitis A through Z.
I'm a lawyer, not your fairy godmother. I probably won't find a loophole or technicality for you, so don't be pissed off. I didn't beat up your girlfriend, steal that car, rob that liquor store, sell that crystal meth, or rape that 13 year old. By the time we meet, much of your fate has been sealed, so don't be too surprised by your limited options and that I'm the one telling you about them.
Don't think you'll improve my interest in your case by yelling at me, telling me I'm not doing anything for you, calling me a public pretender or complaining to my supervisor. This does not inspire me, it makes me hate you and want to work with you even less.
It does not help if you leave me nine messages in 17 minutes. Especially if you leave them all on Saturday night and early Sunday morning. This just makes me want to stab you in the eye when we finally meet.
For the guys: Don't think I'm amused when you flirt or offer to "do me." You can't successfully rob a convenience store, forge a signature, pawn stolen merchandise, get through a day without drinking, control your temper, or talk your way out of a routine traffic stop. I figure your performance in other areas is just as spectacular, and the thought of your shriveled unwashed body near me makes me want to kill you and then myself.
For the girls: I know your life is rougher than mine and you have no resources. I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you leave your abusive pimp/boyfriend, that you stop taking meth, or that your stop stealing sh*t. I do wish you'd stop beating the crap out of your kids and leaving your needles out for them to play with because you aren't allowing them to have a life that is any better than yours.
For the morons: Your second grade teacher was right: neatness counts. Just clean up! When you rob the store, don't leave your wallet. When you drive into the front of the bank, don't leave the front license plate. When you rape/assault/rob a woman on the street, don't leave behind your cell phone. After you abuse your girlfriend, don't leave a note saying that you're sorry.
If you are being chased by the cops and you have dope in your pocket, dump it. These cops are not geniuses. They are out of shape and want to go to Krispy Kreme and most of all go home. They will not scour the woods or the streets for your 2 grams of meth. But they will check your pockets, idiot. 2 grams is not worth six months of jail.
Don't be offended and say you were harassed because the security was following you all over the store. Girl, you were wearing an electronic ankle bracelet with your mini skirt. And you were stealing. That's not harassment, that's good store security.
And those kids you churn out: how is it possible? You're out there breeding like feral cats. What exactly is the attraction of having sex with other meth addicts? You are lacking in the most basic aspects of hygiene, deathly pale, greasy, grey-toothed, twitchy and covered with open sores. How can you be having sex? You make my baby-whoring crack head clients look positively radiant by comparison.
"I didn't put it all the way in." Not a defense.
"All the money is gone now." Not a defense
"The b*tch deserved it." Not a defense.
"But that dope was so stepped on, I barely got high." Not a defense.
"She didn't look thirteen." Possibly a defense; it depends.
"She didn't look six." Never a defense, you just need to die.
For those rare clients that say thank you, leave a voice mail, send a card or flowers, you are very welcome. I keep them all, and they keep me going more than my pitiful COLA increase.
For the idiots who ask me how I sleep at night: I sleep just fine, thank you. There's nothing wrong with any of my clients that could not have been fixed with money or the presence of at least one caring adult in their lives. But that window has closed, and that loss diminishes us all.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Tasers
A police officer, whom I consider a friend, recently pointed me to a taser that also records all incidents. See here for more on the Taser Axon. Although the Taser Axon is a step in the right direction, I dislike the ease with which the public has allowed these weapons to the police. We can argue about whether the taser is a potentially lethal device--many police officers will tell you that the taser only kills people who are on drugs or who have serious pre-existing conditions; however, tasers can and have killed people, making it a deadly device. After all, just because you shoot someone in the leg with a gun doesn't mean a gun is non-lethal, right?
Some people might argue that even if tasers and guns are both potentially lethal, it is clearly better for officers to use tasers instead of guns. I am not sure I agree. It is too tempting to resort to taser use instead of less violent means to subdue someone. Most human beings, when given an easier way to do a task, will take the easier route. That's the basis behind most innovation--making hard tasks easier. For example, once you get a washing machine, you won't wash clothes by hand, even if hand-washing will prolong the clothes' durability. By the same token, the taser makes subduing people much easier and much quicker. In the past, an officer might have tried to talk someone out of doing something or tried to explain why he was doing something, but now, there is no need. At the first sign of trouble, the officer can claim someone is resisting arrest and then use the taser.
Opinions on tasers vary, but perhaps we can analyze the issue through a few questions:
1. If the taser isn't an option, how should an officer react when someone fails to obey his/her commands immediately?
2. How did officers control and subdue people who disobeyed them pre-taser days? Has there been a significant change in officer safety since the introduction of the taser? What about citizen safety?
I think the answers to the questions above dictate how we feel about tasers.
Some people might argue that even if tasers and guns are both potentially lethal, it is clearly better for officers to use tasers instead of guns. I am not sure I agree. It is too tempting to resort to taser use instead of less violent means to subdue someone. Most human beings, when given an easier way to do a task, will take the easier route. That's the basis behind most innovation--making hard tasks easier. For example, once you get a washing machine, you won't wash clothes by hand, even if hand-washing will prolong the clothes' durability. By the same token, the taser makes subduing people much easier and much quicker. In the past, an officer might have tried to talk someone out of doing something or tried to explain why he was doing something, but now, there is no need. At the first sign of trouble, the officer can claim someone is resisting arrest and then use the taser.
Opinions on tasers vary, but perhaps we can analyze the issue through a few questions:
1. If the taser isn't an option, how should an officer react when someone fails to obey his/her commands immediately?
2. How did officers control and subdue people who disobeyed them pre-taser days? Has there been a significant change in officer safety since the introduction of the taser? What about citizen safety?
I think the answers to the questions above dictate how we feel about tasers.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story
I recently watched Muhammad Ali -- The Whole Story (1996), an incredible six hours journey through the life of Muhammad Ali. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. The only boxer who could go toe-to-toe with Ali was Ken Norton. No one else could handle Ali without getting beaten badly. When Ali was in his prime, only Joe Frazier and Ken Norton beat him. There are differences, however, in how Frazier and Norton won their fights. For example, Joe Frazier may have beaten Ali, but Frazier could not avoid getting hit. As a result, every time he and Ali fought, Ali's face looked clean as a whistle, while Frazier's face looked like it had been through a meat grinder. Meanwhile, Norton actually broke Ali's jaw in one fight.
2. Ali was successful at every stage of his career. He won an Olympic gold medal; won numerous amateur boxing awards; and beat every single serious professional contender through the age of 37 years old. When he went professional, he won the heavyweight championship three times, something no one else has ever done.
3. When George Foreman was younger, he seemed like nothing more than a surly thug. At one point, we see Foreman walking with his entourage in Zaire prior to the "Rumble in the Jungle." Someone, presumably a fan, asks to shake Foreman's hand, but Foreman's friend keeps her away and then happily reports he told her "she could shake my hand." Foreman sees what has happened and keeps walking. It is impossible to imagine the gregarious Muhammad Ali behaving similarly towards any of his fans. It is also incredible how Foreman completely reinvented himself in his old age, transforming from a reserved thug to a grandfatherly figure who sells fat-reducing cooking grills.
4. Before Larry Holmes became heavyweight champion, he was Muhammad Ali's training partner.
5. Were it not for Muhammad Ali, we would all be talking about Joe Frazier. When Frazier was young, he wasn't just an incredibly tough boxer--he was also gregarious and fun. Whereas other boxers took Muhammad Ali's comments seriously, Frazier played along with Ali. At one point, Frazier even tried to up Muhammad Ali's star power by singing a poem, and he displayed a surprisingly soulful voice.
6. When Ali was young, he was so quick, no one could hit him. After fifteen rounds in the ring, Ali's face would be unmarked. That's why he kept saying, "I'm pretty." Richard Pryor once remarked, "His punches are so fast you don't see 'em until they're coming back." It's hard to really understand the power and grace of Ali's speed until you see someone trying to hit him and failing miserably.
7. Ali's poetry: "I'm so bad, I make medicine sick."
1. The only boxer who could go toe-to-toe with Ali was Ken Norton. No one else could handle Ali without getting beaten badly. When Ali was in his prime, only Joe Frazier and Ken Norton beat him. There are differences, however, in how Frazier and Norton won their fights. For example, Joe Frazier may have beaten Ali, but Frazier could not avoid getting hit. As a result, every time he and Ali fought, Ali's face looked clean as a whistle, while Frazier's face looked like it had been through a meat grinder. Meanwhile, Norton actually broke Ali's jaw in one fight.
2. Ali was successful at every stage of his career. He won an Olympic gold medal; won numerous amateur boxing awards; and beat every single serious professional contender through the age of 37 years old. When he went professional, he won the heavyweight championship three times, something no one else has ever done.
3. When George Foreman was younger, he seemed like nothing more than a surly thug. At one point, we see Foreman walking with his entourage in Zaire prior to the "Rumble in the Jungle." Someone, presumably a fan, asks to shake Foreman's hand, but Foreman's friend keeps her away and then happily reports he told her "she could shake my hand." Foreman sees what has happened and keeps walking. It is impossible to imagine the gregarious Muhammad Ali behaving similarly towards any of his fans. It is also incredible how Foreman completely reinvented himself in his old age, transforming from a reserved thug to a grandfatherly figure who sells fat-reducing cooking grills.
4. Before Larry Holmes became heavyweight champion, he was Muhammad Ali's training partner.
5. Were it not for Muhammad Ali, we would all be talking about Joe Frazier. When Frazier was young, he wasn't just an incredibly tough boxer--he was also gregarious and fun. Whereas other boxers took Muhammad Ali's comments seriously, Frazier played along with Ali. At one point, Frazier even tried to up Muhammad Ali's star power by singing a poem, and he displayed a surprisingly soulful voice.
6. When Ali was young, he was so quick, no one could hit him. After fifteen rounds in the ring, Ali's face would be unmarked. That's why he kept saying, "I'm pretty." Richard Pryor once remarked, "His punches are so fast you don't see 'em until they're coming back." It's hard to really understand the power and grace of Ali's speed until you see someone trying to hit him and failing miserably.
7. Ali's poetry: "I'm so bad, I make medicine sick."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)