Carr v. Rosen: a New Development?

Local San Jose media is abuzz with the revelation that D.A. Dolores Carr is seeking to "boycott" a judge. A judge recently issued a decision accusing a Santa Clara County D.A. (not Carr) of ethical violations. Now, Carr apparently believes that this judge might be biased against her department in the future. (If a judge sanctioned you severely for ethical violations, would you want to appear in front of that judge again?) Carr then indicated she would use every California attorney's procedural right to strike the judge from future cases.

Dolores Carr is using a legitimate method (i.e., CCP 170.6 declarations) to get a judge she believes will be more favorable to her department. Every California lawyer, not just the D.A., has the absolute right to bounce one judge from his or her case in state court.

I don't know much about Carr or the judge, but it seems to me that if someone wants to criticize Carr, s/he should be examining the content of the judge's decision--not Carr's savvy use of legal procedure. For example, what exactly does the decision say? Did the judge say that Carr was directly involved in the ethical violations? What should Carr do to prevent similar situations from happening in the future?

Also, have previous SCC D.A.s been subjected to such decisions? If so, is there a disparity between the number of such decisions against Carr's office as compared to her predecessors?

In short, instead of focusing on the judge, we ought to be more concerned about future ethics violations. When such violations occur, criminals may go free. As a local voter, I would like Carr to indicate that she is taking the judge's decision seriously, is investigating what happened, and is taking specific measures to fix the problem.

Bonus: a local attorney explains his view of the situation:

Local lawyer: there is a constitutionally based, political process involved in the selection of superior court judges. When the DA sets up a blanket peremptory against one single judge, the DA is undermining the will of the people. The Governor and the voters have decided the judge is fit to preside over criminal cases, but the DA gets to decide otherwise by effect of the blanket peremptory. That's undemocratic and an abuse of power. It's beyond extreme as a matter of practice, as indicated in the article. It's also bare-knuckled intimidation against judges willing to stand-up to misconduct by the DAs office. The DAs are a nice bunch, but not infallible.

You don't need a comparative study to figure out how very wrong Carr is here, because it's a misuse of power a priori, without any possible justification given the remedies available under the system. The DA is there to prosecute crime, not exact payback on judges. And, if what the judge did was so beyond the pale, there's a remedy for that: it's called the ballot box.

Me: I am curious to see what the state bar does. If the D.A. committed gross misconduct, the bar should investigate and at least suspend him. I also wonder if the judge had a way of dealing with the misconduct that didn't involve letting an alleged child molester go free. For example, could the judge have referred the D.A. to the state bar instead of dismissing the case outright? Unfortunately, I don't know enough about criminal law to have an informed opinion. If, however, the judge was Constitutionally-able to send the case to a jury by excluding tainted evidence and/or including limiting instructions, I understand Carr's reaction.

William Faulkner's Words of Wisdom

Last time I tried, I couldn't handle William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. Even so, Faulkner's Nobel Prize acceptance speech is a must-read for all Americans, especially during our so-called "Perpetual War on Terror":

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart...

For more, see HERE.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (RCL) and Haiti: Insensitive or Sensible?

Many people have been criticizing Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (RCL) on blogs and Facebook based on this Guardian story. The story references a Royal Caribbean ship that docked on a Haitian beach during the post-earthquake crisis in Haiti. The outrage comes from the allegation that people who are enjoying themselves next door to such a large humanitarian crises are callous and inhuman. The outrage may be misplaced.

People criticizing Royal Caribbean and the passengers who docked in Haiti might should read the Guardian's article more carefully: "100% of the proceeds from the call at Labadee [will] be donated to the relief effort." From an objective standpoint, more donations to help the Haitans are a good thing, right? A friend of mine summed it up this way:

The cruise ship is in business to provide vacations for its clientele. It is what they do. They're not in the business of giving up their source of income to provide help...It is best for people to focus on what they're good at doing and for businesses to do what they're good at doing. Asking businesses to lose money to provide aid isn't reasonable.

Another friend of mine disagreed:

If that [humanitarian work, charity] is not what they do, then why bother dissembling? I say they port in Haiti and keep the profits!

The rebuttal:

Now that's just wrong. Its either your way or the highway? They give $1 and you want $100, so you tell them to keep their dollar? Is that productive? I say if you want to help, regardless of what it is, it is appreciated, and [most] people are grateful.

At this point, another person jumped in:

If I saw a guy selling shirts on 9/12 that said "Glad to not live in New York," and he said proceeds go to 9/11 victims, I'd still punch 'em in the face. There are just better ways to lend support without being insensitive too.

His comment seems to have energized others into participating:

People in Haiti depend on those tourism dollars. I think it would make things worse to not stop at that port. One day of not bringing tourists into the craft market at that port could mean no food for a family for a week for all we know.

Another person asked about what the more fortunate Haitians were doing to help each other:

This is an excellent reminder that the earthquake did not devastate all of Haiti (let alone Hispaniola) and that for some part of Haiti it's possible to conduct business as usual and return to one's home at the end of the day. What are these Haitians doing for their fellow citizens?

Personally, I felt that the people criticizing Royal Caribbean were being hypocritical. After all, we tend to forget that suffering happens 24-7, even when it's not televised:

Most Americans don't make any sacrifices to help the poor 340 days out of the year. Only when the telly shows a bunch of poor people getting really hurt do most Americans, God bless them, pay millions of dollars to help.

365 days out of the year, the majority of the world is suffering, and most Americans go about their daily business. When a child dies from starvation in Somalia, Americans go to Disneyland. When an American drone kills Afghan civilians, we go to the supermarket and choose from 50 different cereals. As malaria kills thousands of people every day, who are the main persons who help blunt this tragedy? Rich Americans like Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett, who have done more to help the poor than any of us will.

My point? People suffer every single day, and the way to help them isn't to cause Americans to become more poor or to have less fun. If we truly want to help the poor, as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the founders of Kiva have done, the goal should be to help Americans get rich so we have the money to help others. Only the strong can help the weak, in my humble opinion.

I've never been on a cruise, but hats off to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. for donating "100% of the proceeds from the call" at Labadee, Haiti to the relief effort. If I do have time to go on a cruise, I will remember RCL's generosity and give them special consideration when choosing among potential cruise ships.

Israel Provides Assistance to Haiti

Here is something that isn't getting much press. Israel is helping Haiti during its time of crisis. More here. From the article:

Palestinian-American journalist Ray Hanania discusses the Israeli aid effort: "200,000 Haitians died in an earthquake. [Israel] sent doctors and supplies to help. That is a good thing. Just because [Palestinians] are fighting with Israel doesn't mean we should sneer at that assistance to people in need...I wish Israel could show the same compassion for Palestinians. But Israel and Haiti are not at war and Israelis and Palestinians (mainly Hamas and the settlers) are."

Here is a link to a YouTube video showing some of Israel's relief efforts. (Hat tip to Rosa M.)

By the way, Ray Hanania is quite an interesting person. I don't have any direct links to give readers, but if you are interested in learning more about him, try a google search for "Ray Hanania."

Bonus: even the Palestinians are helping out. More here.

Random: Employment Law

Ah, the joys of employment law: Calling a woman a “b*tch,” by itself, may not prove sex discrimination. If the word “b*tch” is directed at a particular woman, rather than at women in general, it does not show a discriminatory animus against women. See Kriss v. Sprint Communications Co., LP (8th Cir. 1995) 58 F3d 1276, 1281.

American Stock Market

Just a short note: the U.S. stock market seems ready to start falling. Alicia Keys and I might see you at around 1000. (Right now, the S&P 500 is at 1150.) A 13% to 16% drop sounds about right. I have a long list of stocks I'd like to buy, and I've been waiting patiently since late 2009.

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

John Yoo's Greatest Hits

John Yoo told George W. Bush that he did not need Congressional approval to deploy troops or wage war, and that in some cases, Bush could interpret the definition of "torture" however he liked:

1. "The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11." [Emphasis added.]

2. "I do not think that the president is constitutionally required to get legislative authorization for launching military hostilities."

3. "I argue that the president has the sole authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions on behalf of the United States, rather than the courts or Congress."

Should You Go to Law School?

HERE is Felix Salmon's (depressing) outlook for law school grads. Ouch.

For the record, I am pleased with my alma mater, Santa Clara Law School.

Myth of the Underpaid Government Employee

Chris Martenson has an excellent article here about the ballooning size of American government.

Also, see here for an excellent article about the myth of the underpaid government employee.

Favorite Songs

Shirley Bassey's I (Who Have Nothing) [especially her performance in Turkey in October 1991 for the European Lottery, broadcasted by VRT Belgium]

George Michael's Father Figure

Sting's Englishman in New York

Alphaville's Forever Young

John Scatman's Scatman's World

Pet Shop Boys' Being Boring (extended mix)

Ben King's Stand by Me

Janet Jackson's Pleasure Principle

Honorable Mention: Maxi Priest's "Close to You"; L.A.D.'s "Ridin' Low"; Hassan Shamaizadeh's "Ye dokhtar daram shah nadareh"; LSG's "Curious";and Nâdiya & Enrique Iglesias' "Tired Of Being Sorry" (Laisse Le Destin L'emporter) Live @ NRJ Music Tour.

Interesting Quote from a Romantic

Deeply earnest and thoughtful people stand on shaky footing with the public. -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Dave Barry's Year in Review

Dave Barry's annual Year in Review is not to be missed. See HERE. I liked the reminders about North Korea. At first, I was surprised to see him leave out the Iranian protests, but then I realized there's no way to make a proper joke about the protests post-Neda.

Simple Truths: Immigration, Arizona, and Racism

Truth #2. Racism will probably exist forever.

Why did Arizona decide to target Mexican illegal immigrants while Californians set up sanctuary cities for them? They're just 750 miles apart, but they have two completely different attitudes. Why?

Human beings will always look for patterns to create a set of assumptions. We rely on this set of assumptions to get through our daily lives. In California, most residents see illegal immigrants working in restaurants and in other blue-collar positions. While some illegal immigrants in California commit crimes, the majority of them have come to California to work and make money. In short, the average California sees illegal immigrants in positions that appear non-threatening, i.e., food prep, hotel staff, gardeners, etc. In my experience here in San Jose, California, I've had positive experiences with most of the illegal immigrants I've come across.

So why do Arizonans have such a different mentality when it comes to illegal immigration? I'm speculating, but most Arizonans have probably had negative experiences with illegal immigrants. Based on various anecdotes, it appears drug dealers and gangs tend to send poor, unconnected illegal immigrants to Arizona, while many illegal immigrants who come to California already have family here and can avoid the drug/gang scene. As a result, Arizonans associate illegal immigration with criminality, while Californians associate illegal immigration with cheaper services. This difference in opinion has little to do with racism, and everything to do with different groups of people digesting different sets of patterns. In Arizona, illegal immigrants equal crime; in California, illegal immigrants equal cheaper services and people striving for the American Dream.

Human beings use patterns to form opinions, and residents of the two states are exposed to different patterns, causing them to form different opinions. We'd all like to think we are independent, but our brains know better. Each piece of information affects us, and over time, if we can create patterns, we will do so. For this reason, racism will always exist, and the way to minimize it is for the media not to display consistently negative images of any particular group, and for us to be careful not to expose ourselves to biased information. Easier said than done, of course.

For example, Europe, mindful of its history of oppressing and massacring minorities--which includes but is not limited to the Holocaust--has laws against hate speech and/or inciting racial/religious language. After years of producing anti-Jewish cartoons and anti-Semitic propaganda, Germany now bans Nazi symbols. The French government has even prosecuted famed starlet Bardot for her anti-Muslim comments. And while it is true that the BBC and other European media outlets are much less baiting than most American media, Europe's enlightened post-WWII policies have not reduced racism--if anything, racism is even more keen. In fact, I would argue that the average minority in America is much safer than the average minority in Europe in 2010. How is that possible when Europeans have done so much more to address problems of racism? The answer may be quite simple.

When Europeans decided to censor themselves, they gave instant authenticity to a small but vocal group of racists. By failing to address the causes of racism head-on--and relying on anti-hate laws--European policies succeeded in bringing formerly marginalized groups into the mainstream. Some Europeans recently elected Nazis to government positions. (I am not exaggerating--Nazi political parties still exist, and Europeans elected some of their members to office. See HERE for more, or just look up the British National Party.) In contrast, anti-minority Americans have no qualms about expressing their hatred, and plenty of places to do it. On a recent story featuring a Muslim female employee seeking a religious accommodation at Disney for her head-scarf, check out the following comments (August 23, 2010 Yahoo article titled "Hostess won't wear Disney's head scarf alternative"):

"I'm so tired of these people. Its a takeover one incident at a time. Make no mistake, that's the plan. For now its tolerate, later America will lose control over these people. Look at Europe. Shoot, look at the Middle East. Islam was relegated to a tiny portion of Saudi Arabia before their conquests. Why are we letting these people in the country? Do we need this crap?" [Note: American Muslims probably constitute just 3 to 4% of America's total population and just 3 to 4% of the European Union's total population.]

"No one is required to kow-tow to the mooslimes in any shape, form or degree! If they want to be a part of the REST of the world, then, they need to learn to play by OUR rules, not vice versa! We should NOT be making accomodations to ANY religion!" [Note: American law requires businesses of a certain size to accommodate religious beliefs when doing so does not constitute an undue hardship on the business.]

"islam IS NOT a religion. It is a Theocracy, and hence does not fall under the Freedom of Religion. PERIOD." [Note: the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, is not a theocracy.]

"This is yet another attempt from muslim extremests to attack our freedoms and divide our culture. They have done it very effectively in Europe, and now the want to take over our country with muslim laws." [Note: once again, the duty of religious accommodation is based on American laws.]

"Disney nor New York should bow down to these idiots, this is America not an Islam Country, its a christian based country.. if she does not want to comply then fire her and end of story. Im not Racist either im just saying rules are rules." [Note: see letter from George Washington disavowing the idea that the United States is exclusively a Christian country.]

"send her home and give her a pork clop [sic] to munch on on her way."

There are over 4,500 comments, almost all of them expressing similar sentiments, but you get the picture. You won't see similar comments on BBC, etc. So why do I think minorities in America are safer, on average, than in Europe? Because at least here, racist movements usually lack broad legitimacy. No one is censoring racists, so they cannot complain about being marginalized, and our willingness to give them a microphone prevents them from gaining European-style martyr status. Also, to the extent some Americans are spending their time writing hateful comments online, that's less time they can spend creating an American Nazi Party.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere good, unfortunately. In both continents, we see thousands, if not millions of people unable to articulate the laws of their own country. I blame our failing education system for our current cultural stratification. Kids, teenagers, and college students go through years of schooling and manage to learn almost nothing about the Constitution or basic economics. What do we expect? And education alone won't be a panacea--as an attorney practicing law in Santa Clara County, my experience has shown me that legal knowledge won't necessarily help mitigate racism, Islamophobia, incorrect assumptions, or hatred. (Even so, I continue to believe most problems are caused by failures in communication and transparency.)

At the end of the day, the only real solution to racism is kids and teenagers hanging out together. (Youth sports leagues are a fantastic place to start.) Unfortunately, true diversity doesn't exist in most places, making it impossible for diverse groups of children and teenagers to spend time together in friendly, collaborative environments. And don't count on true diversity happening anytime soon. Americans and Europeans are getting more and more segregated. In short, racism will probably always exist, and all we can do is be mindful of our brain's habit of forming patterns and recognize when we've formed patterns based on a small or biased selection of data.

Repeat after me: "There are almost 7 billion people on this planet. In someone's entire lifetime, his or her general opinions about any group of people will be based on perhaps 0.5 to 6% of the total population of any particular group. No reasonable person would believe that having personal knowledge about 0.5 to 6% of something qualifies him/her to form a reliable opinion, because the size of the data relative to the group is too small." Logically, the previous statement is absolutely true. It's too bad our brains aren't designed to run on logic, which is why racism will probably always exist.

Yahoo's Shareholder Meeting (2009)

I was going through some old pictures, and I found the picture above. It's one of my favorite pics from 2009. I still think Jerry Yang got a bad rap. If you want to blame someone for Yahoo's problems, blame Roy Bostock, not Jerry Yang. That's just my humble opinion.

My review of Yahoo's 2008 meeting is HERE.

Update: My review of Yahoo's 2010 meeting is HERE.

Michael Smith: Any More Comments on Haddadi?

Oh, karma is such a sweet, sweet thing. Michael Smith has been charged with grand theft. For more, see HERE. 

Michael Smith, of course, is the announcer who made ignorant/racist/stupid comments about Iranian NBA player Hamed Haddadi. For more on that incident, see HERE. 

Update: Smith was eventually acquitted of the charges, but, according to the article, "has declared bankruptcy." More HERE.

Islamic Scripture

Even if you stretch out your hand against me to kill me,
I shall not stretch out my hand against you to kill you,
for I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. (Sura 5:28)

Let there be no compulsion in religion.
Truth stands out clear from Error:
whoever rejects evil and believes in God
hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks.
And God heareth and knoweth all things.

-- The Holy Koran

Daily Show: Just Like Old Times

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Even Better Than the Real Thing
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Excellent Article on Affirmative Action

The December 2009 issue of the Washington Lawyer has the best article on affirmative action I've ever seen. To read "The Future of Affirmative Action," by Joan Indiana Rigdon, click HERE.

I wish the general media published more articles like this. The only reason I found this particular article is because of my affiliation with the D.C. bar, but there's no reason why the general public shouldn't have better access to reasoned, balanced discourse.

Update: Shelby Steele's thoughts on affirmative action are definitely worth reading. See HERE for more.

The Reasons for America's Unemployment Woes

All the chatter about Chicago economics vs. Keynesian economics is diverting attention from the real cause of America's high unemployment rate--namely, that the modern-day path to the middle-class increasingly runs through the government, and government can only create so many jobs.

According to The Atlantic, while "health care, education and government payrolls grew over the last ten years, the rest of the jobs market shrank." The previous sentence is somewhat redundant. Most education jobs are public jobs and therefore government jobs (Yes, Virginia, your local high school teacher and UC Davis professor are government workers--taxpayers pay their salaries and benefits). Also, a substantial portion of healthcare dollars are spent by governments--taxpayers finance Medicare, Medi-Cal, and a host of other public programs (HHS, NIH, etc.). Do you see the problem yet?

If not, you need to understand that government cannot expand indefinitely--at some point, the people paying into the system (i.e., the private sector) will be unable to support the number of people deriving a direct salary from taxpayer dollars (i.e., government workers and beneficiaries). If government directly or indirectly created most of the jobs in the last decade, where is the private sector growth that will sustain these new jobs? And how has government managed to expand when the December 2009 national unemployment rate is double what it was back in December 2007?

Obviously, Americans and their elected representatives have failed to create a consistent strategy of dealing with outsourcing and the decline of manufacturing. In the past, the bloated and leveraged financial sector shielded Americans from the decline in private-sector middle-class jobs. Now that the finance sector has imploded, the failures of job creation have been laid bare for all to see. Where do we go from here?

It used to be that a union job was the ticket to the middle class; however, union membership has been declining, except in the government sector, where many government employees have demanded and received substantial benefits unavailable to the general public (e.g., pensions, lifetime medical care, etc.). It's not surprising that unions have been losing members--as manufacturing declined, so did union membership. These days, unions tend to focus on low-level service workers, like hotel staff and janitorial workers, to fill their membership rosters. Janitorial work, now increasingly linked to a union, has almost become a better ticket to the middle class than many other available non-union jobs. In San Francisco, for example, unionized janitors and door attendants receive pensions and medical benefits, which is wonderful, except that most non-unionized workers do not have similar benefits and are at-will. When did joining a union or the government become the best path for an aspiring middle-class worker? And how did non-union, private sector employment become so unstable?

First, Americans became intellectually lazy. They didn't vote, and they didn't read the actual text of any proposed bills. A "record-breaking" California voter turnout is only around 75% of all eligible voters, and at the federal level, a 50% turnout is typical. (See HERE for more federal voting stats--only Colorado, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wyoming appear to have 70%+ voter turnout.) Basically, Americans relied on their government to look out for them, which, as we've seen, was a massive failure in judgment.

Second, lobbyists gained massive political influence, separating politicians from individual constituents. A lobbyist (or a union) can promise to deliver a substantial number of votes and/or dollars. A single voter, or even a small neighborhood association, cannot compete with a lobbyist and is therefore less influential. Accountability has become so poor, my own local representative, Pete Constant, lied to me. (See HERE for more on San Jose City Councilmember Pete Constant's vote against government transparency.) San Jose's mayor, Chuck Reed, also voted against government transparency. To add insult to injury, Reed ran for mayor on a government transparency/sunshine platform. By separating politicians from their constituents, lobbyists have made it easier for politicians to shirk their duties and promises.

Third, too many Americans still believe that a free lunch exists. Increasing government means we either have to print money--thereby digging ourselves and our children deeper in debt--or we have to cut services somewhere. As Peggy Noonan once wrote, the great baseline question in all political life is, "Whose ox is being gored?" In other words, "Who is getting screwed?" In California's last round of budget negotiations, the people who suffered were the ones who lacked political clout--the homeless, the poor, parks and recreation, the disabled, etc. In addition to cutting funding for the poor and disenfranchised, California also compounded problems by raising the sales tax, which disproportionately impacts the poor. There has to be a better way.

Fourth, Americans have failed to counter the political influence of public sector unions. As cities became larger, most Americans stopped getting to know their neighbors and failed to create community organizations that focused on holding their representatives accountable. In addition, the growing diversity within big cities, coupled with an ever-increasing workload, made it more difficult to create any real sense of community. Increasing social fragmentation meant that local citizens voiced their distress only in response to an emotional event, and even those victories appeared solely cosmetic. In San Jose, California, for example, residents protested over the name of a particular district. In Campbell, California, people protested about the allegedly offensive name of a doughnut shop.

Meanwhile, public employees--government lawyers, teachers, prison guards, police, etc.--have kept their eyes on more serious issues. Although the rights and wages of average private sector workers have been declining for decades, government workers have received generous pay raises and pensions. According to Steve Malanga, "A study...by the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public sector worker earns 46% more in total compensation than his counterpart in the private sector, largely because government employers spend 60% more per worker on benefits than counterparts in the private sector." In addition, according to the BLS, approximately 36% of government workers are represented by unions vs. 7% for non-government employees. Government workers were also nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than were private sector employees. As they say, membership has its benefits.

The list of special benefits goes on. Most government workers are not "at-will." Private sector workers, on the other hand, can be fired at any time, for any non-illegal reason. Most government workers are eligible for pensions; most private sector workers are not. I could continue, but the point is that public sector unions have no serious grass-roots counterweight and therefore no real check to their power. Much of Obama's stimulus package, for example, was used to maintain government jobs, not to create new jobs in the private sector. See HERE and HERE for more information. In short, while citizens have been busy protesting cosmetic issues, government workers--their numbers and political clout growing each year--have gotten their unions to give themselves benefits unavailable to the average worker.

Until we focus on creating middle class jobs that are not dependent on the government, we will only be putting band-aids on the open, festering wound that is our unemployment rate. Instead, we must ameliorate the sources of our economic problems, such as the unchecked influence of unionized government employees; declining wages and benefits in the private sector, especially among middle class workers; declining standards in the public education system, where education expenditures have increased even as high school diplomas and college degrees have become practically worthless; ballooning entitlement programs, especially Medicare; and a military budget so bloated and dishonest that Republican John McCain refused to vote for it, and Democrat Russ Feingold had this to say: "I strongly oppose this fiscally irresponsible and misguided bill...[It] will overburden our troops and will likely hurt, not help, our efforts to eliminate the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. And it is stuffed with earmarks and wasteful spending, such as $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s that the Defense Department does not want, and $130 million for a Presidential helicopter program that has been canceled." (Before any misguided readers chide me for not adding immigration to the aforementioned list, see HERE.)

So now what? I'm not usually the type to complain without offering solutions, but in this case, I just don't see any silver bullets. I have posted some suggestions before. See HERE if interested. Below are more suggestions:

1. Kill your television, or at least maim it. Limit television viewing to a maximum of three hours per day, especially if you have children. Mass media has become almost worthless as a tool of edification and too much television tends to destroy a child's ability to think critically (read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death for more on this topic). I've coached youth basketball for several years now, and it's always obvious which kids watch too much television. In every single instance, the children who are best able to follow directions and remain calm have parents who limit their television time.

2. Put the primary sponsoring legislator's name within each law or code section. For example, instead California Civil Code 1X, we would see California Civil Code 1X (J. Beall). Instead of 42 USC 26XX, we would see 42 U.S.C. 26XX (B. Boxer). The same rule should be followed with any amendments/changes to the law. As an attorney, I've read many inane and poorly-worded laws. Some laws are so convoluted, I'm certain a lobbyist typed up the darn thing while sitting on the toilet and emailed it to his favorite legislator minutes before a deadline.

Yet, there is no reason why legislators cannot pass clear, easy-to-understand laws. They just need better incentives to do so. To borrow an example from food labeling, when certain cities forced food manufacturers to disclose trans-fats, the disclosure created accountability, and companies reduced or eliminated trans-fats. Kraft (KFT), for example, responded by removing the offending fat from its Oreos. By the same token, if we clearly associate laws and amendments with a U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, or state legislator, they will work harder to reduce any offending fat/pork or convoluted language.

3. There is no reason governments should be able to have undefined and underfunded retirement benefits. If a 401(k) is good enough for Joe the Engineer, Joe the Doctor, and Joe the Plumber, then it should be good enough for Joe the Government Worker. Giving government workers pension in an era of increasing public sector unionization is asking for fiscal trouble. Just ask Warren Buffett: "Whatever pension-cost surprises are in store for shareholders down the road, these jolts will be surpassed many times over by those experienced by taxpayers. Public pension promises are huge and, in many cases, funding is woefully inadequate." (from Berkshire's 2007 Annual Letter)

Furthermore, if the majority of private sector workers do not receive lifetime medical benefits before the age of 65, neither should the majority of government workers. We need a more equal playing field, where the fortunes of government employees are closely tied to the fortunes of regular taxpayers. If that means government employees' salaries have to rise to match private sector salaries, so be it. I have no problem with teachers and police officers making more money, as long as the costs are obvious and not hidden through accounting gimmicks.

If anyone has any great ideas, now is the time to publicize them, and now is the time to hold politicians accountable. Without more vigorous citizen participation, we'll be stuck with the government's solution, which Dave Barry aptly summarizes this way: in 2009, "Washington, rejecting 'business as usual,' finally stopped trying to solve every problem by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at it and instead started trying to solve every problem by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it." So it goes.

Mad Men

"Sometimes, good things come, but there's no future in them." -- from Mad Men

I just saw the first six episodes of Mad Men. I give it just 3 out of 5 stars. It's a stylish show, and it's fun seeing the Kennedy/Nixon campaign in the background, but it just doesn't have enough to keep me captivated. The main character seems to rely on his mysterious background to hook the viewer, and I've never liked that soap-opera-ish media technique.

eBay's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2009)

Another oldie but goodie from 2009. eBay finally moved its meeting to San Jose, California after years of holding meetings out of state. Meeting Mr. Omidyar was one of the highlights of 2009 for me.

Note: for all the anti-Iranians out there, you should look up the ethnicity of eBay's founder.

Swine Flu Vaccine

Random: I recently got the H1N1 vaccine, and one temporary side effect for me was cotton/dry mouth. Weird. (HERE is a blog post on vaccines.)

Strategic Defaults: Happens All the Time in Corp America

Lowenstein delivers a great piece on strategic defaults HERE.

Wartime Safe Harbor: Oil Stocks?

Few people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but it's important to criticize him based on objective data and correctly translated statements. His statement about calling the Holocaust a "lie" has received massive airplay in the Western media. However, if readers review Al-Jazeera's translation of Ahmadinejad’s statements, it does not appear he was calling the Holocaust a lie--he was calling it a false pretext. There is a world of difference between “false pretext” and a “lie.” Of course, without a link to an actual speech, I am speculating, just like all non-native Farsi speakers are speculating when they repeat the hearsay that Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust.

In any case, if Mahmoud wanted to deny the Holocaust, Katie Couric gave him the perfect opportunity to do so in a 2009 interview–and he didn’t take the bait. If Mahmoud really doesn’t believe in the Holocaust, why didn't he just come out and say so during the interview?

If you are buying oil stocks (COP, XOM, etc.) and oil ETFs (USO, USL, etc.) because you believe Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust support a military action, you may want to consider the following argument:

1. Most Americans aren't native Farsi speakers.

2. Because most Americans aren't native Farsi speakers, they rely on other people to interpret Mahmoud's statements.

3. Most Americans rely on major Western media outlets to interpret and translate Mahmoud's statements.

4. Most major Western media outlets are profit-driven and tend to emphasize hyperbole to attract the most "eyeballs."

5. If two interpretations exist, major Western media outlets will probably emphasize the more exaggerated interpretation to attract the most "eyeballs."

6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad either said that the Holocaust is a "lie" or a "false pretext."

7. A "lie" and a "false pretext" are not the same things. For example, an employee may allege that his company's stated reason for termination--being late to work--is a false pretext to cover up its real reason. Calling the employee's lateness a "false pretext" does not mean the employee wasn't late--just that being late isn't the real reason for his termination. It's different than saying that the company is lying or the termination itself is a lie.

8. If Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was a false pretext for x, y, or z, it does not necessarily mean that he denied the Holocaust.

I will point out that Iran has existed for approximately 3,000 years and has not invaded another country in several centuries. As a result, I'm not losing any sleep over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or any of his idiotic statements. I'm more concerned that Congress and the Western media are exaggerating a so-called "Iranian threat" based on inflammatory interpretations and little hard evidence of a direct threat to Americans. The last time we allowed the media and our government to hype up a so-called threat, we lost 5,000+ American soldiers and our prestige.

Also, Iran has a history of giving safe harbor to Jews (read up on Esther, for example), so there is no ingrained history of tension between Jews and Iranians. Like Glenn Greenwald, I prefer to look at actions more than rhetoric when it comes to judging threats or making judgments. Will cooler heads prevail in 2010? Only time will tell, but if the Iranian response to Neda's killing is any indication, the Iranian people will overthrow their government soon enough. I predict that the ruling clergy will demote or oust Ahmadinejad to save themselves. I also predict Ali Larijani will gain greater influence in the coming years.

Bonus: Here is the transcript from Katie Couric's interview with Ahmadinejad.

FYI: if you want to castigate Ahmadinejad, HERE is the best link to use. Remember: I never said Ahmadinejad hasn't made idiotic, venomous statements in the past, just that we must question hearsay evidence and not rely on poor translations. Truth should always be the highest goal, especially when dealing with people the government wants to discredit.

Links

Here are some random links:

http://secondopinions.blogspot.com

http://persinfo.blogspot.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202436271998

http://atexasdefender.blogspot.com/

The quotes below are from "A Texas Defender's" website:

That flag flying over the courthouse, means that certain things are set in stone. Who we are, what we'll do, and what we won't. - Bruce Springsteen

As I grow older, I pay less attention to what people say. I just watch what they do. - Andrew Carnegie

When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion. - Abraham Lincoln

In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock. - Thomas Jefferson

Let us dare to read, think, speak and write. - John Adams, 1765

Movie Recommendation

I highly recommend 2008's American Teen. It's one of the most poignant documentaries I've ever seen. Some people have called it a real-life version of the Breakfast Club.

The Economist on Socrates

The Economist had a wonderful article on Socrates HERE:

In the coming years, many Athenians...would learn to loathe Socrates. His dialectic was indeed surprisingly negative. Typically, he became obsessed with defining something abstract—What is justice? What is virtue?—and then twisted words to dismantle any opinion offered...

Nonconformism became a heroic value in the Western tradition that Socrates helped to found, especially in societies such as America’s that value individualism...Sometimes truth and virtue require dissent and rebellion. Other times the survival or security of the group takes precedence and requires solidarity. If Socrates the free thinker belonged to a team, a club, a firm or a country today, he would never compromise his values, but he might well compromise his group...Democracies do betray themselves. Challengers such as Socrates exist to test society in its commitment to freedom and, if society fails the test, to remind it of the virtuous path.

The entire article is a must-read. Socrates, who was viewed as funny, seditious, and/or "condescending," is compared to Jon Stewart. The bottom line: people who question society, no matter the time period or location, tend to encounter resistance and sometimes death. The less resistance, the more free the society.