Thursday, November 12, 2009
SNL on Obama
My favorite parts were the Glenn Beck impersonation and the King of Pop line. If you liked this one, go to www.hulu.com and check out Jon Stewart's "11/3 project."
Volokh Conspiracy on TX v. California
More on Texas v. California here. (The comments are especially fun to read.)
Californians used to dismiss Texans as back-water denizens with too much color on their necks. How quickly things change. Here's Bill Watkins echoing Meg Whitman:
Bill Watkins, executive director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has calculated that once you adjust for population growth and inflation, the state government spent 26 percent more in 2007-08 than in 1997–98. Back then, “California had teachers. Prisoners were in jail. Health care was provided for those with the least resources.” Today, Watkins asks, “Are the roads 26 percent better? Are schools 26 percent better? What is 26 percent better?”
I subscribe to the print edition, so here's another interesting tidbit from William Voegeli:
California government workers retiring at age 55 received larger pensions than their counterparts in any other state (leaving aside the many states where retirement as early as 55 isn't even possible)...The latest report shows 5,115 lucky members in this six-figure club [of government retirees receiving at least $100,000 annual pensions]. The state's annual bill for polishing their gold watches is $610 million.
California's public sector unions have obviously done quite well for themselves. As one person commented, "The dues paid to Club California buy benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members." The worst part? No one seems to care. Even my highly educated friends, who should know better, don't care.
Californians used to dismiss Texans as back-water denizens with too much color on their necks. How quickly things change. Here's Bill Watkins echoing Meg Whitman:
Bill Watkins, executive director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has calculated that once you adjust for population growth and inflation, the state government spent 26 percent more in 2007-08 than in 1997–98. Back then, “California had teachers. Prisoners were in jail. Health care was provided for those with the least resources.” Today, Watkins asks, “Are the roads 26 percent better? Are schools 26 percent better? What is 26 percent better?”
I subscribe to the print edition, so here's another interesting tidbit from William Voegeli:
California government workers retiring at age 55 received larger pensions than their counterparts in any other state (leaving aside the many states where retirement as early as 55 isn't even possible)...The latest report shows 5,115 lucky members in this six-figure club [of government retirees receiving at least $100,000 annual pensions]. The state's annual bill for polishing their gold watches is $610 million.
California's public sector unions have obviously done quite well for themselves. As one person commented, "The dues paid to Club California buy benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members." The worst part? No one seems to care. Even my highly educated friends, who should know better, don't care.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Talk is Cheap
If we really cared about our soldiers, wouldn't we have brought them home before 5,000+ of them died in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Wouldn't we have overwhelmingly voted against George W. Bush the second time, knowing we would place our soldiers in harm's way?
On this day of remembrance, will we remember our soldiers who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just our soldiers at Fort Hood?
On this day, my thoughts are with Conik A. and his older brother, Nick, who are both serving in the military. I went to high school with both of them. Nic was ahead of me on the wrestling team, and he was too strong for me to take his varsity spot while he was on the team. I pray they both stay safe.
Governments and Secret Evidence: an Unholy, Unconstitutional Alliance?
This well-researched story in this month's Washington Lawyer magazine stunned me:
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/november_2009/privilege.cfm
[Khaled] El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was on vacation on New Year’s Eve 2003 in Macedonia when he was seized at a border crossing, tortured, and then flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan. He remained in a squalid cell for five months before his captors, realizing they had the wrong man, flew him to Albania and dumped him on a roadside, convinced no one would believe the story El-Masri would tell.
Want to guess who did this? It's the CIA. Under Dick Cheney, the CIA seems to have had no limits.
Mr. El-Masri sued, but the George W. Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege--a presidential power intended to prevent public disclosure of classified information--to dismiss the lawsuit.
One judge has pushed back. See Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc:
Judge Michael D. Hawkins said dismissing cases because the government alleges secrets are involved would “cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from demands and limits to the law.” The government’s argument has “no logical limit,” Hawkins wrote.
God bless judges that understand the judicial branch should check and limit unconstitutional use of executive power. The executive branch was never intended to be a dictatorship shielded from scrutiny. Whenever any government agency tries to hide information, my alarm bells go off. Right now, there's a five-alarm fire somewhere, and my taxpayer dollars are funding it.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/november_2009/privilege.cfm
[Khaled] El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was on vacation on New Year’s Eve 2003 in Macedonia when he was seized at a border crossing, tortured, and then flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan. He remained in a squalid cell for five months before his captors, realizing they had the wrong man, flew him to Albania and dumped him on a roadside, convinced no one would believe the story El-Masri would tell.
Want to guess who did this? It's the CIA. Under Dick Cheney, the CIA seems to have had no limits.
Mr. El-Masri sued, but the George W. Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege--a presidential power intended to prevent public disclosure of classified information--to dismiss the lawsuit.
One judge has pushed back. See Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc:
Judge Michael D. Hawkins said dismissing cases because the government alleges secrets are involved would “cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from demands and limits to the law.” The government’s argument has “no logical limit,” Hawkins wrote.
God bless judges that understand the judicial branch should check and limit unconstitutional use of executive power. The executive branch was never intended to be a dictatorship shielded from scrutiny. Whenever any government agency tries to hide information, my alarm bells go off. Right now, there's a five-alarm fire somewhere, and my taxpayer dollars are funding it.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
25 Random Things about Me
Note: added on November 10, 2015.
Written in 2009 on Facebook:
Written in 2009 on Facebook:
1. Two activities that changed my life were high school wrestling and coaching kids in basketball. Without wrestling, I wouldn't know how far I could push myself without breaking. I'd also be less willing to push myself to the limit when necessary. Without coaching, I'd have no idea how much children rely on adults to set standards of behavior. This realization caused me to become much more moderate.
2. My first year wrestling, I lost every single match. I almost won my last match, but couldn't hold onto a lead. Afterwards, I was so upset, I went to the bathroom and punched (kicked?) a hole through the wall. (Thankfully, I wasn't injured.) The next year, I won several matches, including a crucial match where I was supposed to be on injured reserve but came in at the last minute. Winning that match against Homestead High helped place my team in 3rd place in our league. That same year, my coach awarded me Most Valuable Frosh/Soph Wrestler. I wrestled all four years in high school, starting at the 152 lbs weight class and ending at the 171 lbs weight class.
3. I didn't experience my first kiss until college.
4. I didn't really study for the bar exam but somehow passed. Here's what happened: I opted for the take-home study program, and BarBri (an intensive study program) sent me the materials a week late. A week in bar prep time is an eternity. Realizing I could never catch up, I uncharacteristically gave up. Instead of studying, I played basketball in downtown Campbell with the SJSU women's team most days and spent most nights terrified and in fetal position. (I did manage to attend a 3 day PMBR course shortly before the bar exam, and I also took the Conviser Mini-Review with me to the hotel.)
The first day of the exam, I ticked off everyone sitting near me. I was making jokes and smiling, and they did not appreciate my insouciance. Everything I said was met with stone cold silence and glares. Anyway, the first day, the questions seemed pretty easy. I went back to the hotel, ate at Hungry Hunter, and read the Conviser study guide until 4AM. The next day, the subjects on the exam happened to be exactly the ones I'd studied.
The second day, I studied the Conviser mini-review from 12AM to 4AM. Well, the third day, the subjects once again happened to be mostly the ones I'd studied a few hours before. When I drove home after the exam, I'd had about 5 hours of sleep in three days and almost rear-ended a BMW. Later, when I checked online and found out I'd passed, I was so happy, I picked up the law firm's secretary and gave her a bear hug.
5. After taking the bar exam, my buddy (Joe) and I saw most of western Europe with no plans, no maps, and not much money. We went to London, took the Chunnel (aka Channel Tunnel) to Brussels and went clockwise. We ended up in Paris and took the Chunnel back to London. In one month, we managed to see almost every capital in Western Europe, walked 10+ miles a day, slept on benches (sometimes, we couldn't find an open hotel), got into a screaming match in Berlin (we made up later), and just had an incredible time. And before you ask, we did _not_ partake in any Amsterdam coffeeshops. My fav city was Venice, Italy. (I love London, too, but that's like a second home to me, so I don't count it in my list of favs.)
6. I went to first grade in Scotland. I have a pic of myself in full Scottish garb, kilt and all, to prove it.
7. I have a younger sister who is much, much smarter than me. She graduated from MIT and is getting her PhD at Harvard right now.
8. For a specific reason you may notice if you know me, I tend to prefer solitary activities, like reading or watching films. Socially, sometimes I feel I'm the male version of Eliza Doolittle.
9. I love reading. You will hardly ever see me without a book or newspaper. Some of my fav times are spent reading a book or newspaper in a bookstore while drinking a white choc mocha or cappuccino.
10. I welcome the J-Lo / Jessica Simpson / Kim Kardashian movement away from the Kate Moss era.
11. I've seen so many divorces in family court, I am fairly certain I will not get married. Other lawyers were paying me 100+ dollars to show up and do routine appearances for them in family matters. After a few months, I got so depressed, I stopped going. This was when I was first starting out on my own and desperately needed the money. Let me give you an example of how bad things can get. I went to court in Hayward (or somewhere in Alameda County) and the only issue to be decided was how to divide the couple's *debt*--they had no assets. After I got a continuance, the ex-husband was so upset, he angrily told me he was going to hire the best lawyer in town to beat his ex-wife in the case (with what money?). It would be comical if it wasn't so sad. After seeing so much irrational behavior, I do not want to put myself in a similar position. This doesn't, however, preclude me from being in a committed relationship--it just means I don't want some stranger/judge telling me what to do if things fall apart.
12. I paid off my private law school (Santa Clara Law) loans myself. It took about three years of eating nothing but PB&J sandwiches and staying in the office 12 hours a day (when you do nothing but work and then go home and sleep right after work, you don't have any opportunities to spend money). When I would forget my bag lunch, I wouldn't eat that day.
13. I have never bought a new car and probably never will. I bought my last car from a rental car company's fleet and paid cash for it.
14. If I could make a living doing it, I would love to write about public companies and finance instead of practicing law.
15. I am convinced women pick men based on height. I had no success with women at all until I hit 6 feet. Not much about me changed--just my height. So if I had to answer Freud's question about what women want, I would say it's pretty simple: 1) be tall; 2) don't be a jerk; and 3) have a job.
16. I'd like to think I have no ego. In a rebuke to sociologists and anthropologists everywhere, I'm not status-conscious at all. I don't buy nice labels or nice cars to look good. If someone hurts me, I just move on. I've realized over the years this makes me somewhat unusual. I genuinely don't care what other people do or say, as long as physical violence isn't involved. The only time I get upset is when people in power clearly abuse their discretion or authority. George Carlin would be proud.
17. I sometimes think about moving to a small town, buying a small house, and spending my days reading books and playing basketball. It's almost like deep down, I lack aggressive ambition, despite my degrees and high work ethic. Anthony Bourdain summed up this phenomenon perfectly, except I would *not* be doing the Mary Jane, and I'm not yet completely afraid of "that guy":
"I know there's deep inside (me) some lazy hippie who'd be perfectly happy to lay on the couch, smoke weed and watch The Simpsons all day - I'm really afraid of that guy. I don't like him. I don't want him around. And my whole life is kind of constructed to avoid reverting to that guy: Stay busy. Stay focused. Try not to mess up."
18. I am probably most happy when playing basketball. Seeing your work--whether on defense or offense--create immediate results is awesome.
19. I've had my own law firm since Nov(?) 2004. I hope I can keep it for a long time. If you're interested, go to www.rafatlaw.com for more info. [Update: closed the business in 2010.]
20. I am unfortunately ultra-cheap, er, frugal. I pick up pennies and change on the ground when I see them. I park about 1/2 a mile away from my office to pay lower parking fees. I own only a few suits, most of them bought at a Gilroy outlet during a sale. I don't think I've ever spent more than 300 dollars a year on clothing, and that includes suits. I told my family I wanted nothing for X-Mas or my birthday because I didn't want to spend any money on gifts for them, and we were all old enough to buy our own stuff. Recently, when I found out how much a crown cost, I asked my dentist to remove the entire tooth (the dentist and the other dentist I went to for a second opinion wouldn't do it, so I ended up (grudgingly) paying the 900 dollars). My largest monthly expenses are food-related. Neal Templin would be proud. So would Jeff Yeager.
21. I dislike driving long distances. The human body was not designed to be sitting for hours in a car. Also, the fact that I get lost all the time might have something to do with it.
22. My travels have taught me something I think is absolutely true--under normal circumstances, all human beings, no matter where they live, what they believe, and what they look like, all want the same things--a home, a job they like or are good at, someone to love, and someone to listen to them. Any differences are a matter of degree, not substance. The key is figuring out the other person's/culture's communication style so you can understand what's really being said.
Bill Simmons in S.F.
As part of his book tour, Bill Simmons visited S.F. on November 5, 2009. He apologized about not wearing his Golden State Warriors jersey, and then mistakenly praised Stephen Jackson. The crowd booed immediately at the sound of Stephen Jackson's name. (Jackson has publicly demanded a trade.) Apparently, Simmons interpreted the boos as a perfect segue to mention Chris Cohan, the much-hated Golden State Warriors owner. Simmons asked about the proper spelling of Cohan's name, which few people knew off the top of their heads. Then, without further ado, he sat down and started signing books.
Although Simmons is in his forties, he looks (and dresses) like he's in his late twenties. I suppose if my job consisted of watching sports and going to Vegas, I'd look perpetually young, too.
I read some of Simmons' book, and I liked it. He trashes my favorite player, Reggie Miller, but he does it in a way that allows me to still like him.
Monday, November 9, 2009
How to Judge a District Attorney
[Note: I revised the last two paragraphs to update facts relating to Vahid Hosseini's prosecution.]
Shouldn't the main factors used to judge a D.A.'s success be 1) winning trials; 2) managing costs, i.e. winning cases without overspending taxpayer monies; 3) not prosecuting unwarranted cases; and 4) promoting settlement when non-violent crimes, such as drug possession, are involved?
On these four factors, where is the evidence that Santa Clara County D.A. Dolores Carr has failed? Where is the evidence that challenger Jeff Rosen will do a better job than Attorney Carr on these four factors? [Update: at this point, I had not met Mr. Rosen. Having met Mr. Rosen, I can tell you that he seems very motivated to bring a new culture to the D.A.'s office.]
I don't have a dog in the D.A. race, but I am curious why the SJ Mercury dislikes Attorney Carr so much. Scott Herhold, one of my favorite local columnists, trashed her in a recent column. See here. He also wrote, "I personally like to think I'm near the top of her enemies list." (Wow.)
I know Attorney Carr's husband was involved in an ethics issue, but I haven't heard of the D.A.'s office botching any major cases (Maybe I've missed something--and I consider the DeAnza case to be more of a tragedy than a missed opportunity to prosecute). I know prosecutor Benjamin T. Field allegedly committed ethical violations, but that wasn't necessarily Attorney Carr's fault.
Bottom line: the legal profession is monolithic enough as it is. District Attorneys tend to be hyper-aggressive, egotistical men with Superman complexes. (See here for further explanation.) I like the idea of having a female D.A., even though I realize gender has nothing to do with competence. Plus, I don't know much about challenger Jeff Rosen, and it seems to me that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
At the same time, I am a harshly judgmental voter. Some readers may remember that the Santa Clara County D.A.'s office transferred the prosecution of Vahid Hosseini's alleged killers to the state AG's Office (Attorney Geoff Lauter?). The D.A.'s office may have transferred the case to avoid making Attorney Carr the centerpiece of an "O.J. Simpson, 'local law enforcement is corrupt'" defense strategy. If, however, the AG's Office fails to convict the killer and his alleged accomplices, I may vote against the incumbent D.A. Is that unfair, given that Attorney Carr's office is no longer responsible for the Vahid Hosseini case? Perhaps. But to me and many others, not putting Vahid Hosseini's killer(s) in jail would be a monumental failure worthy of widespread blame.
[Update on November 10, 2009: One person has questioned my comments regarding the transfer of the Vahid Hosseini case. Apparently, Attorney Carr's office would not have had to transfer the case to the AG if the Mercury News hadn't raised issues about a possible conflict with Attorney Carr's husband being hired by Mrs. Hosseini's civil lawyer. (Mrs. Hosseini hired Attorney Carr's husband to investigate protocols used by bank security personnel in a separate civil lawsuit.) In short, Attorney Carr may have transferred the Hosseini case not because she had to do so, but because she wished to avoid the appearance of impropriety.]
Updates on June 22, 2010 and April 7, 2011: Mr. Rosen won the D.A.'s race by a razor-thin margin. More here on his swearing-in ceremony and an important change in the prosecution's procedures.
Shouldn't the main factors used to judge a D.A.'s success be 1) winning trials; 2) managing costs, i.e. winning cases without overspending taxpayer monies; 3) not prosecuting unwarranted cases; and 4) promoting settlement when non-violent crimes, such as drug possession, are involved?
On these four factors, where is the evidence that Santa Clara County D.A. Dolores Carr has failed? Where is the evidence that challenger Jeff Rosen will do a better job than Attorney Carr on these four factors? [Update: at this point, I had not met Mr. Rosen. Having met Mr. Rosen, I can tell you that he seems very motivated to bring a new culture to the D.A.'s office.]
I don't have a dog in the D.A. race, but I am curious why the SJ Mercury dislikes Attorney Carr so much. Scott Herhold, one of my favorite local columnists, trashed her in a recent column. See here. He also wrote, "I personally like to think I'm near the top of her enemies list." (Wow.)
I know Attorney Carr's husband was involved in an ethics issue, but I haven't heard of the D.A.'s office botching any major cases (Maybe I've missed something--and I consider the DeAnza case to be more of a tragedy than a missed opportunity to prosecute). I know prosecutor Benjamin T. Field allegedly committed ethical violations, but that wasn't necessarily Attorney Carr's fault.
Bottom line: the legal profession is monolithic enough as it is. District Attorneys tend to be hyper-aggressive, egotistical men with Superman complexes. (See here for further explanation.) I like the idea of having a female D.A., even though I realize gender has nothing to do with competence. Plus, I don't know much about challenger Jeff Rosen, and it seems to me that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
At the same time, I am a harshly judgmental voter. Some readers may remember that the Santa Clara County D.A.'s office transferred the prosecution of Vahid Hosseini's alleged killers to the state AG's Office (Attorney Geoff Lauter?). The D.A.'s office may have transferred the case to avoid making Attorney Carr the centerpiece of an "O.J. Simpson, 'local law enforcement is corrupt'" defense strategy. If, however, the AG's Office fails to convict the killer and his alleged accomplices, I may vote against the incumbent D.A. Is that unfair, given that Attorney Carr's office is no longer responsible for the Vahid Hosseini case? Perhaps. But to me and many others, not putting Vahid Hosseini's killer(s) in jail would be a monumental failure worthy of widespread blame.
[Update on November 10, 2009: One person has questioned my comments regarding the transfer of the Vahid Hosseini case. Apparently, Attorney Carr's office would not have had to transfer the case to the AG if the Mercury News hadn't raised issues about a possible conflict with Attorney Carr's husband being hired by Mrs. Hosseini's civil lawyer. (Mrs. Hosseini hired Attorney Carr's husband to investigate protocols used by bank security personnel in a separate civil lawsuit.) In short, Attorney Carr may have transferred the Hosseini case not because she had to do so, but because she wished to avoid the appearance of impropriety.]
Updates on June 22, 2010 and April 7, 2011: Mr. Rosen won the D.A.'s race by a razor-thin margin. More here on his swearing-in ceremony and an important change in the prosecution's procedures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)