I am often asked why soccer is not more popular in America. Soccer is certainly popular as a player's sport. My club has almost 3,000 players in South Austin alone, while the South Texas Youth Soccer Association has over 100,000 players. Those numbers should stand up to any other participatory sport. However, the attention paid to professional futbol pales in comparison to that given to professional football.
The Spanish national team may have found a way to make soccer more popular in this country. The Spanish team was sponsored by beermaker Cruzcampo. The sponsor promised that if the team made it past the quarter-finals, that each player would receive their weight in beer. The promise worked. The team won the European championship, bringing the country's first major title in over 40 years.
The team had a special weigh-in to see how many beer they would receive. Goalkeeper Pepe Reina earned the most beer at 211 pounds, while slight forward Santi Cazorla will receive only 155 pounds of beer. Over all, the team will receive 5,200 bottles of beer. Now there is an example that Americans might notice.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Tale of Voter Fraud and Two Democratic Secretaries of State
Every election cycle there are charges and counter-charges related to voter fraud and voter suppression. Republicans fear that Democrats are padding the voter rolls with non-existent or ineligible voters while Democrats claim that Republicans are trying to discourage the disenfranchised from exercising their franchise. As in prior years, much of the focus is on ACORN, the Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now.
ACORN proudly announces that it has registered 1.3 million new voters this year. However, the legitimacy of many of these registrations is in doubt. In Indianapolis, 105% of the eligible voters have registered. In Las Vegas, the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys appeared on registration forms submitted by ACORN. In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 applications at the last moment which included dead people, a person registered as living at a fast food restaurant and multiple applications signed for different registrants in the same hand. In other instances, the same person has registered up to 72 times at the insistence of ACORN workers.
While ACORN bills itself as a non-partisan organization, the Obama campaign paid it $800,000 for get out the vote operations during the primary elections and ACORN has endorsed Obama. An ACORN worker interviewed by Pelestra.net a student news network, stated that she was registering voters so that they would vote for Obama.
There are currently investigations into ACORN activities in ten battleground states. According to ACORN lawyer Brian Moller, “We believe their purpose is to attack ACORN and suppress votes. We think that by attacking ACORN that they are going to discourage people who have may have registered with ACORN from voting.”
The reaction to ACORN’s questionable activities varies dramatically from state to state. In Las Vegas, where ACORN registered 80,000 new voters including Tony Romo and TO Owens, Democratic Secretary of State Ross Miller led an effort to have law enforcement authorities raid ACORN’s office and seize evidence. ACORN responded that this and other investigations were "part of a carefully choreographed campaign to intimidate the largest organization of black and Hispanic poor people in the country."
The story in Ohio was somewhat different. ACCORN claims to have registered 247,335 new voters in this critical swing state. However, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that ACORN officials admitted that they lacked the resources to identify fraudulent registrations.
The response of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was rather lethargic. Under the Helping Americans Vote Act, the State was required to enter into an agreement with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to identify discrepancies in voter registrations. The Secretary of State entered into such an agreement. However, when a mismatch occurred, it took no further action other than noting it in its records. The Secretary of State claimed that county boards of elections could perform this task, but had to admit that they had no ability to search the records to find non-conforming records. In other words, the Secretary of State would search for voter registrations which did not match up to the state’s database and then took no further action to investigate fraudulent registrations. The United States District Court concluded that Secretary of State Brunner was violating the law.
Opinion and Order, Ohio Republican Party, et al vs. Jennifer, Case No. 2:08-cv-00913 (S.D. Ohio 10/9/08), p. 11.
Secretary Brunner’s attempts to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the law might be justified were it not for other examples of partisan bias. Secretary Brunner tried to disallow absentee ballots submitted by the McCain campaign for the reason that a box not required by law had not been checked. The Ohio Supreme Court ordered her to count the ballots. Additionally, Secretary Brunner had to be restrained from excluding observers from locations conducting same day voter registration and early voting.
While ACORN claims that it is merely helping the underprivileged to vote, it seems likely that hundreds of thousands of false voter registration forms are being submitted. If state officials turn a blind eye to these applications, as almost happened in Ohio, it stands to reason that some number of fraudulent votes would be cast. In a close election, the integrity of the system requires that election officials carefully scrutinize voter registrations to ensure that one man, one vote does not turn into one man, dozens of votes. When partisan organizations like ACORN facilitate fraudulent registrations (which certainly appears to be happening), election officials and law enforcement should be diligent rather than turning a blind eye.
ACORN proudly announces that it has registered 1.3 million new voters this year. However, the legitimacy of many of these registrations is in doubt. In Indianapolis, 105% of the eligible voters have registered. In Las Vegas, the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys appeared on registration forms submitted by ACORN. In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 applications at the last moment which included dead people, a person registered as living at a fast food restaurant and multiple applications signed for different registrants in the same hand. In other instances, the same person has registered up to 72 times at the insistence of ACORN workers.
While ACORN bills itself as a non-partisan organization, the Obama campaign paid it $800,000 for get out the vote operations during the primary elections and ACORN has endorsed Obama. An ACORN worker interviewed by Pelestra.net a student news network, stated that she was registering voters so that they would vote for Obama.
There are currently investigations into ACORN activities in ten battleground states. According to ACORN lawyer Brian Moller, “We believe their purpose is to attack ACORN and suppress votes. We think that by attacking ACORN that they are going to discourage people who have may have registered with ACORN from voting.”
The reaction to ACORN’s questionable activities varies dramatically from state to state. In Las Vegas, where ACORN registered 80,000 new voters including Tony Romo and TO Owens, Democratic Secretary of State Ross Miller led an effort to have law enforcement authorities raid ACORN’s office and seize evidence. ACORN responded that this and other investigations were "part of a carefully choreographed campaign to intimidate the largest organization of black and Hispanic poor people in the country."
The story in Ohio was somewhat different. ACCORN claims to have registered 247,335 new voters in this critical swing state. However, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that ACORN officials admitted that they lacked the resources to identify fraudulent registrations.
The response of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was rather lethargic. Under the Helping Americans Vote Act, the State was required to enter into an agreement with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to identify discrepancies in voter registrations. The Secretary of State entered into such an agreement. However, when a mismatch occurred, it took no further action other than noting it in its records. The Secretary of State claimed that county boards of elections could perform this task, but had to admit that they had no ability to search the records to find non-conforming records. In other words, the Secretary of State would search for voter registrations which did not match up to the state’s database and then took no further action to investigate fraudulent registrations. The United States District Court concluded that Secretary of State Brunner was violating the law.
Based upon this information, it is clear to the Court that Defendant is not in compliance with HAVA, which requires matching for the purpose of verifying the identity of the voter before counting that person’s vote. As Plaintiffs have argued, the State is not verifying the voter registration information for entries when there is a mismatch, and the county boards of elections are not able to investigate the mismatches to determine voter eligibility because they have no effective way to identify or isolate the mismatches from the rest of the pile. Under this system, HAVA’s matching and verification requirements serve no identifiable purpose and are rendered meaningless.
Opinion and Order, Ohio Republican Party, et al vs. Jennifer, Case No. 2:08-cv-00913 (S.D. Ohio 10/9/08), p. 11.
Secretary Brunner’s attempts to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the law might be justified were it not for other examples of partisan bias. Secretary Brunner tried to disallow absentee ballots submitted by the McCain campaign for the reason that a box not required by law had not been checked. The Ohio Supreme Court ordered her to count the ballots. Additionally, Secretary Brunner had to be restrained from excluding observers from locations conducting same day voter registration and early voting.
While ACORN claims that it is merely helping the underprivileged to vote, it seems likely that hundreds of thousands of false voter registration forms are being submitted. If state officials turn a blind eye to these applications, as almost happened in Ohio, it stands to reason that some number of fraudulent votes would be cast. In a close election, the integrity of the system requires that election officials carefully scrutinize voter registrations to ensure that one man, one vote does not turn into one man, dozens of votes. When partisan organizations like ACORN facilitate fraudulent registrations (which certainly appears to be happening), election officials and law enforcement should be diligent rather than turning a blind eye.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
A Pox On Both Your Candidates!
This election cycle, there is a lot of spin flying around the internet. Hardly a day goes by without someone sending me a warning about the dangers of Barack Obama or pointing out some flaw with Sarah Palin. For this article, I am going to focus on what I dislike about both candidates’ positions. I will follow up with one about what I like about each (that will take longer to research). I don’t expect my handful of readers to agree with my positions, but I hope that it will encourage you to discuss what you like and dislike about the candidates.
Barack Obama
Energy
Sen. Obama recognizes the need to be free from dependence on foreign oil. He just opposes anything other than renewable sources of energy. He boldly states the goal to achieve 10% renewable energy by 2012 and 25% by 2025. However, he is unclear about how he will get there aside from investing $150 billion over the next ten years. On the other hand, he opposes offshore drilling, while stating that he favors nuclear energy in principle while opposing it in practice. Meanwhile, his short term plan is to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use that money to give a tax credit to citizens. Is that smart? A windfall profits tax will raise the price of oil and will discourage new exploration, just as it did in the Carter administration. Thus, we are going to impose higher taxes on the oil companies, which will lead to higher prices, so that we can give a tax credit to make up for the higher prices that would be caused by the windfall profits tax.
Foreign Policy/Iraq
Sen. Obama wants the troops out of Iraq. That is a worthy goal and one that will happen regardless of who is elected president. However, if he had his way, the troops would be gone by now and we would never have achieved the results from the surge, results that Sen. Obama denies. Sen. Obama’s foreign policy is marked by inconsistency. He says that he will build greater consensus with our allies and talk to our enemies. However, he has advocated unilaterally launching military raids into Pakistan. How popular will that be? Sen. Obama has said that he will listen to our military leaders, but issued a policy statement critical of Gen. David Petraeus immediately prior to meeting with him.
Healthcare
I can’t really say that I disagree with Sen. Obama’s healthcare proposals. He wants to ensure that people can keep their existing healthcare coverage, that it will be less expensive than it is now and that everyone will have access to affordable healthcare. That sounds great. However, I am troubled by the lack of specifics. The only specific proposal that I see is requiring parents to insure their children and punishing them if they don’t.
Judicial Selection
Sen. Obama wants to end conservative judicial activism and replace it with liberal judicial activism. He voted against both of President Bush’s nominees on the ground that they did not favor the powerless sufficiently. He has stated that in certain difficult cases, adherence to precedent and legal reasoning will not be sufficient to achieve a result and that “in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.” That sure sounds to me like he would encourage his judicial nominees to decide who they want to win and then make the result come out in that direction. That would be the beginning of the end of the rule of law.
John McCain
Bankruptcy Reform
I am a bankruptcy lawyer, so I have some definite opinions about the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Generally, this statute made the bankruptcy laws more complicated and made bankruptcy more expensive without achieving any significant reform goals. The statute is badly drafted and inconsistent, such that a debtor can be forced to file chapter 13 because payments on 401k loans are not excluded from disposable income in chapter 7 even though those same payments are excluded from disposable income in chapter 13. If you are not a bankruptcy lawyer, I don’t expect you to follow this. However, the bottom line is that Congress took something which worked relatively well and made it so complex that it resembled the tax code without any corresponding benefit. Sen. McCain voted for this legislation (like Sen. Biden, but unlike Sen. Obama) and has not shown any interest in revising it. If Sen. McCain cares about ordinary Americans, he could take a stab at making this legislation coherent.
Foreign Policy/Iraq
In many ways, Sen. McCain has been right about Iraq. He was against torture and he warned against going in with too few troops and no plan for how to manage the country after the shooting stopped. In those areas, he was right to differ from the Bush Administration. However, he still maintains that it was the right decision to invade Iraq. I have come to believe that pre-emptive war is a bad idea in 99% of the cases. Any prudent leader would want to be savvy enough to see through Hitler’s promise that he would be satisfied with the Sudetenland or foresee the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. However, in most cases, we won’t have the clarity of vision to recognize a clear and present danger before it strikes. In retrospect, Iraq was a dangerous country governed by an unstable dictator who refused to account for his stocks of chemical weapons. Despite the potential for malice against his own countrymen and his neighbors, Saddam Hussein was relatively penned in. When we invaded, we lost American lives to depose a dangerous dictator. However, we also killed innocent civilians, tortured randomly, installed a regime friendly with Iran and ignited a simmering religious war between Shiite and Sunni. It just goes to show that war is a destructive thing. People get killed, many of them innocents. In the future, we should be aware that if the potential for a dangerous conflict exists in our allies’ back yards and they don’t favor military action, that maybe we should not try to go it alone.
Healthcare
One portion of Sen. McCain’s healthcare plan is inconsistent with the rest of his message. He wants to tax employer provided healthcare benefits. This is bad on so many levels. First of all, it is a tax increase on the middle class. Sen. McCain has railed against his opponent for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class while he is proposing a middle class tax increase himself. Additionally, employer-provided healthcare is one of the few things that works in our system. Why would you discourage it? This is incredibly stupid and will hopefully be reconsidered if Sen. McCain becomes president.
The Palin Pick
I have spent a lot of time defending Sarah Palin to my friends. I do not think that she is a Stepford Candidate and I don’t believe that she is a lobotomized harpy sent by the religious right to destroy America. However, when you get past all of the ridiculous charges that have been thrown at her, there is one that you can’t deny—she is just so gosh darned inexperienced. She has even less experience than Geraldine Ferraro had before being nominated by the Democrats. Two years as governor of a small Western state might be enough to earn a position in the Senate or the cabinet. However, it is not adequate to be president in waiting. Hopefully, Sen. McCain will have excellent health and Gov. Palin will be a quick study. However, if the Republican ticket is elected, Gov. Palin is going to have to spend the next eight years cramming for a test that she is not ready to pass today.
False and Misleading Statements By Both Candidates
This was supposed to be a different campaign, one in which both candidates would take the high road and give America an example of what positive leadership would look like. It hasn’t been and there is plenty of guilt on both sides. Factcheck.org does a good job of keeping track of the whoppers told by both campaigns.
• Both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have repeated the claim that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. While Sen. Obama has voted to raise taxes some of the time, 23 votes were votes against tax cuts and seven votes would have lowered taxes on most people and raised them for a few.
• Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden claim that Sen. McCain has proposed a $4 billion tax cut for oil companies. In fact, Sen. McCain has proposed a general tax cut which would apply to all businesses and does not offer specific benefits to the oil industry.
• In the debate, Gov. Palin said that a $5,000 tax credit for healthcare would be budget neutral. That doesn’t make much sense. To be budget neutral, a tax credit would have to be balanced with a reduction in spending. Since the government is not providing health insurance to individuals at this time, a $5,000 tax credit would cost the government $5,000 per person in foregone tax revenue.
• Sen. Obama claimed that Sen. McCain voted against funding for renewable energy 23 times, while Sen. McCain claimed that he had always voted for funding for renewable energy. According to factcheck.org, Sen. McCain voted against funding for renewable energy 11 times, not 23 times or 0 times.
• Sen. Obama claims that Sen. McCain wants to cut social security benefits in half and that current retirees would have lost money from the drop in the stock market. In fact, Sen McCain supported a lower increase in benefits rather than a decrease. Additionally, he supported President Bush’s plan to allow workers born after 1950 to voluntarily invest their social security contributions. Since workers born in 1950 are not old enough to retire, the benefits of current retirees would not be affected. Additionally, since investment in the stock market would be voluntary, no one would lose money without making a decision to invest in the market.
• Sen . McCain and Sen.Obama accuse each other of consorting with unsavory characters. Sen. Obama has criticized Sen. McCain for his association with Charles Keating, a crooked S & L owner. Sen. McCain did intervene on behalf of Mr. Keating, but did it on a limited basis and has said that it was the worst decision he ever made. Sen. McCain has criticized Sen. Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a one-time radical who bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol. Sen. Obama was only eight years old when the bombings occurred, so he could not have supported them at the time. On the other hand, Bill Ayers has never repudiated his violent past and has said that he wished he could have done more. He was more than a casual acquaintance of Sen. Obama’s, having hosted a reception for him and serving on a board with him. However, the fact that Sen. Obama associated with a one-time radical does not mean that he currently endorses his past violence.
Barack Obama
Energy
Sen. Obama recognizes the need to be free from dependence on foreign oil. He just opposes anything other than renewable sources of energy. He boldly states the goal to achieve 10% renewable energy by 2012 and 25% by 2025. However, he is unclear about how he will get there aside from investing $150 billion over the next ten years. On the other hand, he opposes offshore drilling, while stating that he favors nuclear energy in principle while opposing it in practice. Meanwhile, his short term plan is to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use that money to give a tax credit to citizens. Is that smart? A windfall profits tax will raise the price of oil and will discourage new exploration, just as it did in the Carter administration. Thus, we are going to impose higher taxes on the oil companies, which will lead to higher prices, so that we can give a tax credit to make up for the higher prices that would be caused by the windfall profits tax.
Foreign Policy/Iraq
Sen. Obama wants the troops out of Iraq. That is a worthy goal and one that will happen regardless of who is elected president. However, if he had his way, the troops would be gone by now and we would never have achieved the results from the surge, results that Sen. Obama denies. Sen. Obama’s foreign policy is marked by inconsistency. He says that he will build greater consensus with our allies and talk to our enemies. However, he has advocated unilaterally launching military raids into Pakistan. How popular will that be? Sen. Obama has said that he will listen to our military leaders, but issued a policy statement critical of Gen. David Petraeus immediately prior to meeting with him.
Healthcare
I can’t really say that I disagree with Sen. Obama’s healthcare proposals. He wants to ensure that people can keep their existing healthcare coverage, that it will be less expensive than it is now and that everyone will have access to affordable healthcare. That sounds great. However, I am troubled by the lack of specifics. The only specific proposal that I see is requiring parents to insure their children and punishing them if they don’t.
Judicial Selection
Sen. Obama wants to end conservative judicial activism and replace it with liberal judicial activism. He voted against both of President Bush’s nominees on the ground that they did not favor the powerless sufficiently. He has stated that in certain difficult cases, adherence to precedent and legal reasoning will not be sufficient to achieve a result and that “in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.” That sure sounds to me like he would encourage his judicial nominees to decide who they want to win and then make the result come out in that direction. That would be the beginning of the end of the rule of law.
John McCain
Bankruptcy Reform
I am a bankruptcy lawyer, so I have some definite opinions about the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Generally, this statute made the bankruptcy laws more complicated and made bankruptcy more expensive without achieving any significant reform goals. The statute is badly drafted and inconsistent, such that a debtor can be forced to file chapter 13 because payments on 401k loans are not excluded from disposable income in chapter 7 even though those same payments are excluded from disposable income in chapter 13. If you are not a bankruptcy lawyer, I don’t expect you to follow this. However, the bottom line is that Congress took something which worked relatively well and made it so complex that it resembled the tax code without any corresponding benefit. Sen. McCain voted for this legislation (like Sen. Biden, but unlike Sen. Obama) and has not shown any interest in revising it. If Sen. McCain cares about ordinary Americans, he could take a stab at making this legislation coherent.
Foreign Policy/Iraq
In many ways, Sen. McCain has been right about Iraq. He was against torture and he warned against going in with too few troops and no plan for how to manage the country after the shooting stopped. In those areas, he was right to differ from the Bush Administration. However, he still maintains that it was the right decision to invade Iraq. I have come to believe that pre-emptive war is a bad idea in 99% of the cases. Any prudent leader would want to be savvy enough to see through Hitler’s promise that he would be satisfied with the Sudetenland or foresee the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. However, in most cases, we won’t have the clarity of vision to recognize a clear and present danger before it strikes. In retrospect, Iraq was a dangerous country governed by an unstable dictator who refused to account for his stocks of chemical weapons. Despite the potential for malice against his own countrymen and his neighbors, Saddam Hussein was relatively penned in. When we invaded, we lost American lives to depose a dangerous dictator. However, we also killed innocent civilians, tortured randomly, installed a regime friendly with Iran and ignited a simmering religious war between Shiite and Sunni. It just goes to show that war is a destructive thing. People get killed, many of them innocents. In the future, we should be aware that if the potential for a dangerous conflict exists in our allies’ back yards and they don’t favor military action, that maybe we should not try to go it alone.
Healthcare
One portion of Sen. McCain’s healthcare plan is inconsistent with the rest of his message. He wants to tax employer provided healthcare benefits. This is bad on so many levels. First of all, it is a tax increase on the middle class. Sen. McCain has railed against his opponent for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class while he is proposing a middle class tax increase himself. Additionally, employer-provided healthcare is one of the few things that works in our system. Why would you discourage it? This is incredibly stupid and will hopefully be reconsidered if Sen. McCain becomes president.
The Palin Pick
I have spent a lot of time defending Sarah Palin to my friends. I do not think that she is a Stepford Candidate and I don’t believe that she is a lobotomized harpy sent by the religious right to destroy America. However, when you get past all of the ridiculous charges that have been thrown at her, there is one that you can’t deny—she is just so gosh darned inexperienced. She has even less experience than Geraldine Ferraro had before being nominated by the Democrats. Two years as governor of a small Western state might be enough to earn a position in the Senate or the cabinet. However, it is not adequate to be president in waiting. Hopefully, Sen. McCain will have excellent health and Gov. Palin will be a quick study. However, if the Republican ticket is elected, Gov. Palin is going to have to spend the next eight years cramming for a test that she is not ready to pass today.
False and Misleading Statements By Both Candidates
This was supposed to be a different campaign, one in which both candidates would take the high road and give America an example of what positive leadership would look like. It hasn’t been and there is plenty of guilt on both sides. Factcheck.org does a good job of keeping track of the whoppers told by both campaigns.
• Both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have repeated the claim that Barack Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. While Sen. Obama has voted to raise taxes some of the time, 23 votes were votes against tax cuts and seven votes would have lowered taxes on most people and raised them for a few.
• Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden claim that Sen. McCain has proposed a $4 billion tax cut for oil companies. In fact, Sen. McCain has proposed a general tax cut which would apply to all businesses and does not offer specific benefits to the oil industry.
• In the debate, Gov. Palin said that a $5,000 tax credit for healthcare would be budget neutral. That doesn’t make much sense. To be budget neutral, a tax credit would have to be balanced with a reduction in spending. Since the government is not providing health insurance to individuals at this time, a $5,000 tax credit would cost the government $5,000 per person in foregone tax revenue.
• Sen. Obama claimed that Sen. McCain voted against funding for renewable energy 23 times, while Sen. McCain claimed that he had always voted for funding for renewable energy. According to factcheck.org, Sen. McCain voted against funding for renewable energy 11 times, not 23 times or 0 times.
• Sen. Obama claims that Sen. McCain wants to cut social security benefits in half and that current retirees would have lost money from the drop in the stock market. In fact, Sen McCain supported a lower increase in benefits rather than a decrease. Additionally, he supported President Bush’s plan to allow workers born after 1950 to voluntarily invest their social security contributions. Since workers born in 1950 are not old enough to retire, the benefits of current retirees would not be affected. Additionally, since investment in the stock market would be voluntary, no one would lose money without making a decision to invest in the market.
• Sen . McCain and Sen.Obama accuse each other of consorting with unsavory characters. Sen. Obama has criticized Sen. McCain for his association with Charles Keating, a crooked S & L owner. Sen. McCain did intervene on behalf of Mr. Keating, but did it on a limited basis and has said that it was the worst decision he ever made. Sen. McCain has criticized Sen. Obama for his association with Bill Ayers, a one-time radical who bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol. Sen. Obama was only eight years old when the bombings occurred, so he could not have supported them at the time. On the other hand, Bill Ayers has never repudiated his violent past and has said that he wished he could have done more. He was more than a casual acquaintance of Sen. Obama’s, having hosted a reception for him and serving on a board with him. However, the fact that Sen. Obama associated with a one-time radical does not mean that he currently endorses his past violence.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Only in Austin
This weekend, the firms that I work for hosted a celebration for the 25th anniversary of Barbara Barron and Manny Newburger practicing together, as well as the the 2nd anniversary of Barron, Newburger, Sinsley & Wier, PLLC. We joined several hundred of our friends and clients (some of whom were the same people) for barbecue and country music at the Salt Lick in Driftwood, Texas. What does any of this have to do with bankruptcy? Not much directly. However, it is a reminder to heed Shakespeare’s admonition to “do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.” (The Taming of the Shrew Act I, Scene 2).
Twenty-five years is a long time. While I wasn’t there for all of it, there is still a strange sensation of waking up in another time and place. Over 25 years, we have gone through the real estate bust/S & L crisis which spawned the RTC, the leveraged buyout bust which gave rise to mega-bankruptcies, credit card defaults leading to personal bankruptcy filings topping 1.6 million, Enron, bankruptcy reform and now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. During that time, newlyweds had children grow up, our hair grew thinner and our waistlines grew larger (at least mine did). The baby boomers who hoped to transform the world now look forward to retirement.
Over the years, we have met a lot of interesting people and many of them were at the festivities. Politicians and judges mingled with real estate developers, reorganized debtors and debt collectors. Lawyers, clerks and support staff drank margaritas together. However, the best story of the night was probably the entertainment (and I am not just talking about Barbara Barron gracefully two-stepping and doing the cha-cha).
The headliner for the evening was Brian Turner and His Redneck Band. Brian is proof that only in Austin, Texas can a Jewish solo practitioner pursue his dream of being a snuff-dipping country music sensation. (While Kinky Friedman is more famous, that’s only because Brian hasn’t been discovered yet). Brian represented a significant bloc of creditors in a contentious chapter 11 case that our firm handled. As we were wrapping up the case, Brian shared one of his CDs with us. His music hits traditional country music themes such as patriotism, fatherhood and failed relationships, but does so with a wry sense of humor.
With songs like “I Miss That Dog More Than You,” “If Love Is Blind Why Do You See My Faults See Clearly” and “If You Won’t Leave Me, I’ll Find Someone Who Will,” Brian harnesses a traditional country music vibe with just a little tongue in cheek. Even his tribute to his father contains the refrain, “So here’s to my dad/ who taught me all my bad habits/ some of my good ones, too/ Like to be a great dad/ believe in your country and never turn my back on you.”
I admire Brian for managing to practice law and pursue his dream as well. Let’s hope that the rest of us can do that as well.
Twenty-five years is a long time. While I wasn’t there for all of it, there is still a strange sensation of waking up in another time and place. Over 25 years, we have gone through the real estate bust/S & L crisis which spawned the RTC, the leveraged buyout bust which gave rise to mega-bankruptcies, credit card defaults leading to personal bankruptcy filings topping 1.6 million, Enron, bankruptcy reform and now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. During that time, newlyweds had children grow up, our hair grew thinner and our waistlines grew larger (at least mine did). The baby boomers who hoped to transform the world now look forward to retirement.
Over the years, we have met a lot of interesting people and many of them were at the festivities. Politicians and judges mingled with real estate developers, reorganized debtors and debt collectors. Lawyers, clerks and support staff drank margaritas together. However, the best story of the night was probably the entertainment (and I am not just talking about Barbara Barron gracefully two-stepping and doing the cha-cha).
The headliner for the evening was Brian Turner and His Redneck Band. Brian is proof that only in Austin, Texas can a Jewish solo practitioner pursue his dream of being a snuff-dipping country music sensation. (While Kinky Friedman is more famous, that’s only because Brian hasn’t been discovered yet). Brian represented a significant bloc of creditors in a contentious chapter 11 case that our firm handled. As we were wrapping up the case, Brian shared one of his CDs with us. His music hits traditional country music themes such as patriotism, fatherhood and failed relationships, but does so with a wry sense of humor.
With songs like “I Miss That Dog More Than You,” “If Love Is Blind Why Do You See My Faults See Clearly” and “If You Won’t Leave Me, I’ll Find Someone Who Will,” Brian harnesses a traditional country music vibe with just a little tongue in cheek. Even his tribute to his father contains the refrain, “So here’s to my dad/ who taught me all my bad habits/ some of my good ones, too/ Like to be a great dad/ believe in your country and never turn my back on you.”
I admire Brian for managing to practice law and pursue his dream as well. Let’s hope that the rest of us can do that as well.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Lightning Strikes Randomly Sometimes
Once upon a time, there was a female candidate for Vice-President. She had little experience on the national stage. However, she added excitement to the campaign of an older, more experienced yet dull candidate. The year was 1984. The candidate was Geraldine Ferraro. In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had been a U.S. Representative for six years. That was the sum and substance of her experience as an elected official.
Fast forward 24 years. Sarah Palin is nominated as John McCain's running mate. Liberals are outraged. How can someone whose only experience consists of being a small town mayor and governor for two years be qualified to be next in line to be president? Let's state the obvious here. Sarah Palin was not the most experienced Republican, or even the most experienced Republican woman, to be nominated as Vice-President. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Elizabeth Dole both had better credentials. However, Sarah Palin was an articulate, attractive, post-feminist, Middle-America candidate who could add excitement to the McCain candidacy.
Is this unfair? Consider that the Democrats have nominated a charismatic four year Senator anchored by a Vice-Presidential candidate with decades of experience. The Republicans have nominated a Presidential candidate with decades of experience propped up by an exciting yet inexperienced Vice-Presidential nominee. There is a certain yin and yang here. Presidential campaigns are rarely won by experienced yet unexciting candidates. Otherwise Walter Mondale and Bob Dole would have been president. The race for President is akin to the finals of American Idol, except that each team has two players. Both tickets contain experience and excitement. This will make it a horserace to the end.
Neither Geraldine Ferraro nor Sarah Palin was the most qualified candidate to be Vice-President. However, to be the first of anything is as much about being in the right place at the right time as it is about merit. Sometimes symbolism is more important than substance. In this election year, the symbolism of a butt-kicking hockey mom who rose from the PTA to national prominence is the counterpart to the plucky, young son of a Kansas mother and a Kenyan father who was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and achieved excellence at Harvard and in Chicago. Both exemplify elements of the American dream.
On an unrelated note, I had the opportunity to meet Geraldine Ferraro in 1982 when I spent a semester in Washington. I found her to be unimpressive. She spoke about how difficult it was for a female candidate to be elected. However, the briefing materials provided to us stated that she had outspent her male opponent by a ratio of 6:1. When questioned about this, she gave an evasive answer. Perhaps she said that if she had been a man instead of a woman, she would have raised even more. I am not sure any more. However, it does show that someone can be plucked out of obscurity and then return there or can achieve lasting fame. However, the whole process ia about as random as being struck by lightning.
Fast forward 24 years. Sarah Palin is nominated as John McCain's running mate. Liberals are outraged. How can someone whose only experience consists of being a small town mayor and governor for two years be qualified to be next in line to be president? Let's state the obvious here. Sarah Palin was not the most experienced Republican, or even the most experienced Republican woman, to be nominated as Vice-President. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Elizabeth Dole both had better credentials. However, Sarah Palin was an articulate, attractive, post-feminist, Middle-America candidate who could add excitement to the McCain candidacy.
Is this unfair? Consider that the Democrats have nominated a charismatic four year Senator anchored by a Vice-Presidential candidate with decades of experience. The Republicans have nominated a Presidential candidate with decades of experience propped up by an exciting yet inexperienced Vice-Presidential nominee. There is a certain yin and yang here. Presidential campaigns are rarely won by experienced yet unexciting candidates. Otherwise Walter Mondale and Bob Dole would have been president. The race for President is akin to the finals of American Idol, except that each team has two players. Both tickets contain experience and excitement. This will make it a horserace to the end.
Neither Geraldine Ferraro nor Sarah Palin was the most qualified candidate to be Vice-President. However, to be the first of anything is as much about being in the right place at the right time as it is about merit. Sometimes symbolism is more important than substance. In this election year, the symbolism of a butt-kicking hockey mom who rose from the PTA to national prominence is the counterpart to the plucky, young son of a Kansas mother and a Kenyan father who was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and achieved excellence at Harvard and in Chicago. Both exemplify elements of the American dream.
On an unrelated note, I had the opportunity to meet Geraldine Ferraro in 1982 when I spent a semester in Washington. I found her to be unimpressive. She spoke about how difficult it was for a female candidate to be elected. However, the briefing materials provided to us stated that she had outspent her male opponent by a ratio of 6:1. When questioned about this, she gave an evasive answer. Perhaps she said that if she had been a man instead of a woman, she would have raised even more. I am not sure any more. However, it does show that someone can be plucked out of obscurity and then return there or can achieve lasting fame. However, the whole process ia about as random as being struck by lightning.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Remembering Our Trips to Ukraine
One of the more interesting and rewarding things that our family has done is to make friends with the Drozd family in Lazarivka, Ukraine. Back in 1992, Valeska answered an ad looking for penpals for Christians in the former Soviet Union. She began corresponding with Natasha Drozd, an English teacher in a small village. Their familiy consists of Natasha, her husband Viktor, and their children Dima and Ulia.
We have traveled to visit them three times, in 1998, 2000 and 2005. There is nothing quite like spending time with a family to get to know a country. The hospitality that we received was unbelievable. When we first visited in 1998, we were often the first Americans had met in person. They opened their homes to us and we divided our time between sightseeing and dinners that ran late into the night.
The language barrier was not that much of a problem. Of course, Natasha speaks excellent English since her profession is teaching that language. Over the years, Dima and Ulia have become strong English speakers as well. We were able to talk to Viktor a bit in German. Val and I both took German in high school and Viktor learned some while he was stationed in East Germany during his mandatory service in the Red Army. The fact that none of us were that strong in German meant that we had to fumble around for the right word some of the time, but we were able to get the idea across most of the time.
Here are a few photos from 2000. I didn't have a very good digital camera on that trip, so I wasn't able to get very many pictures. I took a lot of video which I will try to convert to digital some day.
Our most recent trip in 2005 was the most emjoyable because the children were old enough to travel well and to fend for themselves much of the time. Kristen and Stephanie spent many hours playing outside with the neighborhood children and going to their homes. They learned how to milk a cow, while their friends learned how to play Gameboy.
I took a lot of pictures on our last trip. With the help of Kristen's friend Catherine, I have combined them into a movie that I uploaded onto Youtube. These photos cover home life in and around Lazarivka and trips to Zhytomir and Kyiv. I have used the Ukrainian spelling of these cities rather than the more familiar Russian version of Kiev.
Our children have grown up together around these trips. In 2000, Dima was 10, Kristen was 8 and Stephanie and Ulia were 5. In 2005, Dima was 15, Kristen was 12 and Stephanie and Ulia were 10. Today, Dima is 18 and will be starting his second year at the university in Kyiv. Ulia is now 13. Here is a current picture of them.
Monday, September 8, 2008
How the Democrats Can Still Lose
At the outset, I need to admit that I am supporting John McCain. However, I have not been very optimistic about his chances. As a result, I have been very surprised to see just how close this election is shaping up to be. According to Real Clear Politics, if the election was held today, John McCain would win the popular vote by a narrow margin and Barack Obama would win the Electoral College by a scant eight votes. Looking at yet another photo finish, you would think that both parties would be battling for the middle ground. However, when I listen to commentators on the Democrat side, it sounds like they are staking out positions on the far end of the spectrum. This seems like a prescription for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, feminist Gloria Steinem attacked Sarah Palin, stating, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need." What is the evidence that Sarah Palin opposes "everything most other women want"? According to Ms. Steinem:
Is this what most women believe? I did some research on the abortion issue. Gloria Steinem, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton oppose any limitations on abortion, while Sarah Palin opposes abortion. Who speaks for most women? None of them actually. Women are as conflicted on abortion as the rest of the population. Depending on how you ask the question, either 75% of women believe that abortion should not be banned or 61% believe that abortion should be banned or restricted. This is because a plurality of 38% of women polled support restrictions on abortion but not banning it altogether. When added to the 23% of women who oppose abortion, they make a majority.
Sarah Palin is a unique individual. She is a strong, independent woman who happens to be very conservative. If Democrats attack her as an extremist in a dress, they run the risk that hockey moms, armed forces moms, NRA moms and moms with special needs children will decide that Gov. Palin looks a lot more like them than Gloria Steinem.
The Nation quoted Air America host Thom Hartmann as saying, "It's not left vs. right. . . . It's all of America vs. right-wing cranks." Liberal journalist Ariana Huffington was quoted in the same article as stating, "The problem is with the media, which presents 'all sides' when often there is only one side." What message do these liberal commentators convey? If you are not with Barack Obama, you are a right wing crank who opposes all of America. There is only one side to the issues and that is the liberal side. In other words, you are either for us or against us. That is a reckless strategy guaranteed to alienate the middle. Granted, this is not Barack Obama speaking. However, Sen. Obama can certainly lose credibility if he accepts support from people who want to take the country in a direction it is not ready to go.
Sometimes people who care passionately about politics make the mistake of only talking to others who share their beliefs. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw after the 1988 election where two tweed-coated professors are talking and one says, "I voted for Dukakis. You voted for Dukakis. Who the heck voted for Bush?"
This is shaping up to be an historically close election. On the one hand, you have a Democratic ticket which has a charismatic but inexperienced presidential candidate from the left side of his party anchored by a bland yet experienced vice-presidential nominee. On the Republican side, you have an aging one-time maverick with substantial experience propped up by a brash hockey mom outsider who has even less experience than Sen. Obama. There is a yin and yang between experience and excitement on both tickets. The election will be decided in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, most likely by a very small margin. Both parties will be well advised to rein in their more ideological supporters and shoot for the middle if they want to win.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, feminist Gloria Steinem attacked Sarah Palin, stating, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need." What is the evidence that Sarah Palin opposes "everything most other women want"? According to Ms. Steinem:
She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
Is this what most women believe? I did some research on the abortion issue. Gloria Steinem, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton oppose any limitations on abortion, while Sarah Palin opposes abortion. Who speaks for most women? None of them actually. Women are as conflicted on abortion as the rest of the population. Depending on how you ask the question, either 75% of women believe that abortion should not be banned or 61% believe that abortion should be banned or restricted. This is because a plurality of 38% of women polled support restrictions on abortion but not banning it altogether. When added to the 23% of women who oppose abortion, they make a majority.
Sarah Palin is a unique individual. She is a strong, independent woman who happens to be very conservative. If Democrats attack her as an extremist in a dress, they run the risk that hockey moms, armed forces moms, NRA moms and moms with special needs children will decide that Gov. Palin looks a lot more like them than Gloria Steinem.
The Nation quoted Air America host Thom Hartmann as saying, "It's not left vs. right. . . . It's all of America vs. right-wing cranks." Liberal journalist Ariana Huffington was quoted in the same article as stating, "The problem is with the media, which presents 'all sides' when often there is only one side." What message do these liberal commentators convey? If you are not with Barack Obama, you are a right wing crank who opposes all of America. There is only one side to the issues and that is the liberal side. In other words, you are either for us or against us. That is a reckless strategy guaranteed to alienate the middle. Granted, this is not Barack Obama speaking. However, Sen. Obama can certainly lose credibility if he accepts support from people who want to take the country in a direction it is not ready to go.
Sometimes people who care passionately about politics make the mistake of only talking to others who share their beliefs. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw after the 1988 election where two tweed-coated professors are talking and one says, "I voted for Dukakis. You voted for Dukakis. Who the heck voted for Bush?"
This is shaping up to be an historically close election. On the one hand, you have a Democratic ticket which has a charismatic but inexperienced presidential candidate from the left side of his party anchored by a bland yet experienced vice-presidential nominee. On the Republican side, you have an aging one-time maverick with substantial experience propped up by a brash hockey mom outsider who has even less experience than Sen. Obama. There is a yin and yang between experience and excitement on both tickets. The election will be decided in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, most likely by a very small margin. Both parties will be well advised to rein in their more ideological supporters and shoot for the middle if they want to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
