My Two Cents on the Events of the Past Month

I've been out of the proverbial loop for the last month.  Of course, this had the unintended consequence of my many friends and family members not being privy to my opinions on all the exciting events of June 2015.  The good news is, I've spend most of the day catching up and am ready to share them.  Here they are:

1.  The Battle Flag of The Army of Northern Virginia (aka the "Confederate Flag")

First, the flag you see on this Dodge Charger isn't the Confederate Flag.  It is as stated above the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  Second, my personal opinion is the flag shouldn't be flown over any government building.  However, I don't live in South Carolina or anywhere in the South, so my opinion doesn't matter in that regard.  If the people in those states want to fly over the state capitol building or place it on their state flag, more power to them. (See the Six Flags over Texas display in Austin which uses a lesser known, but historically correct version of the Confederate Flag)

Third, and most importantly, it concerns me that the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia has morphed into some sort of symbol that is so offensive that it must be scrubbed from existence.   Assuming for the sake of argument that the Battle Flag has no value beyond being a racist symbol (I do not agree with this, but I concede it is very offensive to many people and is often used as a symbol of racism), the people who choose to display it have every right to do so for whatever reason.  And, if the Battle Flag is so offensive, what symbol is next?  I imagine every symbol can be offensive to some people, some of the time.

2.  Same Sex Marriage

The dissents (especially the Scalia one) make some good points about the dangers of the Supreme Court acting as "super-legislature" which can by a bare majority vote overturn the democratic will of the people.  I agree with those sentiments.  However, the justices penning the dissents are essentially hypocrites as they have routinely found other laws unconstitutional as seen in the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases.

Without getting into arcane legal and bar exam-esque concepts like "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" (and the very vague "intermediate scrutiny"), the rationales for banning same-sex are tenuous at best.  The rationale of "responsible procreation" sounds great, but not all married opposite sex couples have or want kids. The religious arguments are even weaker as the legality of same-sex has nothing to do with ones religious views on marriage.

At the end of the day, it'd be optimal for same-sex marriage to enacted by legislative action and it probably would have been shortly in most states, but the holding is just making official now, what would have happened in a few years anyway.

3.  The Demise of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 Bill

Apparently, the US Treasury is giving the currency version of the pink slip to Alexander Hamilton.  I disagree.  Hamilton was a very influential person in the founding of our country and to add icing on the cake, he served in the artillery during the Revolutionary War.

I think having a woman on a piece of currency that people actually use is a fine idea.  I don't have any strong opinions as to what woman should be, I'll leave that to the feminist crowd to figure out.  I do think that if anyone on paper currency should be given the pink slip, it should be Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.  If you think otherwise, you are basically saying F You to every person of Native American (or American Indian or whatever the PC term is these days) descent.  Read about the "trail of tears" if you any questions about that.

4.  Other

I'm glad to NY prison escapees have been apprehended.  I don't know what the punishment is in New York for the prisoner workers who helped them but it should be severe.  I didn't read much about Obama's eulogy in South Carolina, but I guess it was controversial to some.  I really couldn't care less what Obama says or doesn't say at funeral.  Terms like "divisive" are meaningless political buzz words best left to the talking heads on MSNBC or Fox.

And while this is sort of related to point #1 -- I do think the Army should re-name installations named after Confederate officers.  It isn't because I think they were bad people or bad officers, it is just a recognition of the simple fact, they chose to fight against the country they swore to protect.  There are many, many other deserving soldiers who didn't make that choice.

5. Conclusion

It feels good to be back.  Here's to a good second half of 2015.

How I really Feel............

   I had a hearing today which one the surface might seem bizarre but is really par for the course.  The purpose of the hearing was the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan.  I had been able to resolve all the objections and had all of my impaired classes on board.  There was one minor problem or at least what I perceived to be a minor problem.

   The problem was the "confirmation brief" was filed late.  Of course, I had a relatively good excuse -  Stella had been in the hospital for the past two weeks and I was a bit preoccupied.  When I returned to work, last Thursday, I spent the last two days of the week resolving the various objections and filed the brief.  My briefing did not mention why it was late.  I figured the fact all of the objections had been resolved would be sufficient and I would make a passing reference to why it was late to the extent anyone really cared.

   My logic behind this was really twofold -  First, I don't feel the need to share my personal business on the record.  It is personal.  And, no one (Judges primarily) gives a shit.  They get paid when their children are hospitalized and can cancel hearings on a whim.  They are largely incapable of understanding that some of us only get paid when we actually work.  More on this later.  Second, the fact that the objections were resolved and everyone was accepting the plan is far more important than why my brief was late.  

   So of course the primary issue at this hearing was whether I was sufficiently contrite or something for filing a late brief.  I got to hear about basically what a fuck-up I am for not informing the Court as to my personal business and some references that I had performed poorly in this particular court over the past few months.  On the "performing poorly" in the court over the past few months, I am not sure what hearings or matters the Court was referring to as I checked my calendar and over the last 3 months I had 4 hearings in that court, one being a motion to re-open (granted), a Chapter 13 confirmation hearing (plan confirmed) and Chapter 13 motion to dismiss (motion was withdrawn).  Anyway, after some idle threats about disciplinary referrals (I was very close to saying if getting a plan confirmed on the first hearing is discipline worthy, go for it), we proceeded to the merits and viola plan confirmed.

   I think the Court was referring to a motion to dismiss hearing back in June on this case, where I made an argument that the court found offensive.  I am not going to bore my loyal readership as to what this argument was but it was 100% legally correct and I stand by it.  If you really want to know, ask me offline.  That hearing was a complete debacle and basically because of this one argument it turned into a 45 minute critique of my audacity in making this argument.  For reasons that are beyond the scope of this post, the case was not converted or dismissed and things proceeded to confirmation.  However, I violated a cardinal rule of law practice -  lack of contrition for the perceived sins of myself and my clients.  

  Anyway, this brings me to my point (or rant) -  practicing law isn't really about results, it is more about understanding your place in the world of the court you happen to be in.  Apparently my place in the world is not sufficiently advanced so therefore it is more important that I beg forgiveness then get the job done.  I most definitely could have avoided the pain by giving some brief speech how about how sorry I was and I wouldn't do it again.  

  The reality is I do not accept my place on the totem pole.  I am not going to beg forgiveness for getting the job done.  Nor am I going to ask for forgiveness for putting my family ahead of a briefing.  Along those lines, I am going to share with you how I really feel.  The bottom line is I have yet to encounter a bankruptcy judge who could do my job for 5 minutes.  A few couldn't do it for 30 seconds.  I can think of a few exception to my previous statement - ironically one of the exceptions is a judge out in Riverside that everyone hates. 

  I don't know whether I'd be a good judge or not.  But I do know, I could sit on my ass granting uncontested relief from stays and rubber stamping the Chapter 13 Trustee's recommendation without breaking much of a sweat.  I could do that while playing online poker on my laptop and only pretending like I actually read the moving papers.

  I have no doubt in a game a bankruptcy law jeopardy I'd crush most of the judges (minus several exceptions).  I've been to a few of the "round tables" (sit in a room while Judges and self-appointed experts talk to down to you for one hour of CLE credit) and learned absolutely nothing.  So I do not go anymore.  While it is beyond the scope of this post, I can make a list of comically incorrect things various judges have held on the record.  Some of them are embarrassingly bad.  

  This really shouldn't surprise anyone because if you read some of the judges bios you will see a surprising dearth of actual bankruptcy law experience.  I think if someone is going to be a judge he or she should have some experience in that area of law and actually be competent.  It is not too much to ask.  As for the judges that have been on the bench for a long time, they seem to age more like vinegar than wine.  I am not sure why that is.

  I have no doubt not a single sitting judge would even be remotely interested in my advice, but in the oft chance one of them is to stumble upon this fine post, I'd offer the following -  read all the papers filed in the matter.  If you aren't familiar with the issue, do some of your own research.  Have empathy for all the parties and attorneys in the court.  Try to see things from their part of view -  it isn't as easy as it seems.  Don't get on a power trip - don't belittle or demean parties who can't talk back.  Finally, try to focus more on the "substance" i.e result than the "form".  

  In conclusion, I don't feel like I have anything to be sorry about regarding today's case  I did the best I could given the circumstances and got the job done.  If someone thinks otherwise, that is their problem not mine.

P.S. -  If you read this, please don't email me to tell me to take this down lest some judge reads it.  I am pretty much most of them who have seen me around probably have already ascertained this is how I feel.  I'm sure many of them feel the same way about me.

P.P.S -  If you want to know any particulars, let me know offline.

   

 

American Exceptionalism Part I

I.                    Introduction

This is the first part of what might be a series.  It is about a stupid ideology which I think is the most harmful belief alive in America today.  Enjoy.

The 2014 election was a resounding victory for the Republicans.  They ran on a very simple premise -  President Barrack Obama sucks.  The Democrats attempted to counter this with well, nothing.  The Democrats shouldn't have found this strategy so confusing -  in 2006 and 2008 they ran on a President George W. Bush sucks platform with great success.

I do not have a lot of confidence that much will change now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress.  The reason for this (in my estimation) is that both parties either explicitly or implicitly subscribe to an intellectually bankrupt ideology called “American Exceptionalism” (sometimes hereinafter “AE”).

AE in its modern form is a nationalistic doctrine that essentially means –“The United States due to some sort of divine grant, is the best country to ever exist, and accordingly can do no wrong.”  It is imperative that all politicians believe in it.  President Obama to his credit once tried to qualify AE by stating perhaps the obvious that other nations might believe they are exceptional as well.  This of course was political folly -  this right wing commentator had a field day criticizing his most likely true statement. And Mitt Romney did not agree with this either.  However, President Obama came to his senses and by 2014, he now believed in AE with “with every fiber of my being”. 

II.                  Republicans and Democrats Talk AE

This section is going to show that both parties are all about AE.  For Republicans, AE is so important that they have an entire party plank titled “American Exceptionalism”.   It is hard to read this plank with a straight face.  Here are some choice quotes from it with my translations:

Quote:  “While the twentieth century was undeniably an American century – with strong leadership, adherence to the principles of freedom and democracy our Founders’ enshrined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and a continued reliance on Divine Providence – the twenty-first century will be one of American greatness as well.”

Translation:  We wisely sat out World War 1 until both sides were exhausted and hopped in at end on the Allies side to get a seat at the table ending the war.  Even more wisely, we sat out World War 2 for a bit, then when the Japanese attacked us, we let the Russians do most of the dirty work against the Germans while we crushed Japan.  We sort of fucked up in Vietnam and really fucked up in creating the Taliban, but since God is on our side, he’ll help us out if things get really bad.

Quote:  “America will be left with the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history – at a time when our Nation faces a growing range of threats to our national security and a struggling economy that can ill afford to lose 1.5 million defense-related jobs.”

Translation: Only a true idiot (95% of Americans) would attempt to compare a naval vessel from 1915 or a World War 2 era propeller plane to modern ones in terms of firepower.  But, the truth is we don’t really care what weapons we have or whether they actually work as long as the money flows to the job creating defense contractors who might create jobs or not depending on whether they have to pay taxes or not.

Quote: “We support rights of conscience and religious freedom for military chaplains and people of faith. A Republican Commander in Chief will protect religious independence of military chaplains and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. We will enforce and defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Armed Forces as well as in the civilian world.”

Translation: God or more specifically, the American version of the Christian God in exchange for his protection of us demands that all of our soldiers follow his Bible as interpreted by Southern Baptists.  And of course, gay soldiers can’t get married. 

Quote: “The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups – the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development – have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.”

Translation:  African strongmen like Robert Mugabe and his cohorts might have some issues with human rights and the occasional murder of white farmers and other undesirables like gays, but since they hate gays more than we do, we should not attach any strings to their foreign aid because they hate gays.  And while we never are in favor of black people killing white people it is ok if the white people are gay.

That is enough from the Republican side of the aisle.  Let’s see what the Democrats have to offer.  In order to distinguish themselves from the Republicans, the Democrats didn't use the term “American Exceptionalism”, rather “indispensable”.  Like the GOP, it is hard to read with a straight face.  Here are the choice quotes with translation.

Quote:  “We have struck major blows against al-Qaeda, bringing Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders to justice, and putting the terrorist organization on the path to defeat.”

Translation:  We can go into any country or launch drone strikes into any country because if the President states a person must be killed because he is a terrorist, it is ok because God has told the President who all the terrorists are.

Quote:  “President Obama and the Democratic Party are also committed to strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the bedrock of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries.”

Translation:  Since the major nuclear powers, the USA and Russia are peaceful nations who never attack or threaten weaker nations there is no need for any other country to have nuclear weapons. 

Quote: “Climate Change. The national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe.”

Translation: This isn't really a national security issue per se, but just like the Republicans have to appease the Jesus freaks, we have to appease our environmental hippy freaks.

Quote:  “For example, the President is moving forward with a "phased adaptive approach" to European ballistic-missile defense that will protect both Europe and the United States from missile threats emanating from Iran and elsewhere.”

Translation:  Despite the fact missile defense won’t work, and Russia will never let it be built, we still want to talk about it because it will grease the pockets of defense contractors who will provide jobs (if their taxes are lowered enough).

Quote: “We will continue to partner with African nations to combat al-Qaeda affiliates in places like Somalia and to bring to justice those who commit mass atrocities, like Joseph Kony.”

Translation:  While there are a lot of very bad and ruthless dictators in Africa (See Mugabe, Robert) 99% of Americans couldn’t name any African bad guy aside from a relatively obscure warlord named Joseph Kony who was famous for a week because of some really cheesy youtube video that went viral and was promptly forgotten.

Quote:  “Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World”

Translation: We just want to let you know that the Republicans do not have a monopoly on the idea the USA must have the strongest military in world however that is measured.

Quote: “That is why the President banned torture without exception in his first week in office. That is why we are reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law. That is why we are substantially reducing the population at Guantánamo Bay without adding to it.”

Translation:  We just paid lip service to banning torture and closing Guantanamo and figured no one would care.   And we were right, no one cares about who is Guantanamo or why they are there.

III.                Vladimir Putin Says America Isn't Exceptional

I will admit something here -  Vladimir Putin is fucking awesome.  I am not saying I would want to live in a country run by him or actually have to do his bidding.  Nor am I saying he is an upstanding guy of any sort.  He isn’t.  He is actually quite a brutal dictator who does not like dissent and tends to use his military to push around much weaker nations.  But, he is awesome. 

My favorite Putin story involves Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots and Kraft’s Super Bowl Ring.  The story goes that back in 2005, Kraft was in Russia for some sort of business deal or whatnot and ended up meeting Putin.  For whatever reason, Kraft showed Putin his Super Bowl Ring, which Putin put on his own finger and then promptly put it in his pocket.  Kraft was upset that Putin had stolen his ring, but after a bit of pressure from the Bush administration, Kraft stuck to the story that he had given the ring to Putin as a gift.

Some years later, Kraft gave a speech where he told the truth i.e. that Putin had stolen his Super Bowl Ring.  When word got back to Putin, his response was classic – he had no memory of Kraft or his shitty ring and if he did, Kraft isn't getting his ring back.  Basically, Putin said –“You Robert Kraft, are nothing to me” -  Apparently, the ring is in the Kremlin library on display with other “gifts” given to Russian leaders over the years.  Here is the full story.

Back on topic here, for reasons that aren't fully clear, in September 2013, the New York Times published an op-ed drafted by one, Vladimir V. Putin.  The op-ed was about Syria and the on-going civil war there.  Vlad makes some good points about how Russia and the United States were once allies in World War 2 (and it should be noted the Russian Empire strongly backed the Union during the Civil War whereas other European powers did not).  He correctly states that some of the rebels in Syria are Islamic extremists. 

But for the most part, the op-ed isn't that interesting or controversial until the final paragraph where Putin commits the unpardonable sin of criticizing  American Exceptionalism .  Putin essentially states that America isn't exceptional and ends with the comment that God created us all equal.  This one paragraph created a bipartisan freak-out.   It even drove Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ to in his words “almost want to throw up”. President Obama struck back in sort of a qualified way saying “some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional.”

Conservatives were much less qualified in their rebuke.  The thought of some Russian guy criticizing America was just a line that couldn't be crossed.  A good summary of the conservative viewpoint is provided by noted conservative intellect, Rush Limbaugh.  No word if Rush was nauseous or not. 

Another good retort was from The Heritage Group’s, president, Jim DeMint who felt the need to send Putin a letter.  DeMint’s letter states succinctly that America is exceptional because it is dedicated to the universal principle of liberty.  He then reminds Putin that he Putin used to be in the KGB.  I always appreciate it when people remind me of jobs that I used to have.  Finally, he encloses a pamphlet written by some guy at the Heritage Group about why America is exceptional.  Strangely, the letter does not appear to be addressed to the Kremlin where presumably, Putin gets his mail.  I have a feeling this letter and pamphlet if they were in fact sent to Putin are probably in the men’s room adjacent to the library where Robert Kraft’s Super Bowl Ring is on display.

Anyway, the point of all this is if America is so obviously exceptional why did all these luminaries freak out almost to the point of vomiting?  If we were divinely created, inspired or whatever, why should anyone give a shit what Putin said.  The answer is obvious -  AE is a complete farce with no basis in historical or modern events and if Putin’s comments caused even a handful of simpletons to examine AE the whole ball of yarn unwinds.  And we can’t have that, otherwise people might actually start thinking for themselves.

The next post will show why AE is a complete farce, but as a sneak preview I will offer this -  DeMint gave a very succinct explanation as to why America is exceptional – dedicated to the principle of liberty.  How would he explain –

                -slavery;

                -segregation;

                -criminalization of consensual homosexual acts until 2003;

                -counting brutal dictatorships in Chile and Argentina as cold war allies;

                -continuing to support and trade with apartheid South Africa up until 1988;

                -drone strikes on American citizens;

                -internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2;

                -Guantanamo Bay;

    -current allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which execute people for crimes such as sorcery      and    blasphemy of Islam;

 

I know some of these things are in the past, but some are still on-going.  Stay Tuned.

                

Veterans and Heroes

Today is Veterans Day.  It was created as Armistice Day in the aftermath of World War 1 in 1919. The purpose of it according to President Woodrow Wilson was to:

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations."

President Wilson’s quote is a natural starting point for this post as he openly refers to those soldiers who were killed in World War 1 as “heroes”.  Not everyone agrees that all veterans are heroes.  This recent article argues against this notion.  I think the author has some good points but definitely makes some statements which are very sensationalist and of dubious truth.

For example when discussing rape in the military, he claims that 38 men are sexually assaulted each day in the military and as a result the military is a “sexual dungeon”.  This would equal over 13,000 rapes against men each year.  Further, he claims one third of all women seeking care in the VA claimed to have experienced some sort of sexual violence while serving.  He doesn't cite any specific study, so naturally I am a bit skeptical of this claim and I do not see any evidence suggesting the military is a “sexual dungeon.”  I also would add that when I was in the Army from 1998-2002, I was not personally aware of sort of rape / sexual assault epidemic.  Obviously, it is just one man’s perspective but I never perceived it to be any sort of problem.

He also cites a few anecdotes about various military personnel laughing about the killing of civilians and generally being insensitive towards the carnage often commonplace in war.  A few anecdotes do not convince me that this is a real problem.  Give his tone, I can say this article has a very strong anti-military bias, one that I personally do not share. 

However, his point that the “troops are heroes” because “they defend our freedom” and “they fight so we don’t have to” is empty rhetoric has a lot of truth to it.  Before we examine this (the point of this post), we need to look at the definition of the word “hero”.  Webster’s online defines a hero as:

a.     mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent     endowed with great strength or ability

b.     an illustrious warrior

c.      a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities

d.     one who shows great courage

From these definitions, it is clear that not every veteran is a hero unless you accept the notion that our troops sole purpose when committed to combat is “defending our freedom”.  If that is the case, then I think all veterans are heroes. 

Unfortunately, very few if any wars have been fought by the United States to defend “our” freedom.  This shouldn't surprise anyone.  War is as von Clausewitz said – “Policy by other means”.  This doesn't mean war is inherently bad, it just means Wars are fought by a government attempting to achieve some objective.  This objective could be “defending the freedom” of its citizens but by no means exclusively.

A brief review of the United States military conflicts since 1900 shows that with the exception of World War 2 and the initial incursion into Afghanistan in 2001, none were fought to ensure the freedom (or safety) of our citizens.  One can argue that during World War 2 while the US was definitely morally superior to our adversaries, our freedom and overall national survival was never really at stake.  The rest of the conflicts had nothing to do with freedom or safety (or its close rhetorical cousin “defending the constitution”) .

The fact the United States fights wars for ulterior motives does not bother me in the slightest.  What does bother me is the fact, our population does not really seem to understand this.  War is very expensive both in monetary and human cost and shouldn't be engaged unless the cost is worth the gain. 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a disaster of untold proportions.   The casus belli for the conflict was Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  Once it was clear that was a lie, the conflict was about regime change and starting democracy in the Middle East or something silly like that.   It is now 11.5 years since the invasion of Iraq began, hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, and Iraq is still a mess with no end in sight.

That being said, the average soldier / sailor / marine / airman does not really have a say in which conflicts they fight in.  They are expected to do the fighting and the dying when our political leaders tell them to.  There is something heroic about that -  they are doing are a dangerous job that sometimes needs to be done.  Even, if the ulterior motive is not “freedom”, it doesn't make their sacrifice and courage any less. 

In conclusion, I think our veterans and those on active duty are heroes in the sense they do show great courage in doing what can be a thankless and brutal job.  I think we as a society should be more careful when we do go to war as for the most part those of sitting at home aren't doing the killing and the dying.  And a good place to start when making decisions about when to go to war, is to purge this concept “defending freedom” and “defending the constitution” from our collective brains and remember it is all about politics by violent means -  an evil that is necessary from time to time.

Happy Veterans Day to all the people on active duty and those who served in the past -  keep up on the good work and come home safely!

Return to Blogging For a Day

I've been working on a series posts around a concept called "American Exceptional-ism".  This concept as pitched to the masses by our politicians drives me nuts.  Anyway, my first new post is actually not about American Exceptionalism, it is about Veterans Day and Veterans.  And I will post my first part of the exceptionalism series.

Enjoy.

O'Bannon v NCAA

I've been meaning to post about this for awhile.  In a nutshell, this lawsuit is about whether the standard NCAA scholarship which permanently assigns a player's likeness to the NCAA violates anti-trust laws.  Here, here, and here are some links about it.

These past two weeks have involved a lot of driving for me, so I have racked up a lot of sports talk radio hours.  For obvious reasons (namely protect their networks valuable relationships with the NCAA) the talk show hosts are being openly hostile and dismissive of any claims to pay NCAA atheletes.  This post is going to briefly summarize the common lay-person objections with my response.

1.  Players are paid fairly with a scholarship and associated benefits -  This is missing the point.  The point is the players can't negotiate.  If I am Johnny Manziel, maybe I desire additional compensation beyond my athletic scholarship.  However, the NCAA says I can't.  Further, Johnny Football's likeness is quite a valuable asset -  and forever assigning its use to the NCAA is just highway robbery (without an arms-length negotiation that is)

2.  Law Students, Medical Students etc... others don't get paid while at school - That is sort of true.  However, there is nothing precluding professional students from obtaining employment during school or during breaks at any compensation.  And, there is no real setting limits on scholarship terms for potential law students -  I imagine a law school could make a pretty sweet compensation offer to a potential student who had Supreme Court written on them, to reap the later benefits of having an alumnus on SCOTUS.

3.  Without Football or March Madness Money there'd be no resources for other sports -  This is really the last refuge of the damned i.e. claiming some higher purpose for something of questionable legality.  The reality is that Nick Saban isn't going to assign his likeness to fund Alabama's Woman's Golf team, nor should any of his players have the profits from their likenesses be unilaterally misappropriated as well. 

Whatever funding necessary for the "non-revenue" sports should come from somewhere else.  It might sound callous, but that is really the only fair answer.

I like College Football a lot and have since I was a very young kid.   However, I can't support a system that exploits its labor like this.  The players have no right to organize, no ability to negotiate, and when they graduate (i.e. no longer obstenible amatuers) no ability to get compensated for others profiting off their likeness.  So this year, I'm going to try to pay less attention, even though I probably will fail.

Perspective

Over the last few days a client and I had a falling out over how the case should proceed, so sadly I had to tell him he needed he a new attorney.  I say sadly because I had his case in good shape, and I doubt he'll find another attorney to take it over, and probably won't be able to make it pro-per.

I noticed in this particular client, his refusal to accept legal reality is he feels that certain parties (large banks) have wronged him in such a way and ruined his life, to settle with them is somehow capitulating.

In my termination email to him, I told him he still had his health and his family so he couldn't say everything was gone, but that didn't work.

This made me think of some of the horrible events of recent history some of my clients have lived through - things that can really ruin life, far worse than a foreclosure or a few crooked banks.  So here are some:

-jewish clients living in Ukraine in 1941

-client who does not have a birth certificate because his village was destroyed by the French Army and later served in the South Vietnamese Army and barely made it out after we bailed in 1975

-client who lived through this in Argentina and served in this conflict

-clients who were born in Burma and are of this ethnicity;

-clients born in 1970 in this country;

There are more -  my point is, it could be a lot worse.

Jurors Are Not Capable of Performing their Alleged Most Important Task - Part 1

I have a confession to make.  I have never laid eyes on a jury in real life.  Not as an observer, nor in practice.  I've never been on a jury and probably never will be.  And I don't feel like I am missing out.  So the rest of what follows might all be a bunch of shit I made up...(I don't think it is)

Our legal system loves juries.  There are epic poems thinly disguised as legal scholarship or judicial opinions talking about the sanctity of the jury, the province of the jury, the deference to the jury, and how amazingly awesome it is for an impartial panel of your fellow citizens to decide whether you really meant to give the car back that you drove away in or whether you really didn't see that puddle of piss that you slipped on in the Appelbees men's room.

The jury decides facts (judges decide law).  During a trial (again remember I have never actually seen one) evidence is presented, lawyers argue, and then the jury has to decide what really happened and whether what really happened constitutes a crime or civil liability.

It goes without saying that prosecution and defense and plaintiff and defense have very different views as to what really happened.  It could be a matter of perspective, bias, or outright lies.  When there is a situation where witness A says A happened and witness B says B happened, the jury gets to determine who is telling the truth, or how as it is called in legal-speak, determine credibility.

Generally speaking, juries are neither qualified nor capable of performing this task.  There are two obvious reasons for this.  First, most people (or most stupid people or 95% of the people on juries) think they can perceive that someone is lying by their demeanor such as whether a person is sweating, stuttering, crying too much, not crying enough, blinking their eyes too much, shifting in their chair, speaking too softly, speaking too loudly etc...

Some of these traits might be indicative of lying.  If a jury can figure it out, then those jurors should be playing professional poker (incidentally pro pokers players do not use these types of cues to determine what their opponent may hold).  Therefore, unless a juror can demonstrate he or she has in fact won a large sum of money playing poker, it must be concluded said juror is unable to use these sorts of cues to determine whether one is telling the truth or not.  Further, because many people think they can figure it out, there should be a jury instruction which reads:

"You and 99.9% of all humans lack the ability to observe the demeanor of a person you have never met before and determine with any sort of certainty from this whether that person is testifying truthfully.  This includes **list of all conventional wisdom observations**.  If you already know this, you are probably the smartest person on this jury.  Please try to convince your fellows jurors of this fact.  They probably won't listen because of stuff like "my ex-wife always was sweating when I asked her Jim was", but you should try."

Second is summed up in three words:  Rules of Evidence.  It shouldn't take fancy terms like hearsay and personal knowledge to explain why what Billy said to Jimmy which was overheard by Jimmy Lee who then testified that Billy had seen some guy who sort of looked like the defendant steal the missionaries bicycle for one to realize this type of evidence is really useless.

Nor should it take much thought for someone to determine that it isn't science when a witness is paid by that party to perform an experiment where the answer is pre-determined.

The whole point of the rules of evidence is to keep information away from people who are too dumb to figure out the obvious.  

But, Matt, this is a panel of your peers, an impartial group of people just like you - they'll get justice for you.....next part will talk about this.

Thoughts on Windsor and Hollingsworth

I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") and California Proposition 8 are wrong.  I would never vote or support either.

However, upon further reflection I think it is very bad policy to let the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of this.  Here is how I view it:

To pass any law it requires both the Senate and House to approve it.  The House is highly gerrymandered and the Senate is probably the most undemocratic body in "democracy".  Each state gets 2 senators regardless of size AND because of the fillibuster often requires 60 votes.  Then the President has to sign on. 

If someone out there thinks the law is unconstitutional, that person can file an action in federal court arguing as such.  At that point, one judge rules however he or she sees fit.  Then it can be appealed when a panel of 3 judges decides one way or the other.  Then, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court where 9 judges get to decide.  By the way, all the judges are attorneys probably from about 10 different law schools and probably have very limited at best experience outside the theoretical aspects of law (academia, appellate work).

My point is this isn't democracy.  The decisions are all made by a few people not representative of the country as a whole.  If the Supreme Court was some sort of non-partisan, highly intellectual body of scholars who neutrally evaluated things, it might be different.  But that is the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court is.  The Supreme Court is just another political body cloaked as some sort of guardian of te constituion. 

The Hollingsworth holding is a classic example.  The "standing" argument is garbage.  The court wanted to rule in a way that wouldn't create outrage.  The easiest way to do that was to dismiss the appeal -  same-sex marriage in California is not a controversial issue anymore -  Prop 8 would be repealed by wide margins if voted on, so allowing same-sex marriage to remain legal in California offends no one.  Therefore, it is an obvious political opinion, all the intellectual stuff about "standing", "cases and controversys" and "injury" are words lawyers use when they trying sound smart, but really are terms for "we do not want to decide this".

I think judicial review has had its day and it is time for it to go -  but that won't be possible until we actually have a democracy, not some system where 500,000 people in North Dakota have the same say as 40 million in California.

Attorneys are too Serious Part III

Not to needless belabor my point, but take a look on my facebook page as to what my law offices mission is.  What do you think when read that?  If you think it is inappropriate, unprofessional, or the like, you are too serious.

When we are doing whatever it is we do, especially in bankruptcy, nobody dies.  I can understand the gravity in criminal law, but in bankruptcy?  Come on.  Get a grip. 

Have fun.  Try to put witty stuff in your pleadings / correspondence as necessary.  I for one would rather read clever analogies about how shitty my case is.  For example:

Serious Attorney:  "your case is wholly without merit and is frivilous.  My client will be seeking attorneys from you and your client if blah blah isn't done"

Witty Attorney:  "your case makes about as much sense as a football bat" 

What is more effective?

Serious Attorney, when addressing court: "good morning your honor, Clarence Darrow on behalf of the Debtor"

Less Serious Attorney:  Good Morning your honor, I'd like to wish everyone a happy X day.  I always try to mention significant days in history as they apply -  I've been able to work in Pearl Harbor Day, April Fools Day, D-day, Bastille Day and countless others.  No idea why I do this, but for me it loosens me up.  Plus a lot of these are important for us to remember. 

Anyway, I hope I've made my point and I will stop ranting.  Colleagues, I implore you loosen up and relax.  It isn't that bad.  I'll meet you in the middle - I'll gladly accept your attached correspondence as long as it doesn't come from a secretary. 

Finally, be yourself.  I'm sure some people are naturally pensive types of people, but I know many are not.  As I mentioned in the beginning, I am different than most, I learned at a young age my round peg wasn't fitting in the square hole, so I stopped trying and found life much more easier.

Attorneys are too Serious Part II

A lot of attorneys think they are tough guys, especially when dealing with younger attorneys.  Some things tough attorneys do to is younger attorneys is sound serious and try to imply fuck around time is over.  Examples of this -

1.  Referring to opposing counsel in correspondence as "Mr. Faler"

     My Response:  Judges call me Mr., and to everyone else I am Matt. (not entirely true, many of   my   friends call me by a few nicknames, but I do not use them professionally).

2.  Sending Letters on Fancy Stationary

     My Response:  We scan everything, so I will be reading your letter on pdf regardless of the cotton stock.

3.  Attaching a Signed Letter to an Email

     My Response:  This drives me nuts.  I can literally remember the last time I did this (ironically trying to   sound like a hard-ass to a client who hasn't paid his bill yet).  Before that, I cannot recall.  I've heard a bunch of reasons for it, but all of them suck.  If you want to communicate to me something in writing, write an email, put my email address in the send block, and press send.  It is that simple.  The attachment part does not make me read it more attentively, think fuck around time is over, or think wow, so and so must really have the goods on me / my client, so I'd better acquiesce to all their unreasonable demands on the spot.  I have largely instituted a new rule:  opposing counsel gets one email letter attachment, before they get the "I will delete any correspondence attached to an email" schtick.  And I will do it. 

4.  Sending a Signed Letter in an Email from a Secretary

     My Response:  This is not acceptable to me in any way, shape or form.  I by the very nature of my practice am the lead attorney on my cases.  Therefore, I communicate with attorneys only.  Secretaries, paralegals (with a few exceptions usually for trustee personnel) do not send me anything, or more specifically, secretaries who send me attached correspondence drafted by themselves or their superiors will find it deleted and a response sent to the attorney stating as such.  This is done because opposing counsel is trying to show me they are so busy that they can't bother to send an email.  And I delete it because I am too busy to open correspondence from non-attorneys. 

5.  Threatening Sanctions

     My Response:  This is my favorite.  "if you don't do XYZ, I am going to seek sanctions pursuant to whatever section and blah blah blah".  I really love the bolding.  In fact I love all correspondence and pleadings with bolded and italicized parts, it really makes understand how grave the matter at hand is.  Whenever this happens, I always give the same short but LEGALLY CORRECT RESPONSE and this whether it be Cal Civ Pro, FRCP, or FRBP before any motion for sanctions is filed, the moving party must serve the motion on the responding party giving said party an oppurtunity to withdraw the offending pleading.  Therefore my brief responses is "I'll look forward to reading your motion, and then using my safe harbor period to determine what I will do".  To date in 7 seven years of practice I have yet to have a sanctions motion filed against me, nor even one served on me. (I have gotten sanctioned for stupid shit like missing a hearing and not filing status reports, but those occurences are solely my fault). 

6.  Using Some Sort of Stupid Term like "considered you and your client warned" ; "govern yourself accordingly" ; "all legally available remedies under all applicable laws"

    My Responses:  LOL.  Do what you need to do dude, but if you are trying to show me how serious you are try something else, because stuff like this makes me laugh.

Anyway, it is my belief attorneys do and use the above actions to show how serious they are.  I can't speak for others, but I'm fairly positive my reactions and/or opinions of all of the above are in the minority to some degree.

For informations sake I would handle the above situations as follows:

1.  I call people by their first name or any other name that they request.  I use titles for military ranks, doctors, dentists, academics, judges and maybe certain older people.  If you want to be called Mr., too bad.

2.  I don't send letters by snail mail

3.  I do not do this

4.  I would never order a secretary to do this, because I consider this action to be beyond disrespectful.

5.  I don't threaten, if I'm going to do something, I'll do it.  I think I may have served one sanctions motion in 7 years and I believe the issue was resolved without anything being filed.

6.  I usually just say what I am going to do i.e. file xyz motion seeking xyz relief on xyz day.

Now that we have covered, some things I think attorneys do to sound serious, I'm going to mention some things I think serious attorneys should do, to like loosen up and enjoy life more.

Attorneys are too Serious Part I

First, a little background on why I believe the title of this post is true.  I was once asked (nevermind whom) what feeling I have felt or most strongly felt my entire life.  This was an easy question.  The answer is : different.  Not different good, not different bad, just different.  Specifically, as far back as I can remember I have looked at the world in ways that are different from most.  I call this vision, others call it eccentric, some insanity, a few charismatic (I like these people a lot), and far too many call it bullshit.

Anyway, virtually everytime I pursue a new endeavor, I quickly realize that I'm likely thinking about things for the most part outside the norm.  A good example was law school.  I started law school at age 27, about a year after I left the Army.  I hadn't been in a classroom (Field Artillery OBC excluded) in 5 years.  I really didn't know much about the law.  I had no idea was law review, moot court, inns of court (still don't know what this is) and/or mock trial were.  I certainly didn't know that the preceeding what were all the smarts kids did.

I remember one of the big fears first year was getting "called on" by the Professor and asked questions you clearly couldn't possibly answer.  I'll admit this was a little unsettling to me, but it didn't really inspire me to study more or less than I already did -  I mean I did my best to learn the material but if I didn't get it or whatever and I got called on, so what?  What was the worst that could happen?  Probably look stupid.  I think this bothered many people a lot more than me.

Same thing will finals.  It was a little stressful, I suppose, but again all I can really do is my best.  If I get a shitty grade so what?  I figure if I learned something than I can't complain too much.  Now, I can say this is decidedly a very, very minority attitude in law school.

Most people care a lot about their grades.  This is because good grades get you good jobs (see large firms, clerkships) or more appropriately good grades plus "activities" get you good jobs.  I had no idea about this, I figured with an accounting degree, four years of service as an Army officer, and decent grades, that'd be all I needed.  And seriously, while I didnt get straight A's (B+, I looked at my transcripts to verify) nor did I participate in any activity not involving softball or beer, I felt like I learned the material pretty well.  And at the end of the day, I was ok with that.

I think the broader point here is I didn't take law school seriously, or more specifically, I didn't take it seriously enough.  Or perhaps it is better phrased, my level of outward seriousness towards law school was much less than the average level of seriousness of my fellow students.

Sadly, this concept of "serious-ness" carries over to practice.  Part II will discuss my observations on practice.

Unexplained Hiatus

This appears to be my first blog post in about a month.  I always have a lot to say, so I can't blame writers block.  Perhaps it was a combination of playing an excessive amount of poker, busy-ish work schedule, and perhaps a tad of pre-occupation with impending fatherhood.

Whatever the reason is, I'm back.  I suppose the big news (besides becoming a father) is that I have created a Law Offices of Matthew Faler facebook page.  Much like Linkedin, I am not sure what the protocol is for putting stuff on it is I can say with certainty that whatever the protocol is, I will definitely ignore it, because, well that is the way I do things.

Here is the linkedin profile and here is my Law Office facebook page.  Feel free to comment.

The other less than big news is all the in progress series are going to be temporarily halted, because honestly I don't know where I left off.  But I will try to pick them back up as time allows.

Even lesser news than the previous comment, is I have drafted two fresh off the presses blog posts which I'm just dying to cut from word and into the blogosphere.

I am going to finish them up now.

Seattle v Sacramento - My Legal Take Part 1 - The Introduction

The NBA is not my favorite sport.  In no particular order, I prefer the following sporting events to the NBA - MLB, NFL, Golf Majors, College Football, International Football (soccer), Association Football (soocer), the Olympics (both Winter and Summer), Tennis Majors, March Madness, and NCAA La Crosse.  Just kidding on last one. 

Even in my teens, when the Sonics were good and the Mariners and Seahawks sucked (See 1992 Seahawks Team for a laugh), I was more into the Mariners and Seahawks.  It isn't like I am unfamilar with Derek McKey and Michael Cage, but I could rattle off a long list of Seattle athletes I like better than Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, and Jim McIlvane. 

As to why I do not like the NBA that is another story for another day, needless to say whether the Sonics return to Seattle or not isn't really something I am all jazzed about (For the record, 10 years in SoCal and I'm not about the Lakers and Clippers).  Honestly, I do not care that much.

The Seattle ownership group has offered a ridiculous amount of money to the Maloof family.  In a perfect market, the Maloofs would sell the team in a heartbeat for this amount of money.  It is literally a deal they cannot refuse.  Further, and unless the Sacramento group matches the offer all the other league owners benefit.  If a team in Seattle is worth $625 million, a team in Los Angeles, even a shitty one like the Clippers is worth at least $1 billion.  (I shudder to think what the Yankees or Cowboys would be worth in this market).  In essence this offer probably makes every other ownership group in the United States and Canada wealthier.

So this begs the question as to why the NBA would block a sale which makes them wealthier in an instant?  I do not know the answer.  One possible answer is the NBA is creating a bidding war, hoping the offers will get higher and higher, perhaps increasing the value of their teams even more.  I think that the former is a side benefit.  The real answer is control. 

Unlike most businesses, an owner of a North American sports franchise cannot move the team unilaterally.  The players they employ are acquired via a draft.  They monopolize the venues they play in (and don't pay for).  An owner cannot sell a franchise to whoever they want.  And even better, these leagues have largely figured out how to have our Universities pick up the tab for player development (mainly football, but all sports draft a lot of college player - this is completely unheard of in Europe in all sports).

One doesn't need to be on Harvard Law Review (University of San Diego, non law review is sufficient) to figure out this seems like an anti-trust problem. 

Wow, that was a long introduction, but I'm going to try to make some legal sense of the whole situation in a few parts.  Our discourse is sports law starts over 90 years ago in a Supreme Court opninion by the great Oliver Wendell Holmes.  It is probably the worst SCOTUS opinion this side of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. 

The opinion is Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National of Professional Baseball Clubs et. al.

The jist of the opinion was professional baseball was not interstate commerce so it was exempt from anti-trust laws.  In 1919 (three years before this opinion), there was an famous "trade" of a certain player between a team in New York and a team in Massachusetts.  This sale was for $125,000, not even chump change now, let alone in 1919.  And at that time, teams played against each other against teams in other states, and even played in something called the World Series.  The players got paid.  The Philadelphia A's won three World Series between 1910-1914.  However, their owner the immortal Connie Mack decided his players were too expensive, and decided to re-build with a younger team.  Does that sound familar?  Marlins fans can take solace that Mack after 15 years built another dynasty and the A's appeared in consecutively in the 1929, 1930, and 1931 World Series winning it twice. 

Long story short -  Professional sports is interstate commerce. 

Next, we are going to skip ahead a few years to Jim McIlvane's best friend, free agency. 
















   

May 1, 2013 - Killers Concert Review

I've been a Killers fan since their debut in 2005, however until last night I had not seen them live in concert.  Perhaps the most bizarre part of the concert, was when I was walking in, they had just taken the stage and were playing "Mr. Brightside" as their first song with the lights on.  Never seen that before.

After that, the lights went down as is normal and the show proceeded.  The band sounded great all across the board -  They played with a lot of energy, and I was very impressed with Bradon Flowers stage presence, he was able to keep the crowd engaged and really seemed to enjoy performing and not there just to cash his quite large paycheck.

The set list had 19 songs.  The inclusion of "Jenny was a Friend of Mine" as the first encore was a pleasant surprise.  I was sort of expecting "All these Things That I've Done" to be an encore (it was the last song of the main set) largely because it has an "encore-ish" feel to it -  I can't really explain what an "encore-ish" feel is except to analogize to my many Depeche Mode concerts.

To the best of my knowledge "Everything Counts" has been the final encore for the vast majority of Depeche Mode concerts since the Music for the Masses tour.  While it is a great song, it doesn't crack my top ten list of any DM song list, perhaps not even top 20.  It does however have sort of an "epic" (maybe the more appropriate musical term is anthemic) feel both in its pace, arrangement and lyrics.  The chorus especially is great to sing a long to.  So I think it makes sense to end a concert with an energetic song like that, where the entire crowd can sing "The grabbing hands, grab all they can, all for themselves afterall, Everything Counts in Large Amounts......"  And since they have been doing it for so long, it is pretty much expected by the fan base (Cure is similar with the Forest, though I would not categorize the Forest as anthemic).

"All These Things....." has they same sort of feel in its pace, arrangement and lyrics -  And almost anyone remotely familar with pop music over the past 10 years can sing "I've got soul, but I'm not a Soldier...." Perhaps, the Killers plan their set list to be a little unexecpted like that and if so, good for them, it is always good to mix up the songs a bit -  though in my opinion, I do not really like a slow paced song to end a show, I like to go out with a bang.

Anyhow, I'd have like to seen "Sam's Town" included in the set list, I think it is one of their very best songs, and would play very well live.  I perused their most recent set lists from previous shows and they appear to have played it a few times on this tour - perhaps next time.  Also, it appears they have been mixing in a cover song or two per show -  at this concert, it was "I Think We Are Alone Now" -  Props to shopping malls and Tiffany.  I liked it.

All in all very good show and I look forward to seeing the Killers in concert next go around -  only slight negative is that when the songs from the new album are played alongside the past songs, it is pretty obvious that Battle Born is inferior to their previous efforts, so hopefully this is just a result of the obvious fact that it can be difficult to make every album excellent. 




































   

Sort of Simple Pleasures or Let me see you Stripped.......

Today, I teetered on having a meltdown for reasons that aren't relevant here.  Thankfully, I avoided it.  I really wanted to say "THIS IS WHY CHAPTER 13 FUCKING SUCKS", but I pulled myself back from the cliff.

Anyway, sometimes people like me (see title of blog) need some techniques to get a grip.  Or methods to keep me from saying "Fuck you very much, your honor".

What I try to do is think about things I enjoy and things I look forward to and wouldn't want to jeopardize with a trip to the US Marshal holding pen at the Ronald Reagan Building in Santa Ana. 

So in general I try to think / do some of the following:

Listen to music I like specifically -  Depeche Mode Some Great Reward through Violator with two songs from Playing the Angel. 

Read certain magazines I like -  Harpers, Discover, and Scientific America

Read About the 2013 Seahawks Seasons -  this is very exciting and always makes me feel better!

Think back to when the Huskies won a national title, and the Mariners were relevant, usually with some help from youtube to remind me, it was actually real and not some random altered memory.

Surf Wikipedia Endlessly about random people and random stuff from history.

Anyway, those are my "simple pleasures" to the extent there is anything simple about it.  And for what it is worth,  I am listening to this and reading about this guy.  And I feel much more relaxed...thankfully

Insomnia Inspired Irritability

I titled this post more to show off my kickass alliteration skills -  thank you Mr. Marchbank.  Well actually, it is sort of descriptive.  A bit.  I am having trouble sleeping, I feel inspired, and I am a bit cranky, so go figure.

Anyway, my small, growing and loyal readership has demands of my posts making some sort of point, god forbid they find another blog to read.  The last few posts have alternated between bankruptcy law stuff and another series I am trying to start about teachers.  I haven't had a chance to get to teachers yet (aside from a reference in this post).. 

The origin of the name is that the majority of the world is different than me -  they are not bipolar.  This isn't really suprising to anyone.  So the basic point of the name is to emphasize I am and feel different than most people of the world.

The primary point of the name is pride (in the name of love).  It is a misconception that we bipolar people have a disability (legally bipolar is disability, but I'm not making a legal argument).  We are just different.  I am not going to sit in the psychiatric closet (second place was going to the back of the psychiatric bus).

Therefore, the point of the name is to express to the world I am not ashamed of my condition.  In fact I embrace it.  Before you say "surely you can't be serious", I say - "check out this list, and don't call me Shirley.

Teachers / Professors of Mine - Part I

I think teachers at all levels get a bad rap.  When kids do well, their parents take all the credit, when kids do poorly, teachers take all the blame.  Further, good teachers are often forgotten even by students who appreciated their effort.  Whenever, my friends and I are discussing various teachers / professors it almost invariably leads to which teachers / professor's "mailed it in". 

This outlook really reinforces the worst stereotypes of the profession i.e. lazy teachers with tenure who don't care.  Therefore the purpose of this series will be to discuss teachers I have had at all levels of education with a dash of cynicism and praise for those who did well and those who did not.  I'm going to include the following schools I attended -

Marvista Elementary, Normandy Park, WA 1982 - 1988

Sylvester Middle School, Burien, WA  1988 - 1990

Highline High School, Burien, WA 1990- 1994

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1994- 1998 -  Note this will emphasize my major of Business / Accounting

University San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CA -  2003 - 2006

Any classmates from those, feel free to comment.

Boston Marathon Bombers

I warn you in advance this might piss some people off.

I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the entire show was dedicated to the bombing, the perpetrators and the aftermath.  The show cut out to a crowd in Boston chanting -

"U.S.A. , U.S.A....."

Really?  Is this an Olympic hockey game?  World Cup?  Did Michael Phelps win another medal?

I remember thinking the same thing when similar chants were heard outside the White House after Bin Laden was killed. 

Where were these chants when Christopher Dorner was killed?  I bet 95% of non Southern California  residents couldn't even tell you who Dorner was?  I'm serious, if anyone outside SoCal knew about him, please let me know.

Dorner was every bit the terrorist the Boston Bombers were.  People commit horrific crimes all the time.  To me the attention to Boston Bombers, somehow makes me feel that somehow crimes / terror in my neck of the woods are less important.  So let's keep the USA chants on hold until the 2014 World Cup -  we will really need them much more then.