What Rush Meant

Anyone who lives at any spot on the political spectrum from middle right all the way over to hard left should pay heed.  This is important. 

Back in 2009, when Limbaugh said he hoped Obama failed, many wrote his comment off as crazy rhetoric from the far Right.  They shouldn't have.  Here's what he meant.  This is so key to understanding where the GOP is just a few months outside of an election.  Liberals, independents, mods, and even right leaning centrists take the following approach to problem identification and solving.  They look at the underlying premises, take into account all various scenarios, and choose the best available solution. 

This is the kind of reasoning that leads men like George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to raise taxes and men such as Obama to cut them.  It's the rationale that causes a dove like Obama to start two wars and assassinate several rogues.  It's what makes Bill Clinton repeal Glass-Steagall, and George W. Bush commence nation building.  I don't think any of these men made it the objective of his presidency to pursue these ends.  They did what they thought needed to be done.  They solved the problems in front of them- sometimes that's the best you can do, even if it creates another problem later.  Limbaugh and his ilk are cut from a different mold. 

They have a core set of bedrock values that they think embody America.  Things like low(er) taxes, extreme social conservatism, and limited government.  They wax nostalgic of the bygone mid 20th Centrury, and how, if we could just return to the way we were, all would be right in our great Union.  Facts, of course, be damned.  Taxes were extremely higher in the era for which they yearn, government much bigger (not to mention the whole segregated drinking fountains, bathrooms, and schools thing).  And, you know, abortion was legal in many states.  These inconvenient pieces of America's past are being stricken from our history books, at least in the minds of the radical right. 

This is where people like Michele Bachman get to making comments about our founding fathers being anti slavery, and Glenn Beck stating that all of them were deeply Christian, and of one accord.  The only way that their narrative about America's "better days" makes any kind of sense is if the lesser aspects of those days ceased to exist.  It's almost as if they want to "take America back" to a better time and place, while bringing along all of the advances we've made since. 

Want to go back in time to when cable was $15 a month- premium included, and you could wire (read: pirate) it to any TV in your house?  Great, but that requires you to also return to a time when not all TVs were color, most households only had one or two of them, and any cable subscription would've had only 35 or so channels.  And the TV you would've watched it on probably cost about $1,000 (in yesterday's money, which is about $2,500 in modern dollars) and was no more than about 20", and you likely needed two people to move it.  That's the thing, though.  You can't return to $15 a month cable and bring the plasma flat screens and DVRs and satellite options and Netflix with you.  You can't do that any more than you can return to a "simpler time and place" without returning to the endless threats of nuclear war, Jim Crow, and all the other inconvenient aspects of the time and place you wish to return to.

This is the problem with "believing" too much in "values".  It can often lead to "forgetting" and "misremembering" (by the way, the last guy who misremembered something is currently being indicted, but, whatever).  The point is that Rush doesn't care if he's wrong.  His people don't care.  When he said he hoped Obama failed, what he really meant was that he hoped Obama's America failed. 

Why would a self proclaimed patriot like Limbaugh say this?  Surely, he's cutting off his nose to spite his face.  The problem with thinking that he's cutting off his nose to spite his face is that it's more in line with the left and center right.  The far right doesn't think this way (neither does the far left, but Rush Limbaugh doesn't belong to them).  These bedrock "values" of theirs, however misplaced or factually bogus, are controlling.  An America that succeeds absent these values is not a "real America".  An America where gays are left alone isn't really America.  An America where money is invested both publicly and privately to accomplish both individual and collective goals isn't "their" America.  These people don't take premises, and based on the premises, select the best solution available.  They start with a solution and a conclusion, and work backwards, trying to make everything fit, in much the same way that one would attempt to jam a square peg into a round hole.

They start with prayer in school, and no abortions ever- even if it means the mother must die, and low taxes.  An America that succeeds in spite of these things is a bad America.  Get that?  These people don't care if they're wrong.  They don't care if they get their way, and everything goes to hell.  (Part of it, is that they believe that if they do all of this stuff that they believe appeases their God, that God will take care of them, because he chose America as the one nation (it's in the Bible, I promise)).  This isn't the point.  Their thought is that, if America must fail, it'll fail this way, and only this way- what they perceive to be the American way- because an America that succeeds some other way also fails because it isn't really America.

Adventures in Donating Bone Marrow, Part III

It's been well over a month since my last post on this.  Since then, not a whole lot has gone on.  They gave me an additional physical, as well as more blood work, and determined that my health is fine.  For those of you who know me, you may find it comical that they found my blood pressure and heart rate to be perfectly normal for an easy going, Type B personality- at least I found it funny, being about as Type A as they come.  They took my blood pressure during yesterday's Chiefs game, right about the time they were down 17-0 and I was throwing things at the screen, only to find that it was 102/72. 

My donation is Wednesday morning, in Denver.  I'll fly out tomorrow evening, and return Thursday evening.  They pay for hotel, transportation, and even things like food and room service- and I'm taking my Dad with me...they pay for him too.

Five days prior to the donation, they start injecting a drug called Filgastrim.  It raises your erythrocyte (red blood cell) count.  It's given subcutaneously (underneathneath your skin, as opposed to in your vein, like an IV, or in your muscle, like a tetanus shot).  I had the choice of taking it in the arm, the stomach, or the leg.  The injection is 2.6 cc, and since you cannot take more than 2 mL (using those interchangably for those who didn't like chem class) in one site.  Thus, I have to take one shot on each side of the body.  I just can't get into taking something in my stomach or leg- it makes me feel like a diabetic or something.  It does give me new respect for people who get tattoos, though.  Anyway, the drug knocks you out.  You're off the wall hyper for like a half hour, and then you need a long nap.  I have one more day of shots before I give. 

I've been told that I'll get to watch the DVD of my choice while giving.  It'll probably be either The Godfather, Part II, or one of the Sex and the City seasons- probably the former.  More updates to follow. 

I Got a Feeling (Woo Hoo), or Why I Don't Think Rick Perry Is Our Next President

I get this feeling about Rick Perry.  It has nothing to do with his politics (although I do think his politics make him unelectable).  It's a feeling I got about Sarah Palin.  The same one I had about Howard Dean- and the same one I had about George Allen.  It's that he'll never  be President because he doesn't know when to keep  his mouth shut.

Every politican makes gaffes.  Barack Obama talks about 53 states and guns and religion.  Joe Biden and either President Bush could have books written about their misquotes.  Bottom line, if you do enough talking- and politicians are paid to talk- you'll say something you didn't entirely think through, or that came out wrong, or that you didn't mean.  Good politicians avoid gaffes as much as possible; great ones cover them quite eloquently.  However, all politicians who attain an office as high as President or Vice President do so because they are able to avoid the big gaffes.  In short, there is a line, and they NEVER cross it, no matter how stupid the things they say may be.

Even George W. Bush understood this.  There are some things you just never say in politics.  I knew, after watching Palin's acceptance speech that she wasn't qualified for the office of Vice President.  She spent the entire speech talking from the point of view of a victim of the media.  Instead of talking about who she was, she talked about her critics.  She offered nothing of substance.  Sure enough, a few weeks later, when Katie Couric interviewed her, it was over.  The interview wasn't unfair.  Couric asked nothing of Palin that she wouldn't have asked of Biden; nothing that Obama didn't endure in his interview with Bill  O'Reilly.  All of Couric's questions were fair- and entirely predictable.  When you talk about having foreign experience, guess what you're going to be questioned on?  And even if you don't talk about  a particular issue, when you run for an office like VPOTUS, guess what?  ANYTHING is fair- even  if the question itself isn't.  Presidents and VPs get asked loaded questions all the time.  If you can't take the heat, leave the kitchen.  By making herself a victim, I knew it was only a matter of time before Palin destructed.  She spoke to what a lot of conservatives where feeling- being picked on- but, in the words of Peggy Noonan, she was just saying things, without regard to what her words meant or why they resonated:  she was talking to hear herself talk.

Dean came across as a know it all.  A good man, for sure, but you got  this feeling that as soon as Dean achieved a certain level of success in his campaign, he would feel like he was above politics' unwritten rules.  Hence, his "I have a scream" speech.

As for Allen, his persona was that of an overprivileged frat boy.  Like Dean he perceived himself as above the rules.  Here is where Bush benefited from a lifetime of being in the political eye.  He knew instinctively that there while almost any act is forgiveable (see Kennedy, Edward Moore), some words can never be taken back.  No matter how much his admininstration hated abortion, he always stopped short of saying it should be illegal, per se.  Same with gay marriage; hence, his civil  union concession.  Allen had a different pedigree- that of a football coach who would say whatever was on his mind.  Like Dean and Palin, Allen just coudln't get enough of himself.  He thought Macaca was cute, and likely, had no idea uttering that word would cost him his job.

The common denominator with all three is that they like talking for the sake of listening to themselves.  This is the vibe I get with Perry.  It's why I think he's reluctant to debate his opponents.  It's why he made comments about secession.  I understand the "liberal media" may have twisted his words, but when you talk about  having the right to leave the Union, what are people supposed to think?  You just don't go there, and most politicians know this.  Also, FWIW, I think he knew exactly what he was saying- I just don't think he understands that it only takes a couple quotes like that (or even one) to make yourself unelectable.  It's like in the Godfather when Vito tells Sonny not to let anyone outside the family know what he was thinking.  Speaking your mind may make a certain group of voters think you're honest and telling the truth, but if it's a boarish thought, you'd best keep it to yourself, lest you alienate everyone else.  And what's popular among certain Texans may not be popular among all Americans.  I get that it's popular with a certain brand of conservative- but the public at large?  What if he'd made a comment like that in an acceptance speech or a debate?  He'd be finished.  And that's the thing.  I get this feeling that Perry's just a little too loose with his words.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just have this feeling that I can't really explain.

It's a feeling that either before he's nominated or after (in the event that he, indeed, is), but sometime before next year's Election, that he'll just say the dumbest thing at the worst possible time...and it'll cost him.

On Thursday, Jonathan Alter challenged Obama critics to narrow their arguments down.  He argued that Obama has done quite well, all things considered.  Basically, Alter asks anyone criticizing Obama to specifically identify how anyone else in Obama's position could've fared better.

On Friday, Peter Wehner answered by unwittingly proving Alter's point.  First, he shifts the scope of the argument.  Instead of answering Alter's challenge of identifying specific 'failures' of the Obama administration and outlining how he or some Republican of his choice would have not only done different but better, Wehner switched the grading scale.  Instead of evaluating Obama by Alter's standards, he implores his readers to grade Obama on Obama's standards. 

By the way, this way of grading is silly.  Suppose you have two students, the first aspiring to have all A+s, and the second wanting merely a B+ average.  Suppose the second guy gets his B+s, and the other guy gets a few A+s, but also some As and B+s mixed in, and finishes with an A- average.  Did he fail by his own standards?  Sure.  Did he do the best he could've possibly done?  Maybe not.  And maybe the other guy gave his very best, did his very best, and for that reason, was able to achieve his goal.  It's also possible the first student was capable of being an A student and set a really low bar for himself, while Mr. A+ set for himself a loftier goal than he was really capable of, knowing he'd have to really work hard.  Whatever the reason, one thing is simply not debatable:  An A- average is better than a B+ one, all other things being equal.

That's the biggest problem with the whole "You didn't deliver hope and change, and you said unemployment would stay below 8%," garbage.  The other problem with it is one Obama can really exploit in next  year's election if he plays his cards right. 

We've all heard of parents who promise their children a particular Christmas or birthday gift, and then, for some reason, they are unable to afford that gift (usually an unexpected event like a job loss or illness or large expense).  Then the kid turns to the parent and says, "You lied."  Then the parent has to explain that no, he or she did not lie.  They made a promise that they meant at the time and would have kept.  Kindergartners don't understand this; adults should.

When Obama was campaigning, unemployment was in the 5s.  It ballooned in the days leading up to the election and during the lame duck period.  By the time he took office, it was 7.8%- and seeing as he took office on January 20, and unemployment stats come out the first Friday of every month (unless the 1st falls on a Friday), unemployment was more or less 8.2% before Obama could blink.  He passed the stimulus within weeks (which is FAST, in today's Washington), and the economy almost immediately began to add jobs.  America dramatically changed in the time between Obama's campaign and his taking of office, and holding him to promises he made in the context of America '07-08 and America after '08 is childish.  Closing Guantanimo is a good idea in theory, but in reality, no one wants the people who live there; bad an option as it was, it was the least bad of all options.  Obama did not know this while campaigning, so to bind him to it by calling him a liar is childish.  Finally, Hope and Change is a slogan, not a promise.  It's vauge.  You can make what you will of it.  Some conservatives will never see hope and change until they see a new president.  Many liberals who voted for Obama are quite pleased with his work.  But binding Obama to Hope and Change is as stupid as trying to sue Mars when your M & Ms melt in your hand on a hot afternoon.  Adults get this; children don't.

Obama's best hand entering 2012 in what appears to be a sluggish economy is to make himself look like the adult in a room full of babies; to make himself appear to be the steady handed rational amid a sea of radical ideologues.  It is here that Wehner spectacularly fails in answering Alter's challenge.  He writes:

"Under Obama’s stewardship, we have lost 2.2 million jobs (and 900,000 full-time jobs in the last four months alone). He is now on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era.

The unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent v. 7.8 percent the month Obama took office.

July marked the 30th consecutive month in which the unemployment rate was above the 8 percent level, the highest since the Great Depression.

Since May 2009 — roughly 14 weeks into the Obama administration — the unemployment rate has been above 10 percent during three months, above 9 percent during 22 months, and above 8 percent during two months.

Chronic unemployment is worse than during the Great Depression.

The youth employment rate is at the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948.

The share of the eligible population holding a job has declined to the lowest level since the early 1980s.

The housing crisis is worse than in the Great Depression. (Home values are worth roughly one-third less than they were five years ago.)

The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression. From the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2011, we experienced five consecutive quarters of slowing growth. America’s GDP for the second quarter of this year was a sickly 1.0 percent; in the first quarter, it was 0.4 percent.

Fiscal year 2011 will mark the third straight year with deficits in excess of $1 trillion. Prior to the Obama presidency, we had never experienced a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

During the Obama presidency, America has increased its debt by $4 trillion.
That is to say, Obama has achieved in two-and-a-half years what it took George W. Bush two full terms in office to achieve — and Obama, when he was running for president, slammed Bush’s record as being “unpatriotic.”

America saw its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history under the Obama presidency.

Consumer confidence has plunged to the lowest level since the Carter presidency.

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

A record number of Americans now rely on the federal government’s food stamps program. More than 44.5 million Americans received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a 12 percent increase from one year ago."

First of all, any moron can see these things, not as a list of problems, but rather as several items of evidence to one really big problem.  Second, any critique of Obama involves either blaming him for causing this, or for blaming him for failing to fix it.  Most Americans blame the Bush presidency for causing the collapse.  Thus, the only real argument is that Obama failed to fix the bad economy.  If this is Wehner's challenge, I accept.

Here are the criteria for critiquing one of Obama's- or any president's- actions or inactions:

1.  You must prove it to be an abject failure.  If you think the stimulus was a failure, you must rebut all of the economists, both liberal and conservative, who've said that without the stimulus, there is a very real chance that unemployment would be in the low teens right now; that the Dow Jones would've been trading in the 4000s for a while, that GDP would be nowhere near as high.  In other words, you have to come up with a credible economist of your own who will rebut what everyone else is saying.

2.  You have to identify an option that was on the table at the time, that would've gotten a better resuslt.  There are two prongs to this:  First, the option had to be something other politicians were considering- it can't be something we all came up with in retrospect; second, it has to be an option that not only could have produced a better outcome, but most likely would have.

3.  Last, whatever this great plan is that would've been better than what Obama did or did not do, it must've been something that would've passed Congress.  For example, liberals can pan him for not getting a bigger stimulus, but the fact is that the stimulus that passed Congress was as big as Obama was going to get.  Conservatives can pan the stimulus for not having enough tax cuts and spending too much, but, again, assuming such a plan would have worked- which most economists agree it would not have- it never would have passed.  

Liberals who critique Obama for not letting the Bush tax cuts expire cannot, then, turn around and praise him for ending DADT:  Obama got the DADT repeal and START II (and nearly got the DREAM Act) in return for extending the tax cuts, knowing full well he'd have another bite at the apple (which, in December of 2012, he may well have positioned himself to be the most important lame duck president ever (assuming of course he loses, which it's not so clear that he will)).  Conservatives who critique him on foreign policy cannot ignore Obama's assassination of Osama bin Laden, and his overthrow of two dictators, and his successful drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

4.  If you can't accomplish 1, 2, and 3, you can't criticize Obama, because no matter how bad things ended up, it's unlikely anyone in the world be it Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan, or FDR, Harry Truman or JFK, could've done better. 

To do otherwise would be to act like that guy who sits on Sunday and watches his favorite quarterback throw 4 INTs, and then says "I could've done better than that."  I have no problem with a fan identifying one of his team's weaknesses.  I draw the line with the fans who think they know everything about playing the position, right down to the part where they say they personally know of someone who could've done better.  Or, maybe they'll say that an owner should put a certain college team out there instead of an NFL one.  Either way, it's a ridiculous argument.  The NFL is made up of guys who were the best 3 or 4 on their college team (and for most, they were THE best on their college team); the worst NFL team would beat the NCAA National Champion (or if not that champion, the best team running a pro style offense and defense) by at least 2 or three TDs.  It wouldn't be close.  The point is, the guy sitting in his recliner on Sunday talking about how some idiot off the street could do better than his team's QB is an idiot.  He fails to appreciate the talent and skill of the player he's watching. 

And people who criticize politicians for making decisions when they themselves are unable to come up with not only a better idea, but one that would've passed Congress don't appreciate our political system and its acotrs. 

A lot of conservatives have fallen in love with Rick Perry.  I don't see it lasting- for a variety of reasons.  Among the biggest is the idea that he can solve our nation's economic problems.  Most Americans blame George Bush's administration for the collapse.  All Obama really needs to do to win is tie Perry to Bush.  I understand Bush isn't president anymore, and that his name will not appear on any ballot.  I also understand that a lot of Americans compare the Recession to a hangover, and know that a hair of the dog is no remedy.  I know that a lot of Americans are tired of watching their elected officials act like children.  The GOP's biggest problem, right now, going into 2012, is that they're still thinking like children.  If they don't grow up, Obama will win decisively.  And I'm okay with that, because I can't think of how anyone else could've done much better. 

Adventures in Donating Bone Marrow Part II

So, today they gave me a full physical.  It took nearly 2 hours.  One of the benefits of doing this is getting all of this free stuff.  Want a free physical?  Give blood or apply for life insurance.  Anyway, they took 5 tubes of blood to be tested.  Then they gave me a chest x-ray and an EKG. 

A couple of things they look for on the x-ray:  First, and most important, they want to know if your lungs are clear.  Next, they check your torso for any masses that may be cancerous, or for kidney stones, stuff like that.  It never hurts to look at the bones that show up to make sure they're healthy- you don't have any displaced vertebrae or broken ribs.  Last, when you look at a chest x-ray, you can see a faint white substance on the middle left- it's your heart.  If it shows much more than that, it may mean you have an enlarged heart.  If any other organs show up, it could mean they're enlarged, too.  Needless to say, mine was clear.

EKGs are always fun, because no two people's hearts are the same- not even identical twins.  Everyone has something unique.  They put these little things on you that almost remind you of the hot wax they put on you when you go and get a wax job- they hurt a little coming off.  I encourage anyone who hasn't gotten one to have one done, just to find out about your heart.  They took pulse, temp., and blood pressure (my vitals always run a little low, for some reason), height (just under the 5'9" that I tell everyone that I am), weight (155 lbs., as usual), and gave me an exam.  They reminded me to not tan, or drink coffee, or smoke (I don't, except for the tanning thing come summer- I'm kind of white). 

By the way, I know this is something quite sensative, but many cancers are preventable, if not by habit, by examination.  In addition to self examination, I don't mind the doctors reminding me, from time to time, how to do it.  This way I know I'm doing it correctly.  Basically, you should examine any part of your body that is a gland for lumps or discharge, about once monthly.  Anyway, it's worth noting that men can get breast cancer, too- Mr. T had it; Rod Roddy died from it.  Finally, every man's favorite part of a physical, a hernia and prostate check- it sucks, but the alternative, I can imagine would suck waaaaayyyyyyyyyy more. 

They'll let me know next week, but everything seemed to be fine. 

Adventures in Donating Bone Marrow

So, back when I was an undergrad, 2002 or 2003 or so, Saint Louis University had a bone marrow donor drive, and I signed up.  I honestly don't recall doing it, but it sounds like something I would do.  I give blood frequently, so I wouldn't put it past myself to offer to give bone marrow.  Anyway, out of the blue, a few weeks ago I was notified that I was a potential match for a 58 year old MDS patient, and that they would need me to come in and have some more thorough tests done.

In early August, I had blood drawn.  I was told that although it would be unlikely, in the event that I was a good match, I would be called back, at which time I would need to make a decision.  A week and a half after the draw, I was called back. 

While on the phone I was apprised of how marrow is taken out during a donation.  Apparently there are two methods.  The first is the more traditional method.  You're put to sleep, and they draw marrow from your pelvis.  They make several small incisions, and I would imagine you'd spend the better part of a week feeling like some trollop who just got a tramp stamp.  The newer method involves injections of filgastrim, a compound used in chemo patients to boost their leukocyte counts, that when given to people with ordinary immune systems, results in an unusually high white blood cell count, making it possible to extract marrow from the blood instead of the bone.  Then what they do, is hook  you  up to something called an electrophoresis machine, that takes blood out of one arm, removes the bone marrow inside the machine, and then replaces the blood in the other arm.

(If any of you has had a "double red" blood donation, or given plasma, they use a similar contraption for that.)  I've also been told that they're beginning to use a similar process for cardiac patients as a sort of "roto rooter" for clogged veins and arteries.

Anyway, after a few hours of that machine, you're all done.

After they explained the process to me, they explained that KC has nowhere to do it.  That's the bad news.  The good news:  They'll pay for me- and a companion of my choice- to fly to Denver, St. Louis, or DC...and pick up the check, in order to get it done.  (I'm choosing Denver, solely because I've never been to Denver- I lived in St. Louis for four years and spent a summer interning in DC).  I haven't picked yet, but I'll probably ask my Dad to come along- my brothers are in school, and the last time my mom was in the CO, she got nose bleeds. 

Anyway, the next thing they did was get a medical history (like what you do when you go to a new doctor for the first time), and take a health questionnaire (like those questions they ask  you when you go to give blood)...and for those of you who were wondering, no, I have not gotten a tattoo or piercing in the last year, or had anal sex in Sub Saharan Africa with a male prostitute while injecting bovine insulin.

Next, after the phone call, was an information session.  They gave me a packet full of every question you ever wanted to know about bone marrow donation, and asked me to read it.  Then, I had to set up a meeting with Rebecca Brungardt, with the local Be the Match office.  She advised me that although no one has ever died giving marrow, it is a risk (and if I become disabled, they'll pay my meds- and if I die, my brother gets a million bucks).

She advised me that only about 30% or so of the public has a match in their family- that means that most of the recipients need a donor from outside their family.  Also, sadly, the chances of survival of a recipient are typically much less than 50%.  Reasons for this include the fact that diseases like MDS and leukemia are difficult to cure under any circumstance; in addition, donations can cause the body's immune systemt to reject its own organs.  She did advise that I not give blood for up to one year following the donation, as they may need me to give again. 

At the end of the session, I was given informed consent, which I signed.  I was also asked to participate in research, both long and short term, regarding the drug filgastrim.  I agreed.  Next up:  A full physical- all expenses paid.

When my Mom found out, she asked me why.  Here is my response:  If I were in the same spot, or if any family or close friends were, I'd hope that someone who was a match would be generous enough to give.  I'll keep you updated on this.  The reason I'm writing this is to encourage others to donate, as well as to inform them about what goes on in a donation, and assuage any fears people might have about giving.

Why GHW Bush Lost- and Why That's Important

Almsot 20 years after the fact, history is still attempting to comprehend how and why a seemingly popular president, just a few months before an election, one who presided over a mostly good economy and who won a war, lost his re-election attempt.  What's more, if the GOP continues the decline it began in 2006 over the rift between the Conservative Establishment and the Christian Right (which has morphed into the rift between the Tea Party and the Conservative Establishment), the party will self destruct.  Further, if the Democrats mislearn the lesson of Clinton's victory, the party's best President in years- Barack Obama- will go down in history as a loser when he otherwise may not be.

Myths

It was the Economy, Stupid.  Except that it wasn't.  The Dow Jones was up roughly 33% during Bush's presideny- at least that part leading up to the election (eerily similiar to Obama, by the way).  As for unemployment, it was in the low 5s when he took office and in the mid 7s in the summer of 1992.  It certainly allowed Clinton to argue that the economy was bad, but unemployment has averaged 7% since 1974 (and the average unemployment from '74-'92 was even higher).  It took a bit of a spike from the inflation following the Gulf War, and it went up a bit following the fallout of the Savings and Loan Crisis of 1991. 

Read my lips: higher taxes.  There is conventional wisdom that Bush lost because he broke a campaign promise not to raise taxes.  This has been a tragically dangerous lesson for the GOP, as even in the face of a paucity of government revenue, they refuse to raise taxes citing Bush's defeat.  Fact:  Ronald Reagan raised taxes.  I understand he lowered marginal and corporate tax rates.  He also raised payroll and self employment tax rates.  And, while he lowered corporate rates, he also eliminated a lot of the deductions corporations were allowed to take.  Under Reagan, tax reform was just that- reform, and reform was not synonymous with cut.

Why Bush Lost, and Why Both Parties Mislearned History

The Economy Stupid argument had nothing to do with the economy.  It was part of a larger attempt on Clinton's part.  The biggest reason Clinton had a chance in '92 was that he was able to convince America that he was "cooler" than Bush; that he was more attuned to the problems of everyday Americans.  He did this by portraying Bush as senile.  George Bush is the same generation as my grandparents were- actuallly a little bit younger; agewise, my grandparents were in between Reagan and Bush.  But in 1992, my grandmother was diagnosed with terminal cancer (the doctors gave her 6 months to live; she hung on for 3 more years, first by moving in with my parents and then into a nursing home); my grandfather had his second heart surgery and a hip replacement.  Both were in excellent health; but they were old, and I can't help but think that a lot of Americans were dealing with the same thing my parents were, and wondered how much of an issue Bush's age would play.  I understand Reagan was 77 (just days shy of 78) when he left office, but he was ageless.  The silver screen had a fountain of youth effect on him that just simply didn't apply to others.  He also stumbled across the finish line: the last half of his second term, he had numerous lapses in judgment and public gaffes.  In many ways, Bush was president from '87 on.

America was sick of the White House being a geriatric center (not just with Bush and Reagan, but also with Gerald Ford in the years before Carter), and Clinton took full advantage of America's longing for youth.  Instead of saying Bush is too old, or that he was senile (a tactic that surely would've backfired), what Clinton did was show a lot of youth in his own campaign, and jump at every chance to point out when Bush was out of touch with reality, even if he actually wasn't (remember pony tail hair guy?)- and then hope that America would connect the dots.  It was about the appearance of being out of touch.  The Economy Stupid had nothing to do with money.  It was about age. 

On the issue of taxes, the argument goes something like this:  Bush abandoned "real conservatives", who either stayed home or voted for Perot.  Perot took Bush's base when Bush left it.  The problem with this argument is that it confuses Ross Perot with Ron Paul.  Perot and the Reform Party were completely moot on social issues.  They opposed any platform that took any stance on any social issue.  They didn't cost Bush his base, and certainly ont on the issue of taxes.  If anything, Perot took away almost as many votes from Clinton as he did from Bush- and the voters he did take were the moderates who allowed Bush to prevail over Dukakis- and not the cons who allowed Bush to prevail over Pat Buchanan. 

Simply put, Bush lost because Clinton out-campaigned him.  Instead of running on his record, Bush ran against Clinton.  Instead of appealing to the voters who elected him, Bush tried to be cooler than Clinton. 

Why It Matters

Political scientists try to make sense of elections.  1992 was an anomaly:  a seemingly popular president lost to a relative unknown despite a stellar record.  The facts of the 1992 election directly contradicted the premise that a candidate's record speaks for itself, the American value that a person who is good at his job ought not be fired.  All too often, we forget that politics, like any job, is as much salesmanship as it is hard work.  What we forgot about '92 was that as good as Bush was, he just didn't do as good of a job as Clinton did at selling himself.

Instead, what we remember are two slogans:  The Economy Stupid, and Read My Lips, No New Taxes.  We offer this as explanation why Bush lost because we want to believe that good politicians are always re-elected.  We also remember them, because they're what certain interests want us to.

The Left wants Clinton to be remembered as the architect of the '90s economy.  While he deserves a lot of credit, so does Bush.  The only way to cleave Clinton from Bush, on the issue of the economy is to point out that Bush lost because it had gotten worse under Bush's leadership- and Clinton was able to get it turned around. 

The Right has a wing of extremists (led by men like Grover Norquist) who not only want to destroy the federal government, but also want to put Reagan on a pedestal.  Doing so requires divorcing Reagan from Bush.  It requires labeling Bush as an apostate (it also provides Reagan a little bit of cover for raising taxes as people will remember Bush's tax increases but not Reagan's).  Telling the story this way, it makes a lot of GOP candidates extremely reluctant to ever raise taxes again lest his base forsake him, facts be damned.

Going Forward

For the GOP, the lesson is quite simple.  Somewhere along the way, tax reform has been replaced with a tax aversion fetish.  This is outright dangerous to America, as most Americans expect government to perform basic functions- ones that require money provided for by tax revenues.  Taxes are at their lowest level since 1958.  This means one of two things must occur:  either government must dramatically shrink- and by shrink, I don't mean by starving welfare queens; I mean, citizens, themselves, providing things they've taken for granted as government functions- things like road work, Social Security, military, police, emergency service.  Or, in the alternative, taxes must go up.  They can't be afraid of raising them because of Bush's loss- it isn't why he lost.
 
For the Dems, the lesson is a little more complex.  Like Bush, Obama may be plagued by the specter of a bad economy.  Bush's sin was being unable to sell the job he did.  He was unable to sell the public on the idea that the unemployment picture, while precarious, was not indicative of the economy at large.  Under Obama, the economy's per capita GDP is the highest it's ever been (if this were truly a bad economy, it would be dropping).  Total GDP is the highest it's been since before the recession.  The Dow Jones is near its 2007 highs.  True, the housing market is still bad in many areas, and unemployment isn't impressive.  But unemployment is barely up 1% since Obama took office, and the economy's added more job growth in the private sector under Obama than it did in the decade before he took office (in which net growth was 0).  He needs to sell this.  America already believes the recession isn't Obama's fault.  He needs to run with this.  He needs to sell the country on the idea (and since it's true, it shouldn't be that difficult of a sell) that because America spent 10 years sowing the seeds of this recession, digging out in a few months or even a few years is a totally preposterous expectation. Things are getting better; America needs to be patient.

The other lesson Obama must learn from the Economy Stupid slogan is that it stood for something larger: Bush's senility.  The GOP wants to play the race card on Obama for a plethora of reasons- mostly because their base is primarily white.  Clearly, those who are overtly racist needn't be courted: they're already voting against Obama.  But  the card can also be played against moderate Americans who don't consider themselves to be racist.  It's done, not by saying, "Don't vote for the black guy", but instead by appealing to people's natural instinct to vote for like candidates.  "Vote for this guy; he's more like you."  Since that argument also reaks of xenophobia, it's best made  obliquely.  You make this argument by making Obama look like a member of some other culture.  You make it look like  Obama's policies are directed at helping some other group than middle class white.  You say that he's "aloof", that he "doesn't get Main Street", and you couple the comment with a picture or story of him catering to the rich, or the extreme poor, or Muslims, or minorities.  It's subliminal, but it works.  America's angry (in part, because the anger of some Americans has been enticed). 

Obama needs to get selectively angry.  He can't do it too much, and even when he does do it, he can't over do it lest he play the part of the "angry black man", but he needs to get a little angry; he needs an "I'm paying for this microphone" moment. But most of all, he needs to illustrate how his programs are helping ordinary people.  It's more than just a speech.  It's an attitude.

To Mark Cuban

When considering patent policy there are two principles one must always bear.  The first is something many economics and business majors will readily identify as the Tragedy of the Commons.  The other is something that exists solely in the realm of patent law.  It's called the Tragedy of the Anticommons. 

The Tragedy of the Commons is a concept that if good ideas are undervalued, people will quit producing them, due to lack of motivation.  In many respects it's what's happened to news papers.  Too many of them put their product on the internet for free.  Why would anyone buy the paper when he or she could get the news for free on the net?  This, in turn, drove down revenues to the point where newspaper companies had to cut staff, diminishing their product.  The entire concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is that patents should issue for good ideas in order for them to be properly valued, in order to motivate inventors.

The Tragedy of the Anticommons is the exact opposite.  It results from a society that's so overprivatized that there is never any ingenuity for fear of infringement.  It's the result of a society overpatenting stuff, or at the very least, patents that are too broadly enforced.

The reason I bring this up, is that while Mark Cuban is one of the brightest business men of the past 25 years, his suggestions on patent reform are plain awful.  He writes from the point of view of someone who understands perfectly the Tragedy of the Anticommons, but fails to recognize the incentive inherent in the modern patent system.  He's rightfully concerned about a system that's badly clogged and backlogged, but instead of improving it, Cuban proposes eliminating it.

Ending software patents would be one of the dumbest things America could ever do.  Without such IP, the 1990s wouldn't have happened.  The idea that copyright protection is more than enough relfects Cuban's fundamental misunderstanding of what each is.  A patent protects an invention; a copyright protects a work of art.  It also seems that Cuban fails to recognize that thanks to Walt Disney, copyrights are likely perpetual; patents have 20 years (or 14).  Take for example, the Super Mario Bros. game.  I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that it was the first 8 bit  platformer, even though it wasn't.  The idea of Super Mario is copyrightable; his story is; the characters are; their images are; and even the exact instruction sequence of the program would be.  But the idea of taking 8 bits of memory to create a platformer that you could play on your TV is not art.  It's an invention.  The codes specific to that game are both.  The  point is that whoever came up with that idea deserves to be compensated for it.  Whoever creates the next platformer on 8 bits (which is not copyrightable) should have to pay that dude a royalty.  At least for 20 years  or so.

I agree with Cuban that business process patents need addressing.  However, Cuban must think all patents by process are business only.   And that's not true.  A lot of them have to do with  means of creating things used by lots of people.  They don't last forever, but whoever comes up with a better way of doing something should get to do it, exclusively for a little while- it may the only advantage he ever has.  It's not like processes can  always be bought and sold- sometimes time is the only asset patents afford.

I agree with Cuban that patent trolls need to be reigned in.  I disagree that the reform does nothing.  By eliminating first to invent, that immediately gets rid of a lot of the interference.  Once something is filed, the race is over.  I also disagree that China is "beating" us because their patent system is better.  Again, if China doesn't afford value to its IP, its IP will soon be worthless.  And that's assuming that they are, in fact, winning.  Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I'd like to think that one reason the US has been #1 in the world's economy is because of innovation.  China uses our businesses.  They use our technology.  They use Google...and Apple...and McDonald's.  One reason we struggle is that we bear the risk of putting such products and businesses out there (for every one that succeeds, there are 1,000 that fail miserably, and unfortunately America has to fund those failures and pick up the tab when too many go under).  Make no mistake, China may own the mortgage on the farm, and they might even be sharecropping, but America still does the planting and farming. 

Instead, here's what I propose.  First of all, a lot of patent trolls buy up technology that isn't being used, or buy IP from insolvent companies that the companies weren't using.  What patent law needs is something akin to the doctrines of laches or adverse possession.  It already has something called inequitable conduct.  The problem is that the party accusing it must prove it up, as it's an affirmative defense, and prove it by clear and convincing evidence.  We need a "use it or lose it" law.  Also, infringers can get slapped with punitives when they behave egregiously- in some cases, the law provides for trebles.  Egregious acts of patent trolling should have the same penalty. 

Many states have consumer protection laws with pretty strong teeth.  Many of them also have a "loser pays" clause in there to prevent frivolity.  Something tells me if they did this in the event of certain infringements, you wouldn't see as much chicanery. 

Secondly, I don't mind abbreviated patent rights for biotech and software, as both areas are more rapidly changing and more abstract than other patent areas.  However, in return, there should be a "rocket docket" process for getting issues involving such technology to- and through- court. 

Statute of Limitations and/or Repose.  Currently, a patent's enforceability is its term plus 6 years.  Set a 5 year limitation and a 10 year repose.  In cases involving bad faith, it'll be unlimited, and subject to treble damages and a criminal penalty. 

State courts have things like associate circuits and limited actions to dispose of smaller matters in short order.  If you lose at that level, you can always appeal to the district or circuit court.  There should be something like this for infringement.  Smaller issues of infringement can be dealt with administratively.  The idea of losing small at the administrative level instead of big in Fed Court might be incentive for some infringers to give in.  The concept of an administrative review for smaller matters, coupled with "losers pay" in Big Boy Court might give Plaintiffs in infringements incentive to take advantage of the smaller court, and even possibly settle. 

Cuban is correct in assertion that the patent system is too clogged up.  He errs in thee solutions he proposes, because they take away many of the incentives essential to the systemt itself.  Instead, what the system needs are less incentives for committing industrial espionage, and lesser rewards for large companies that wage attrition wars against smaller entities. 

The Good, The Bad, and The Unlucky

Here is what has to sting the most for the  US Women in their loss to Japan:  they were the better team, AND they played the better game.  Sports cynics will blame the American loss on their failure to capitalize on early opportunities, and their arguments would be most asanine.

I've written before about how ridiculous I find the "choke/clutch" theory of sports performance to be- the idea that winners are clutch where losers choke.  I think winning is a practice of repetitive excellence that serves to minimize the risk of losing, and that winners are able to repeat success more often than all others.  The problem, of course, is that the risk still exists.  A pitcher can completely fool a hitter, and saw his bat off...and render a bloop single.  A hitter can hit a ball perfectly square...and right at a fielder for a put out. 

Actually, in a lot of ways, Sunday's game reminded me of a baseball game where one team has runners on base in several innings, and even gets line drives and hard hit balls with the runners on- but, for whatever reason, on that particular day, the hard hit balls go right to one of the fielders and the team doesn't get many runs.  Meanwhile, the other team doesn't get a whole lot of chances, but of the handful of times they get a runner in scoring position, they get a bloop or seeing eye single, and they're able to scratch out a win.  Does it mean they didn't deserve the win?  No.  They limited their mistakes, and put the ball in play.  The problem with the cynics' logic is that they'll say the latter "capitalized" on their opportunities while the former team "squandered" them.  And of course, the problem with this line of reasoning is that it's horse shit.  Squandering would've been striking out or hitting weak grounders or pop flies.  Capitalizing would've been ripping a double off the wall.  I just can't, in good conscience, call a bloop RBI a clutch hit, any more than I can call a hard lineout a choke job.  Both are lucky or unlucky, depending on the side.  It's how the Royals have been able to take a few series from the Yankees.  But it doesn't mean they've been better- or even that they played better in many of those games.  It's just the law of averages- even if something has an 85% chance of succeeding, it fails 15% of the time.  To say that the 85 were clutch and the 15 are chokes is quite disingenuous.  

In Sunday's game, the US hit several  balls on scoring chances the same way they did on scoring plays.  They just didn't find the net.  It doesn't mean they choked.  What it means, is that the ball in a particular situation has a certain chance of going in (and usually, it's not a very high chance to begin with, hence, the low scores of most games).  Japan's good chances could be counted on one hand, and they got 2 goals.  The second one, although a good chance, a very lucky ball.  Face it, US lost becuase none of their balls took a lucky bounce Sunday and one of Japan's did.

Let me put this a different way.  Think the '99 team was clutch?  Think the '11 group choked?  Think about this.  The '99 group would've lost in the quarterfinals.  That's right.  In '99, they had golden goal.  That group would've lost to Brazil.  Likewise, if this year's group had played Sunday's final under '99 rules they would've won.  It's also worth noting that in 2004 and 2008, the Americans were badly outmatched and outplayed in the Gold Medal Final of the Olympics, and somehow came away with a win.  So, if you feel cheated, remember that what goes around does come around.  And, by the same token, the awful performance  in PKs could just as easily have come- and the US having not missed, ever, was well overdue for a plethora of misses- in the quarters, as well.  Such  is the fine line between "success" and "failure".

PKs are are part execution, but they're also part luck.  Sometimes the GK guesses right.  That's what happened to Shannon Boxx.  The Japanese keeper guessed left, and was correct.  Boxx, to her credit, saw this, and tried to alter her shot back to the center, but the goalie was able to just barely get her foot on it.  Did Boxx choke?  How?  How is her guessing wrong and Japan guessing right a choke, especially when Japan already knew which way she was likely to go?  Lloyd didn't execute her shot well, but Solo was able to block one shot and get her hands on another  (again, luck, as the ball just as easily could've gone out).  Heath entered the game late, and perhaps, shouldn't have been shooting.  She didn't get a good shot off, but again, the GK guessed right- if she moves the other way, the shot's good.  Such is the insanity of PK shootouts- a blind guess can be the difference between winning a World Cup and losing in the quarters.

That's the thing about sports.  We want to think that games are won by champions.  Sometimes they're just played by champions, and decided by Fate.  I'm not trying to take anything away from the Japanese side.  In order to win, they were going to have to play a near flawless match- and catch a few breaks.  Everyone makes mistakes, and the US made its share- so did Japan, and both sides took advantage.  Had Japan played something less than their "A" game, they lose.  Even playing their "A" game, the American's "B" game, most days, is good enough to win.  That's what frustrating.  America played its best game of the tournament Sunday. If the USA-Japan final played out exactly the same way as Sunday 100 times, the US would likely win between 80 and 90 of them.  They just didn't get the bounce.  But, then again, that's why we watch these games to begin with- every now and then we see something that breaks the odds.

Miss USA and Loaded Questions

That only 2 Miss USA contestants correctly asserted that evolution should unequivocally be taught as science in public schools is deplorable.  I don't know whether I'm angrier as an attorney who swore to uphold the Constitution and its separation of search and state (as well as its explicit promotion of arts and sciences), as a Bachelor or Arts in Biology, or as a Catholic.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Miss USA contestants are so dumb as to not take evolution seriously.  In fact most of them thought it ought to be taught. 

The problem is that their answers were equivocal.  Part of the blame for this lies in the way many of them are coached to answer controversial questions.  They're taught to exercise diplomacy, to merit both sides of a particular question before substantiating one answer and refuting the other.  What many of them, for whatever reason, are not taught- a thing which lawyers are trained to do immediately upon recognizing such a question- is that when a question is not controversial at all, to select the most logical argument and pound away.  You don't equivocate at all.

Here's the thing about the evolution debate.  It's not a debate.  It's not controversial at all.  Controversial means it can be argued either way.  One thing I get so sick of, is when I'm watching a sporting event, and a big play- one that almost surely determines the outcome of the contest- occurs, and it occurs on a close call (a touchdown catch where the receiver has to drag his toes on the sideline, for example).  Except, close as the play may have been, 10 objective people out of 10 can correctly call the play.  What I get sick of, is when some moron will inevitably refer to this as a controversial call.  I hate this.  It's not controversial at all.  Controversial is when you have 10 people and they're divided 6-4 or 5-5 on what the call should be. 

Likewise, evolution vs. creation science is not a debate.  So I have a problem calling it one.  The former is most clearly scientific while the latter is most clearly religious.  Science is developing natural explanations for otherwise inexplicable phenomena; religion is using spiritual or paranormal explanations for the same.  The problem with intelligent design as science, thus, is that the explanation it proffers is inherently not natural.  Likewise, no one would ever confuse evolution with a religion.  This is the problem with "teaching both sides":  creationism isn't the other side of Darwinism.  (By the way, I have no problem whatsoever with teaching science's critiques of evolution, or teaching other scientific theories on speciation; let me reiterate that my problem is with teaching something that is not science, while passing it off as the same.)  It's a false debate. 

It's like having a debate over whether you believe in gravity (which, by the way, is also a "theory"- theories are things that have evidentiary support, lend to testing, and have yet to be disproven) or God Pushing Objects Down-ism.  Perhaps God does push things down, but that isn't science.  Therefore, if you're in a beauty pageant, and you even engage in the debate of a question where debate is not meritorious, you deserve to lose.  You have to be able to recognize when to be diplomatic and equivocal and when to call out a loaded question.

The Hot Shots

One of the things I like most about sports is how a game changes over time; how different a game is now, than even 5 years ago.  (Another thing I like is how they stay remarkably the same- for example, as many juicers as there were jacking pop flies out of shrunken ball parks during the Steroid Era, baseball still has only three hitters who've ever hit 700 home runs.)  But this post is about change.  You watch a football game and see a free safety drill a receiver over the middle that the QB hung out to dry.  Ten years ago, it would've gotten the safety on that week's installment of Jacked UP; now, that very same play gets him a week's worth of unpaid vacation, and an unsolicited and involuntary paycheck donation to the NFL.  Some changes are good; some not so good.  Usually, though, the not so good changes are eventually addressed.

One thing I noticed watching Sunday's Royals game- and it's something that's been around the game for a while, but it's really starting to emerge these last few years- is what I'd like to call the Rise of the Celebrity Umpire.  These guys go out of their way to attract attention to themselves in a game.  Baseball isn't the only sport.  I think Ed Hochuli takes much pride in his workout routine, and goes out of his way to let everyone know what a great lawyer he is with his long winded explanations.  I think Mike Carey and Ed Hightower like pointing....a lot.  But these actions only draw attention when attention is already on these referees.  It's not like Hochuli intentionally calls a holding penalty to get air time- he just relishes the time he already gets.   And his explanations are often helpful to fans not familiar with the game, or even for NFL die hards, a lot of plays have nuances to them that they may not understand.  Whether it's a block or a charge, you have to call something, so I really don't care what Hightower does when he's making the call so long as he gets it right. With Hightower, even though he makes a lot of mistakes, coaches and players have praised him, not only for his consistency, but also his demeanor.  Particularly, he's been very informative to players who are still learning the game- and the college game is still an instructional level, for most players.  I'm okay with making the most of attention you already have.  What I'm seeing too often in baseball is a different problem.

These guys go out of their way to get attention.  30,000 people paid good money to see the Royals and Cardinals- two of the best 30 baseball clubs in the world- play a competitive game.  They paid to see a future Hall of Famer in Albert Pujols.  They paid to see All Star Joakim Soria.  The paid to see Rookie of the Year candidate Eric Hosmer.  They paid to watch Tony LaRussa manage a game.  Instead what they got to watch, was Joe West's crew umpiring a baseball game. 

Angel Campos is God awful.  Maybe he's a great guy-I don't know him personally, so I don't intend this to be a personal attack, but his umpiring leaves some things to desire.  He missed an obvious balk in Saturday's game (once a pitcher comes set, he has to break, if he wants to throw over; he can't make a snap throw, even if he steps to the base).  He called an inconsistent strike zone all day Sunday (I don't care if you have a small zone; the pitchers can adjust to this; Tim McClelland has a small zone, and pitchers like him just fine; what gives pitchers fits is when an umpire will call two pitches in the same spot different things, especially when it's the same pitch in the same spot.) for both teams (hence the high scoring).  He refused to ask for help on a bunt attempt that he didn't see.  Finally, he ejected Matt Treanor when he had absolutely no business doing so.

Conversation with the catcher over balls and strikes is part of the game- especially in the bigs.  Every game has its unwritten rules (called etiquette).  In golf, for example, the player with the lowest score on the last hole has the honor of teeing first; the player whose ball is furthest from the cup goes ahead of those closer to the pin; if one player has a long putt, and you have a tap, go ahead and hole out to get off the green; don't walk across a player's putting line.  In basketball, if the other team isn't fouling you when you have a late lead, milk the shot clock. In soccer, if a player from the other team is injured and you have the ball and there's no advantage, play the ball out; then, if you're the other team, on your throw in, throw it back to the other team's goalie (this is nowhere in the rule books, but I've seen people get carded for not doing it).  In football, you don't pass when you're up late and leading by two possessions; don't try and "steal" the other team's audibles.

Baseball is no exception.  You don't steal when you're ahead big after the 5th inning.  You don't bunt to break up a no hitter (I've never understood this rule), or when you have a big lead.  If you're the batter, you don't peek back at the catcher. Last, when you're the catcher, and you're having the game long conversation with the umpire over balls and strikes, you don't turn around.  The flip side of this rule, is that, if you're the umpire, you don't get in the catcher's face.  When you're had enough, dust off home plate- this lets the catcher know the conversation is finished.  If the catcher proceeds, squeeze the zone, but do not, under any circumstance, "show the catcher up"; he's not showing you up, and you owe it to him to reciprocate.

Sunday was the second game I've seen recently (the other was umpire Mike Eastabrook last year with Jason Kendall) where an umpire either didn't know one of the most fundamental rules of the game- one that anyone who's watched major league baseball for any considerable amount of time knows- or he just blatantly disregarded it.  I understand both were minor league umpires, and that things are different there; that umpires have more control over the games.  However, this is the big leagues.  And it's very difficult for me to believe Angel Campos didn't know this rule- I know it, and I've never played baseball.  What's more likely is that he's the latest in a breed of hot shot umps who not only want to control the game, they want to be it, as well.  They won't take any flack from anybody, and the first time anyone disagrees, they run that person from the game.

I understand that the game of baseball is full of players who, quite frankly, are jerks.  The temptation, as an umpire, is to fire back.  The problem is, this isn't the umpires' job.  You see NFL games all the time where a player is dissatisfied with a call, and makes a public display- occasionally, he'll even get flagged.  You know what you don't see?  The referee getting back up into that players face and shouting back.  Even in basketball, the ref might T the guy up, or maybe even eject him, but he doesn't argue back.  And that's exactly what you're seeing in baseball.  In fact, what you're seeing more and more of, are umpires who INITIATE disputes. 

What Eastabrook did to Kendall was completely out of line.  And the Royals aren't the only team it's happened to.  Tampa Bay, the Chi Sox, the BoSox, and the Diamondbacks have had similar run ins with maverick umpires.  As a lawyer, the first day of Trial Advocacy class (AKA How To Try a Case 101), within the first 5 minutes, our instructor advised us that in a court room there are 3 areas of sanctity- 3 areas that you, as an attorney, need permission to go into: the witness box, the jury box, and the bench (hence "Permission to approach.").  In baseball, the catcher's box is a lot like that.  That's his space, and the umps really have no business there.  If you're an ump and you get into a catcher's face, what do you think he's going to do?  What do you think his manager is going to do?  If you get in a catcher's face, you're arbitrarily deciding to scratch him from the line up.  He's going to get ejected, because you're baiting him.  As an umpire, your job is to see the game and call what you see.  When you do what Campos did, you're affecting the game, and you're doing so on your own accord.  It'd be like Ed Hochuli getting into Peyton Manning's huddle to reprimand him. 

Jim Joyce, last year, had a famously awful blown call, costing Armando Galarraga a perfect game.  In 1985, Don Denkinger, arguably cost the Cardinals a World Series.  Both were- and still are- highly respected umpires.  The reason is that each of them acknowledged his mistake.  And neither became too emotional when the other team called him out (Denkinger showed much more patience with Whitey Herzog than Campos did with Treanor). Sports are highly emotional games.  Players and coaches get very high strung.  A lot of money and pride are at stake.  Umpires and referees are supposed to be voices of sanity and objectivity.  When umpires do what Campos did Sunday, they're neither.

Green Light Go! Red Light Stop! Yellow Light Floor It!

I get a lot of questions about those red light camera tickets.  They're easy to fight, and the Court will often help you out when you show up to fight them.  I don't really consider this post to be costing me too much business because:

1.  After I explain everything, I still get a lot of "Well, I think I understand you, but why don't you just go ahead and take care of it anyway- just to make sure."; and

2.  "I could do this, but I really don't have an hour to waste, so, if you don't mind, can I just give you $75.00 to do this for me?"

So, anyway, here is what you should know about those tickets:

1.  They usually are NOT moving violations (a lot of tickets have this printed on them, and if you ask the Court, they must tell you), so even if you fight and lose, or just pay the ticket, it won't go on your record, and you won't have any points on your insurance.

2.  Most jurisdictions will make you fight them, and won't just give the case away because you raise a winning argument- at least not immediately.  They'll usually make you set a trial date, if for no other reason than to inconvenience you.  Just know this.

3.  Without the video evidence, they lose.  Furthermore, the video evidence is, arguably (you'll usually win this), inadmissible for want of foundation.  Specifically, because the officer doesn't watch the camera the entire time he's operating it, the video would only be admissible with respect to the officer's general familiarity with the intersection, and not his specific familiarity with the intersection at that exact date and time.  So you need to move, in limine (before trial), to suppress this evidence.

4.  Even if the motion to suppress should fail, there is no proof of ownership or title.  You don't have to admit that you own the vehicle.  In fact, you can plead the Fifth- you don't have to say anything.  So don't.  How in the world can they prove title and ownership without you admitting the same?  They can't. 

5.  Supposing 3 and 4 fail, there is still one other defense you'll have.  They can't prove you were driving the vehicle.  So, if title, for whatever reason, can be established, then you'll need to testify to the Court that other people drive your car, and, if applicable, other people are listed as owners (you can always attest to ownership of your property).  This should succeed.  But, even if you do lose, remember that you have nothing to lose (except money) by fighting, because it's not a moving violation.

So, there you go.  Good luck!!!!

The Silver Lining

Three years ago, I graduated law school.  Hard to believe time has so quickly passed.  I don't think anyone could've imagined, back then, the depth of the recession we'd endure.  One of the most frustrating things I've experienced in my short tenure practicing law, has been watching people a few years ahead of me.  People who got out at any time between about 1994 and 2001, literally, have lived a charmed life. Lower debt, higher pay, bigger firms.  People graduating from 2002 to about 2004 had jobs, and so long as they worked hard, were fine.  '05 and '06 classes were kind of touch and go.  Students who graduated top third or so in their class were fine, the middle third had good jobs but they weren't great, and those at the bottom still got by.  The class of '07 had decent jobs, and many have since lost them and been forced to start over.  '08 had grads who were paid to not work.  The classes of '09 and '10 have members who graduated top 5- not top 5%, but top 5 people- who are working at legal aid clinics. 

In short, in terms of job prospects, there could not be a worse time to have less than 5 years of experience practicing law.  Worse still, is the fact that many of the jobs that would've gone to recent grads are being filled by people with the 3-5 years experience.  Here are some bullet points I'd throw out there, were I to give a commencement address to a group of 2011 JD matriculants:

1.  Time is on your side.  Most of you are in your mid to late twenties.  The vast majority are under 35.  In short, no matter how little you're making, no matter how mountainous your debt, the single biggest asset you have at your disposal is time.  Union workers make a killing- and burn out at 50.  Even people with business degrees making big bucks now will either burn out or top out at about age 55 or so.  It'll suck, watching some of your contemporaries with no debt getting a $65,000 a year job with full benefits- that's great money when you're 22.  Thing is, a lot of those careers hit plateaus.  The CEOs and CFOs are the lucky few. The vast majority, though, will reach a point where they're as expendable as they are employable.  Honestly, these are the people struggling most right now- they're age 45-60, and formerly were making anywhere from $50,000 to about $225k- and now they're stuck.  They're looking for jobs like the ones they had- some will look the rest of their lives.  The reason for this is that, for the most part, those jobs are high threshhold, low ceiling.  Law practice is the opposite.  Those of you who are 25 today can embark on a 50 year career.  There are lawyers who make $100k a year in a shabby office, working 4 days a week, and are 70 or even 80 years old.  You can do this forever.  Simply put, I know a lot of lawyers who took a pay cut during the Recession; what I've yet to meet is an attorney who's been practicing 20 years, and who is also a pauper- or even struggling to make ends meet.  Pay your dues, and play the long game.

2.  Trade money for experience.  Sometimes a fertile job market isn't such a blessing.  Forgive me for sounding like the sour grape fox, but jumping rungs on the corporate ladder to the tune of 3 or 4 jobs in your first 5 years because they pay well is another thing that's great when you're 30, and maybe not so great when you're 45.  The problem is that you don't stick around a job long enough to get good at it.  Whether it's something as simple as a divorce, or something as complex as a Federal mesothelioma class action, the attorneys who make the most money are the ones who are the best in their fields.  The way you get to be the best in your field is by starting with the easiest of the easy cases, and practicing- over and over and over again.  All of a sudden, you're not just doing a simple divorce with a couple who've beeen married 4 years with no property; instead, it's a 25 year marriage, with 3 kids, a house, a boat, and half a million in pension.  All of a sudden, it's not a simple DUI first with diversion, it's a DUI manslaughter.  The line between a $1,000 case and a $10,000 case; a $10,000 case and a $100,000 case; a $100,000 case and a $1,000,000 case is very fine.  The way you negotiate that line is experience.

3.  Stay away from things like legal clinics and public defense- unless it's really an area of interest.  It's fine to work there for a little while, but unless that's something you're really interested in, it's no place to make a career.  Sure, you'll get big time felony experience in public defense; but as soon as you get that experience, take it to a firm.  The reason I say this, is that, in order for you to get good- and this is something I'll talk about a little more later, you need to be around people who are good.  If you want to be the best, you need to learn from the best, and the best of the best attorneys work in firms- either solo or collective.  You'll get to a point- and you'll reach that point fairly quickly, where it'll be more beneficial to you, experience wise, to be around big time attorneys than it will for you to be trying big time cases with society's dead beats.  There isn't much difference between trying 100 and 150 jury trials.  An attorney who's accomplished either can try a case in his sleep.  But there is no substitute for, and you can never spend too much time being around guys who are the Michael Jordans of their professions.

4.  Speaking of Michael Jordan.  Find the best lawyers in your field.  Befriend them.  Study them.  Work with them, if at all possible.  They weren't born big shots.  And they didn't become big shots by being connected- although many are connected.  They got there by perfecting a process.  And they perfected that process by doing something- over and over and over again.  And learning from their mistakes.  Be the best.  Watch the best.  Learn from the best.  Remember, you have time on your side.  Those of you who are 25, think about some of the best lawyers you know.  Most are in their early 50s.  That means two things.  First, they've spent at least half of their lives doing what they're doing to get where they are.  Secondly, they've spent ALL OF YOUR LIFE doing what they're doing to get where they are.  Some careers are fast track- you're in at 22, a stud at 30, and burned out at 45.  Lawyers age like wine.  Practice makes perfect.  Practice with the best.

5.  Don't limit yourself.  What never ceases to amaze me is the sheepskin that so many attorneys of any age take for granted.  Look at what you've got there.  You all have doctorate degrees.  By the way, as an aside, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people mix the English with the Latin.  It's "Juris Doctor", or "Doctor" or "Doctorate of Law".  It is NOT "Juris Doctorate".  Saying "Juris Doctorate" is like saying "Veni, vidi, I conquered."  If you want to say something in Latin, leave the whole phrase in Latin.  If you want to say something in English, leave the whole phrase in English.  Don't mix and match.  Anyway, back to my point.  You're all experts- in business, in taxation, in anything law related.  Scary, I know, but true.  You may lack practical nuance, but in terms of book smarts, you are experts.  People will pay good money for your expertise.  You can teach everything from business law to tax law to English and writing at just about any undergradute university.  You can go into a career in business.  You can practice any area of law.  I'm so frustrated  by atorneys who say, "I can't do this job.  I'm a ______________ lawyer."  Or, "That's not a lawyer job" (for a position that, eventually ends up being filled by a lawyer).  There is so much you can do with your degree.  Maximize your potential.

6.  Along with not limiting yourself, don't pidgeonhole yourself, especially early on in your career.  You want to make yourself a candidate for as many jobs as possible.  No one is an expert anything at 30.  Not in the law business.  No one.  The first few years of your career, and again, this goes back to my previous points about experience and time, you should spend getting breadth, not depth.  The reason for this is that it'll allow you much more versatility later in your career.  I have a good friend who, in seven years of insurance defense practice, has all but written the book on litigating bad faith.  He just went out on his own.  Mind you, he could probably lateral as a partner at any major firm, or get on in house with any major carrier.  Suppose, though, that he for whatever reason, after doing a few DUIs and drug possession cases in his solo practice, he wanted to join a major firm's white collar crimes defense practice (by the way, I'm not trying to be critical of him; I don't think he'd ever want to do this; but he isn't everybody).  Do you think he'd make a better job candidate than someone who's spent 7 years of practice doing everything from tax law to divorce to employment law, and who also has dozens of major felony defenses under his belt?  Likely not.  Why?  Because the latter candidate need not even mention all the general stuff he did in his practice.  He can simply state that he's defended dozens of felonies for 7 years, and has extensive trial experience.  About the only job where the latter guy would lose out to my friend is one where an insurance defense expert is required.  And even then, maybe not.  The guy with a broad background will always have his foot in every door, and with a broad base of experience, can quickly add depth.  A little experience goes an awful long way.  Plant the seeds early in your career- you may not have the time to do so later.  Later is the time for becoming the expert, and when you do, your repertoire will be that much more enhanced, by the breadth of your experience.

7.  Meet as many people as you can, and stay in contact with them.  This is the secret to networking.  Wish you had connections so that you could get that plumb job?  Yeah, it helps if your Daddy has friends in high places, but for everyone else, make your own connections.  Look around.  Your friends won't be low men on the totem pole forever.  They'll climb the ladder.  And if you stay in contact with them, and meet more people, and help your friends.  Guess what?  When they climb the ladder, they'll bring you with them!  Then you won't need Daddy. 

8.  Get rid of your student loans, ASAP!  This'll be hard to do, especially when you're young; especially when you're not making much; especially in a bum job market.  But it's unsecured debt, that can't be discharged in bankruptcy.  Resist the temptation to call it good debt.  In fact, resist the whole good debt, bad debt connotation.  There really is no such thing as good debt.  Debt is a liability.  It makes you someone else's slave, and that person your master.  Resist the whole "Well, student debt is only 2%, and if I'm getting a __% return on my investments..."  I get it; in time, your snowball will be bigger than the debt snowball.......IN THEORY.  But we don't live in theory.  We live in reality, and this line of thinking is exactly the line of thinking that created this recession we're in.  Sooner or later, the marker comes due.  And we have an entire generation of Americans, who right now, have had the marker called in- and can't pay the check.  Get rid of the debt.  ASAP!!!

9.  Get in a court room!!!  "But I'm a transactional lawyer...."  Bull....If you never wanted to see the inside of a court room, why didn't you just get an MBA?  It would've been much cheaper, and at least for now, you would've had better job prospects.  You're completely wasting your degree if you fail to exercise, at least at some point, the power it confers.  You don't have to do it forever, but how can you possibly understand what's going on in a legal dispute if you've never seen one, start to finish?  Part of your expertise is offering a practical solution to a complex issue.  How can you offer a practical solution if you haven't, you know, practiced?  How can you be a realist about something if you can't comprehend the reality of a situation?  Even if it's just a traffic ticket here or there, or covering someone's docket, and only for a few years at the start of your career, get in a court room!

Red Flags

I haven't practiced long, but I've had my fair share of bad clients.  Thing is, the longer I practice, the fewer of them I get.  One thing I've done all along is compile a list of "common denominators" that my bad clients have possessed.  Here are some red flags you should look for.  This isn't to say that if a potential client expresses one of these traits, they're automatically a bad client.  However, if you see a client or potential client who falls into one of thse categories, take notice.  (I've even come up with creative names for each of them.)

1.  The Balkers.  These people, after you explain what it will take to work on their case, and your basis for charging them your fee, balk.  They'll tell you you're not worth that price (and that no one is).  They'll tell you how some other attorney is charging less.  Some simply can't afford you.  You can have a little wiggle room with the last group (although, at some point you have to draw a line).  But, if some other guy can do it for less, let him have the clients- I'm not saying you should price yourself out of the market, but supposing you take the client at the lower fee, two things will occur; first of all, no matter how good of a job you do, you'll have proven yourself unworthy of the fee you'd originally quoted; secondly, word will get out that you're cut throating.  If no attorney is worth what you're asking, great.  What you're dealing with are people who won't appreciate you and the work you do.  Literally, no matter how good of a job you do, these people will never be satisfied.  Furthermore, if you don't make the client vest some kind of interest in the case, they'll never do what you ask them to do.  They won't participate in their own case- and why should they?  You've incurred all of the risk.  Don't do business with people who won't appreciate you. 

2.  The Sloppy Seconds...or thirds, or fourths or fifths.  Don't take sloppy seconds- in life or in law.  If you're the second or third or whatever attorney on a case, look out!  You may be dealing with a bad client.  You already know they weren't happy with the guy they had before.  In addition, it's likely that whoever it was may not have approached the case the way you would've.  He may well have screwed up your case.  There's a good chance the client will never be happy with you or any other attorney- in the whole world.  It goes without saying that you should always use a declination letter with prospectives, but this rule especially applies here. 

3.  The Shoppers.  These clients are looking for the cheapest attorney possible, and will often compare rates.  They'll even use other attorneys' rates to get you to adjust yours.  Have a bottom line, and stick to it. This is law practice, not WalMart.  You want clients who want you back; you're looking for a relationship, not a one-off job; you're a professional, not a mercenary. 

4.  The Moochers.  The closely related hybrid of the Shoppers and the Balkers, these people try and get free legal advice.  They'll chat up a bunch of attorneys under the guise of a consultation, and take what the attorneys say to try and represent themselves.  Or, they'll hire somebody, after talking to everyone in town, and take what they've learned from everyone they've talked to, to try and limit the amount of work the attorney they hire has to do, and use this as justification for seeking a lower fee.  Distinctive characteristics of these fools are that they like to keep records of every conversation you have (hint: watch out for tape recorders and notepads); they're always asking about a procedure, or a document that needs to be drafted ("Now, do I need a determination of dissent?"), or they'll say "I can get this document online, and I'll prepare it; you just file the pleading."  You're not in the business of selling documents; attorneys provide a service, and document prep is one aspect of that service, just like filing pleadings and appearing in court are aspects.  People who won't understand this create real problems for what you're trying to accomplish.  They'll usually try to nitpick at your bill when they get it, too. 

5.  The Dreamers.  These people have unrealisitic expectations about what you can do for them.  They think having an attorney is the magic bullet to making their clunker of a case into a Coupe de Ville.  They think their $50k case is worth half a million.  They think that, because OJ got off, that the right attorney can always get them off, too.  Usually you can talk these people back to reality.  Explain to them how OJ's case was different from theirs.  Explain why the McDonald's coffee lady got all that money and they won't.  If they don't understand, they never will....and they'll always be convinced that no matter how good of a job you do for them, that if they'd had a better attorney than you, they could've gotten the result they wanted.

6.  The Negotiators.  They come to you wanting you to make a "deal" with somebody.  Attorneys are not deal makers.  Sometimes pleas will result in a deal.  Sometimes a case will result in a settlement.  But I prepare everything as if I were to try the case.  Anyone who won't let you do that, in the name of "Don't work the case up, just talk to the other attorney and get me this deal," doesn't understand what we do.

7.  The Walkers.  These people can be great clients.  They'll even pay you.  But when it comes time for them to take the advice they've paid you for- they don't.  These clients tend to be headstrong and stubborn.  The problem thse people present is that you often get stuck on their case.  What you want to do with these people, is, if you find out pretty early on that they're going to pass on your advice, devise an exit strategy.  You're running a law office, not a daycare center.  You can take these clients.  Many pay good money and are actually decent clients (and often come back to you for more advice when they don't take the original advice you give them).  Just know what kind of people you're dealing with early on, so you can be sure you can get out if you have to.

8.  The Sues.  These people want to sue everyone.  They see the legal system as a means of righting everything in their life that's ever been wronged them.  Since they're likely unable to comprehend the reality that our system doesn't work that way, when the system wrongs them, the next person they'll blame is...YOU!...which brings me to....

9.  The Bashers.  Many Bashers are erstwhile Sues.  They talk about suing other attorneys, or they bad mouth other attorneys, or the legal profession, or the legal system.  If they have so much contempt for the system, why are they coming to you to put their faith in it?  There just isn't much chance, with these people, that you'll ever satisfy them.  

10. The Once and Future Tycoons.  These people will go on and on about how wealthy they used to be- and/or how wealthy they're about to be.  Just know that used to be cash and about to be cash is NOT legal tender for all debts public and private.

11. The Know-It-Alls.  Pretty self explanatory here.  This one isn't an automatic DQ, but you'll certainly hit a point where you need to ask yourself, "If my client is so good at my job, what does he or she need me for?"  Again, these people can usually be dealt with, but some are so egregious, that it's better to just cut bait.

12. The Liars.  Lots of clients lie.  One red flag is clients who tell you one thing on the phone, and another thing when you meet with them.  Again, lying clients are the nature of the business, and you don't have to reject these people summarily, but just know that people who lie don't tend to do it about just one thing- and, similar to the know it alls, some liars are so egregious that you might get yourself into an awfully big hole.  Remember they're coming to you because they're in the hole- and you can't help them if you're in it with them.  If you're dealing with someone who can't even tell the truth to someone trying to help them out, don't deal with them at all.

Going Solo

Every now and then I'll get an attorney who will come up to me and ask me what going solo is like.  Here's some free advice.

1.  Don't do it straight out of school.  You don't know anything.  You don't know anybody.  You don't have any money.  I did it because, experience wise, it was the best career move I had in what was at the time- and still is to many extents- a God awful job market.  It's much easier to do it after you've had a few years' experience.  You'll have a clientele.  You'll know what you're doing, and thus, be able to take on more interesting cases.  Last, you'll have a little cash in your war chest such that you won't have to live fist to mouth.

2.  Fixed Rent.  Rent sharing is attractive, and sometimes a necessity for people just starting out, especially when it's difficult to project income for a particular month.  However, the downside is the first time you get a decent paycheck you'll wind up coughing up a significant chunk of it.  Also, the key to operating any small business on a long term basis is being able to project expenses on a long term basis.  Another plus is keeping costs fixed instead of variable.  That's the only way that you can realistically plan long term.

3.  Get Quickbooks (or some kind of book keeping/billing program).  You're an attorney.  Your business is practicing law.  You may be the best accountant in the world, but it isn't your business.  You don't have time to be consistently messing around with whether your books balance at the end of the month.  If you're rich enough, you might be able to hire someone to do this for you, but when you first start out probably not (ironically, if you're not somewhat good at this, you'll neer get rich enough to hire someone).  In the mean time, get something that can easily keep track of all of the money, bills, and time.  It'll save you the time in having to do it yourself.

4.  Get Organized.  This really should be #1, but I'm posting these in the order I think of them, and not in order of importance.  Having a messy office is unproductive.  Organize your office neatly.  Everything and everyone should have a file.  Files should be neatly organized so that documents can be easily located quickly.  Make it a point, at the end of every week, to have your desk "clean".  Whatever was on it, during the week is to be finished, or at least at some kind of stopping point.  When you're at a firm, there are other people who can ease your burden when need be.  You have no such luxury.  You're juggling 10 balls at once while dancing on an eleventh.  The only way you can stay ahead is to, well, stay ahead.

5.  Pay All (or as many as possible) of Your Bills at Once.  Pick a day.  Perhaps the day your rent is due.  Make that the day when all your bills will be paid.  Set up auto withdrawal, and just make sure that amount of money is in your account.  This kind of goes back to the whole thing about long term planning and fixed expenses, but it's almost as if you'll get to a point where you just treat that money as if it's not even there. Once you get to this point, everything else is profit!

6.  Send All Bills at Once.  I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I'm trying to set it up to where I send bills out every other Friday.  Collecting money should be just as regular as paying it.  This will allow you to speculate income, going forward.  It's not enough to be able to anticipate expenses.  You also have to be able to anticipate, in June, "What are August and September (tentatively) going to look like for me?"  Sure, a million dollar client can walk in the door at an instance.  But long term planning is what keeps the lights on in the mean time.  The two most important aspects of long term planning, fiscally speaking, are projected expenses, and projected revenue.  While no one can predict the future, the surest way to bet on the future is to get expenses and revenues as fixed as possible.  This way, if a big case should come along, you can treat it as gravy!

7.  Don't Ever Forget Anyone....Ever!  You meet someone, remember him or her.  Remember something- anything.  Get a business card.  Add the person's contact info.  Keep it.  Use it.  Stay in contact.  Message everyone in your contacts frequently and on some kind of periodic scheudle- a weekly e-mail, a monthly mailer, a quarterly newsletter, etc.  Send them Christmas/Hanukkah, birthday, and anniversary (when applicable) notes.  Keep a stack in your office, and write them when necessary.  When a colleague accomplishes something, send a note.  Keep a stack of thank you notes for the same purpose.  The trick is to do a little correspondence every day; that way, you're not bombarded come holiday season!  Oh, and on a more somber note, read the obits.  You'll look like an ass if you send correspondence to someone who's dead- and you'll get kudos for attending the funeral (leave your business cards at home), and sending flowers, etc..

8.  Speaking of business cards, carry them everywhere.  You'll never know when someone will need you.  It's kind of like the story in the Bible when the brides sleep and miss the groom.  You don't want to not be carrying your card when you meet a person who needs a lawyer.  A corollary to this rule is to give your card to everyone you meet.  Here's how you do this without looking like you're soliciting:  whenever you meet someone, ask for his or her card.  This'll give you an opportunity to reciprocate.  If they don't carry a card, then, your opening is, "Well, let me give you mine."  You might also want to get an email or phone number at that point, or some way of contacting the person.  Then, and this is where so many people just put to waste all of the data stuck in their Rolodexes, YOU MAKE THE CONTACT.  There are a handful of exceptions to this rule.  First, never, ever, ever, ever, EVER, be caught dead (pardon the pun) at a funeral service, wake, visitation, cremation, etc. with your business cards.  Secondly, use your better discretion, but places of sanctity (such as mass), while they can be excellent opportunities to gain business, are NOT places where business should be discussed.  Get a name and an idea of the nature of the business, and call on Monday.  Everything has its place and time, and funerals and church just aren't the places for business.  Finally, be careful about talking business when it might "steal someone else's thunder".  Actually, this is a good rule for doing anything that might attract attention to yourself at a time when all attention should be directed elsewhere.  Such events include weddings, graduations, award banquets, etc.  This is clearly someone else's event, someone else's honor, and someone else's day.  It's probably more okay to carry cards here than it would be a church or a funeral, but it's another area where you have to be careful.  Not saying you can't talk shop; just use your discretion.

9.  If someone needs help, give it to him or her.  One of my biggest complaints about my profession is attorneys who won't help other attorneys.  Especially considering I know of no attorney anywhere who has achieved any color of success without the assistance of someone, somewhere- usually another attorney.  As I write this, I am not hiring associates, nor am I seeking interns.  I don't have the case load; I don't have the capital; I don't have the time, and I don't have the experience.  In short, at this time, there is nothing an intern would benefit from basking in my non existent glow.  That said, I do not expect that situation to persist.  Further, if any law student or attorney wishes to meet with me for lunch or coffee, the request is granted.  In 2011, alone, I have helped 5 people get internships or jobs.  This is with my 2-3 years' experinece.  I am sorry, but an attorney with 25 months or years under his or her belt has NO EXCUSE for not giving back; no excuse for not helping another attorney out when he or she has a question about something.  It hurts our profession.  Moreover, if you do it, I think it hurts your career.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to think that some of the people I've helped will help me if I ever need it, or their friends will help me, or my friends will help them, etc.  I'd like to think that somebody who's just out of law school and has no job prospects and little experience won't be in that predicament forever.  They'll be a partner somewhere someday; or have their own solo practice; or be CEO of something, or whatever.  I'd like to think they'll remember me then.

10.  Keep Expenses Down.  I understand there is an element of vanity with any self owned business; I also get that there are some times when you just shouldn't cut corners.  For example, advertising.  I know that advertising is something you sometimes have to do on a shoe string budget (and that ad dollars can be colossally wasted).  Let's say your ad campaign is centered on radio ads.  You can't just run the cheapest ad you can buy once a month.  You have to commit to it- spend a decent amount of cash on a decent ad, that'll run several times weekly, on a station that a lot of people likely to need your service will listen to.  I know a lot of firms like to have expensive stationary and things of that sort (I also know that this is an area where smaller firms save money).  They have clients (and other attorneys) that they want to impress.  I'm okay with that, actually.  HOWEVER, there's a word for finer things: luxury.  As in, something you pay extra for.  Just make sure that if you're giving your clients luxury service, first of all, they understand that it is in fact luxury service and not ordinary service (vis a vis, either service you provide to other clients, or other attorneys who provide similar service), and secondly, that they pay for the luxury they receive.