It's fair to say I have a love/hate relationship with my chosen career path. It is not enough to say the career path is "lawyer". I'll be the first to admit, I don't even know what lawyers who work in big law firms actually do, nor do I know what lawyers who work for the government actually do. I only know about solo and small firm lawyering, the kind where you are your own boss in your own business. Where you figure out how to get clients and cases, you figure out how to get the work done, you figure out how to get paid, and you figure out how to figure out if you actually are enjoying it. Eventually, you ask yourself.....is this what I'm going to do until........I can't do it any more?
Some might say it's an admirable quality to keep getting up after repeatedly getting knocked down. However, which boxer would you admire more....the one who kept going back for his next beating, or the one who got out while he could still walk and talk, and became a gym teacher?
I can't say that I hate everything about law practice, or that I hate every day of practice. I want to believe that if that were true, I'd be man enough to admit it, and use my abilities for something else.
That being said, I regularly ask the question......"Why am I doing this?"
To give it some perspective, here is a top 10 list of the best and worst things about being a lawyer.
10. Best - I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things.
10. Worst - I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things.
9. Best - Sometimes people sincerely thank me for what I have done for them.
9. Worst - Very often people do not thank me, even when I have given them my guts.
8. Best - I have some great stories.
8. Worst - Most of my best stories start out, "I was involved in this crazy case once....."
7. Best - Sometimes you make a big fee for relatively little work.
7. Worst - Very often you make a small fee for pressure packed, brutally hard work.
6. Best - I make my own hours, and I have the flexibility to attend to family matters.
6. Worst - There has never been a day in the last 27 years when I did not think about my cases.
5. Best - I know many amazing lawyers who are also great people.
5. Worst - I know some lawyers who are real jerks.....though not as many as some people think.
4. Best - Some Judges are awesome.
4. Worst - Some Judges act like civil servants.
3. Best - Judges who actually practiced law generally respect what lawyers do.
3. Worst - Judges who never practiced (more than you'd think) treat the lawyers with disrespect. Wow, this one really ticks me off.
2. Best - I am really good at seeing practical approaches to difficult situations, and really good at advising clients who have serious problems.
2. Worst - Very often, people ignore my advice because of illogical personal animus towards the other side (often a family member). This happens even when I advise them not to do this, and show them how harmful it is.
1. Best - Complicated problems do not scare me.
1. Worst - Sometimes really simple people have really complicated problems. I may not be scared, they SHOULD be scared, and the fact that they are not scared ends up scaring me.
I don't know if reading this is useful for any of my readers, but it sure helps me to air it out.
Thanks for reading!!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tribute to Frank McCourt
Sad but true, it took the death of one of my heroes, Frank McCourt, to shake me from my blogging slump.
Frank McCourt, who passed away yesterday, was the patron saint of wannabe writers. After growing up in abject poverty in Ireland, he came to the United States at age 19, and eventually became a high school English teacher. After teaching at Stuyvesant High School for many years he published his first book, Angela's Ashes, at age 66. And won the Pulitzer Prize for it!!
Angela's Ashes is a memoir, written in the voice of a boy, with the perspective of a man who has had years to think of poverty's imprint on his life. He wants to feel empathy for his mother (Angela), yet he must tell her story truthfully. This he does.....alcoholic father, babies dying in infancy, going to bed cold and hungry, begging in the streets, hypocritical clergy and church. The boy wants to believe, in his parents, in God, in ANYTHING, and he is rewarded with nothing. He does, however, begin to believe in himself, and he eventually finds his way.
If you have read Angela's Ashes, you know there is no other book quite like it. Something about the detail, something about the phrasing, something about the choices the storyteller has made, give it power. Perhaps it's because he didn't tell the story right away.....he thought about it for 50 years. He taught kids about writing, he sat in pubs with "real writers", he wondered whether he was actually a writer (or perhaps an imposter).
If you have never read the book, put it on your list and read it. You can thank me after.
Then, there a few other things you will probably do. You will see the movie, but please, only AFTER you read the book. You will read 'Tis, Frank McCourt's second book, which spans the time he came to the United States until he became a teacher, and you will then read Teacher Man, his book about starting out as a teacher. I think you will do these things because you will want to know the man who wrote Angela's Ashes.
A few other related notes:
1. Frank McCourt has been interviewed on TV many times. I suspect some of his interviews will be shown in the upcoming weeks and months. I'll recommend these too. Here's a great interview with Charlie Rose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxPk7PCxsE&feature=related
2. When I was in high school, I used to listen to talk radio late at night. One of my favorite hosts was a part-timer named Malachy McCourt. He's Frank's brother, and is featured prominently in the books.
3. About two years ago, I suggested that Rebecca read Angela's Ashes. I think it was the first "grown-up" book she read. It felt great when she finished it and thanked me.
Frank McCourt, who passed away yesterday, was the patron saint of wannabe writers. After growing up in abject poverty in Ireland, he came to the United States at age 19, and eventually became a high school English teacher. After teaching at Stuyvesant High School for many years he published his first book, Angela's Ashes, at age 66. And won the Pulitzer Prize for it!!
Angela's Ashes is a memoir, written in the voice of a boy, with the perspective of a man who has had years to think of poverty's imprint on his life. He wants to feel empathy for his mother (Angela), yet he must tell her story truthfully. This he does.....alcoholic father, babies dying in infancy, going to bed cold and hungry, begging in the streets, hypocritical clergy and church. The boy wants to believe, in his parents, in God, in ANYTHING, and he is rewarded with nothing. He does, however, begin to believe in himself, and he eventually finds his way.
If you have read Angela's Ashes, you know there is no other book quite like it. Something about the detail, something about the phrasing, something about the choices the storyteller has made, give it power. Perhaps it's because he didn't tell the story right away.....he thought about it for 50 years. He taught kids about writing, he sat in pubs with "real writers", he wondered whether he was actually a writer (or perhaps an imposter).
If you have never read the book, put it on your list and read it. You can thank me after.
Then, there a few other things you will probably do. You will see the movie, but please, only AFTER you read the book. You will read 'Tis, Frank McCourt's second book, which spans the time he came to the United States until he became a teacher, and you will then read Teacher Man, his book about starting out as a teacher. I think you will do these things because you will want to know the man who wrote Angela's Ashes.
A few other related notes:
1. Frank McCourt has been interviewed on TV many times. I suspect some of his interviews will be shown in the upcoming weeks and months. I'll recommend these too. Here's a great interview with Charlie Rose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxPk7PCxsE&feature=related
2. When I was in high school, I used to listen to talk radio late at night. One of my favorite hosts was a part-timer named Malachy McCourt. He's Frank's brother, and is featured prominently in the books.
3. About two years ago, I suggested that Rebecca read Angela's Ashes. I think it was the first "grown-up" book she read. It felt great when she finished it and thanked me.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Thoughts on Affirmative Action
Sondra Sotomayor will be confirmed without much difficulty. The debate over her selection will cause dialogue about affirmative action. Touchy issue for many, but an issue worthy of debate. I don't view the President or Judge Sotomayor as beneficiaries of affirmative action (even though on some levels they may be), since they qualified for their accomplishments on their merits. If one takes as a given that they were not aided by affirmative action, isn't this a strong argument AGAINST it? Shouldn't merit and qualification ALWAYS be the top criteria for advancement?
Even if one accepts the concept of affirmative action, I DON'T want it ingrained in our society. In my view, any argument that it should be permanent is racist. It's saying that there will never be equality based on merit, that we need "equalizers". I don't accept this. I always want any affirmative action to have "sunset" provisions in mind. Essentially, the imperfect remedy should end when the circumstances necessitating the solution have been minimized. We've come a long way, probably in spite of this "race based" remedy.
True story......About 18 years ago, I had an African-American high school intern working in my law office. One day we had a discussion about affirmative action, and I expressed the opinion that I found some aspects of it troubling. She asked what I meant, and I said that while I understood the need to redress injustices and equalize opportunities, that fundamentally it was making race a "factor" when in fact Dr. King had expressed hope for a world where race was not a factor, and people were judged on merit. She asked me if I were AGAINST affirmative action. I said that actually I was not, but I wondered if she thought someone who was against affirmative action was likely a racist. She thought about this and said she thought they probably were. I thought this was true in some situations, but the more serious racism came from liberal white people who were the biggest advocates of affirmative action. She asked what I meant, and I said, "Let me run a scenario by you. If it were common knowledge that there were relaxed criteria for minorities to get into medical school, and a liberal white person became ill and went to an emergency room, would they wonder about the qualifications of the African-American doctor treating them?" She said, "Nobody would think that way.....would they???" Ah, sweet innocence of youth!
I had to give an honest answer.....Sadly, not only do I think it would be true, but the more liberal a person is, the more likely this would apply. Call me a racist against white liberals, but this is how I see it.
When it comes to admission to schools, and access to employment, I have no problem with valuing "diversity", however one defines it. There IS more to school, more to life, more to "success", than grades and test scores.
Quotas are racist, any way you cut it. Maintaining them should never be an objective.
Diversity IS often a worthwhile result. Achieving it without quotas is a dilemma worthy of our attention.
Even if one accepts the concept of affirmative action, I DON'T want it ingrained in our society. In my view, any argument that it should be permanent is racist. It's saying that there will never be equality based on merit, that we need "equalizers". I don't accept this. I always want any affirmative action to have "sunset" provisions in mind. Essentially, the imperfect remedy should end when the circumstances necessitating the solution have been minimized. We've come a long way, probably in spite of this "race based" remedy.
True story......About 18 years ago, I had an African-American high school intern working in my law office. One day we had a discussion about affirmative action, and I expressed the opinion that I found some aspects of it troubling. She asked what I meant, and I said that while I understood the need to redress injustices and equalize opportunities, that fundamentally it was making race a "factor" when in fact Dr. King had expressed hope for a world where race was not a factor, and people were judged on merit. She asked me if I were AGAINST affirmative action. I said that actually I was not, but I wondered if she thought someone who was against affirmative action was likely a racist. She thought about this and said she thought they probably were. I thought this was true in some situations, but the more serious racism came from liberal white people who were the biggest advocates of affirmative action. She asked what I meant, and I said, "Let me run a scenario by you. If it were common knowledge that there were relaxed criteria for minorities to get into medical school, and a liberal white person became ill and went to an emergency room, would they wonder about the qualifications of the African-American doctor treating them?" She said, "Nobody would think that way.....would they???" Ah, sweet innocence of youth!
I had to give an honest answer.....Sadly, not only do I think it would be true, but the more liberal a person is, the more likely this would apply. Call me a racist against white liberals, but this is how I see it.
When it comes to admission to schools, and access to employment, I have no problem with valuing "diversity", however one defines it. There IS more to school, more to life, more to "success", than grades and test scores.
Quotas are racist, any way you cut it. Maintaining them should never be an objective.
Diversity IS often a worthwhile result. Achieving it without quotas is a dilemma worthy of our attention.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Dickey Betts (Concert Review)
I approached the recent Dickey Betts concert at The Concert Hall at the Ethical Culture Society, in Manhattan, with some trepidation. There may have been some pure "Dickey Betts and Great Southern" fans in attendance, but let's face it, almost everybody there was a curious Allman Brothers fan. The unspoken question was....
Do the Allmans miss Dickey more than Dickey misses the Allmans? I had been pondering this since last year, when I saw the Allmans at the Beacon and found it strangely disappointing. I count myself as a true old time Allman Brothers fan. Live at the Fillmore and Eat a Peach have always been my "go to" albums. I knew what was missing at the Beacon....Dickey Betts and HIS Allman tunes.
My big fear was that Dickey Betts would do "his own stuff" and not do much Allmans. I was willing to cut him some slack for some of his newer material.....I give this courtesy to any "classic" concert artist. Hopefully though, he'd give us what we all wanted.
When Dickey Betts and Great Southern took the stage, there was an odd familiarity in the composition of the band. Two drummers (one black, one white), bass player, two guitarists, a keyboard man/singer with long blond hair and a mustache, and Dickey Betts. This Allmanesque assemblage went deep into the Allman's/Dickey catalogue and rocked the house for two and a half hours.
The show opened with "Les Brers in A Minor", a rockin' instrumental from Eat a Peach. This was followed by "Statesboro Blues" and "You Don't Love Me". OK, neither Dickey Betts nor the Gregg Allman look-alike sang like Gregg, but nobody does. Statesboro Blues is not about the singing, since everyone in the audience was doing their own singing, it's about the guitar playing. And....Dickey Betts still has it!!!
There were a few songs I didn't know, but I knew the style and it felt just fine. I thought Dickey said something about Gerry Garcia, but I couldn't tell because the speech definition on his mic was bad. Or perhaps it's the way he speaks....every time he spoke it sounded like Pootie Tang. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGwl2iKotgM In any event, there were some songs that had a "Dead" sound to them, and they worked.
I don't think the Allmans do "Blue Sky", the quintessential Dickey Betts song. I had to get up and dance in the aisle when Dickey did it. Here's a youtube clip....from the actual concert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_p_D2k7Qg&feature=related
Are you a true Allman Brothers fan? If so, you'd have loved hearing "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed". It's a haunting instrumental where you can feel the guitars singing. I've always wondered "What is this song about....what are the guitars SAYING???" I still don't know, but it sure sounded good. At one point the band left the stage while the two drummers went at it for about 20 minutes. This was "old school" and most excellent. After about 18 minutes Dickey walked out, pulled a cold Bud from the cooler, then sat on the cooler and watched.
I knew they were going to close the show with Ramblin' Man. This was probably the Allman's most widely known song, and it's Dickey's song all the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hnwPHUDmrg&feature=related
There may be aficianados who see every Allman Brothers show at the Beacon, and compare and contrast and analyze.
To my simple eye and ear, the Allmans miss Dickey more than vice versa, and I'll see him again before I go back to the Beacon.
Do the Allmans miss Dickey more than Dickey misses the Allmans? I had been pondering this since last year, when I saw the Allmans at the Beacon and found it strangely disappointing. I count myself as a true old time Allman Brothers fan. Live at the Fillmore and Eat a Peach have always been my "go to" albums. I knew what was missing at the Beacon....Dickey Betts and HIS Allman tunes.
My big fear was that Dickey Betts would do "his own stuff" and not do much Allmans. I was willing to cut him some slack for some of his newer material.....I give this courtesy to any "classic" concert artist. Hopefully though, he'd give us what we all wanted.
When Dickey Betts and Great Southern took the stage, there was an odd familiarity in the composition of the band. Two drummers (one black, one white), bass player, two guitarists, a keyboard man/singer with long blond hair and a mustache, and Dickey Betts. This Allmanesque assemblage went deep into the Allman's/Dickey catalogue and rocked the house for two and a half hours.
The show opened with "Les Brers in A Minor", a rockin' instrumental from Eat a Peach. This was followed by "Statesboro Blues" and "You Don't Love Me". OK, neither Dickey Betts nor the Gregg Allman look-alike sang like Gregg, but nobody does. Statesboro Blues is not about the singing, since everyone in the audience was doing their own singing, it's about the guitar playing. And....Dickey Betts still has it!!!
There were a few songs I didn't know, but I knew the style and it felt just fine. I thought Dickey said something about Gerry Garcia, but I couldn't tell because the speech definition on his mic was bad. Or perhaps it's the way he speaks....every time he spoke it sounded like Pootie Tang. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGwl2iKotgM In any event, there were some songs that had a "Dead" sound to them, and they worked.
I don't think the Allmans do "Blue Sky", the quintessential Dickey Betts song. I had to get up and dance in the aisle when Dickey did it. Here's a youtube clip....from the actual concert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_p_D2k7Qg&feature=related
Are you a true Allman Brothers fan? If so, you'd have loved hearing "In Memory of Elizabeth Reed". It's a haunting instrumental where you can feel the guitars singing. I've always wondered "What is this song about....what are the guitars SAYING???" I still don't know, but it sure sounded good. At one point the band left the stage while the two drummers went at it for about 20 minutes. This was "old school" and most excellent. After about 18 minutes Dickey walked out, pulled a cold Bud from the cooler, then sat on the cooler and watched.
I knew they were going to close the show with Ramblin' Man. This was probably the Allman's most widely known song, and it's Dickey's song all the way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hnwPHUDmrg&feature=related
There may be aficianados who see every Allman Brothers show at the Beacon, and compare and contrast and analyze.
To my simple eye and ear, the Allmans miss Dickey more than vice versa, and I'll see him again before I go back to the Beacon.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Going to Aqueduct With Dad
Today is Kentucky Derby day. I always watch (and bet on) The Derby. It's my favorite sporting event of the year. Better than the Super Bowl, better than the Final Four. Of course, this has something to do with it lasting only two minutes. I used to watch the two hour build-up, but now I don't bother with that. I read a few stories in The Post, bet my selections, and watch the race. I've hit a few nice longshots over the years, most notably Charismatic and Monarchos. My love of horseracing started with....
GOING TO AQUEDUCT WITH DAD
Sometimes on a Saturday, my Dad would suggest that he and I "head over to The Big A". Since I was only 7 years old, he wasn't saying this to me, he was saying it to my Mom. I wonder if taking me along made this activity more palatable to her. The first few times he said it, I worried that she would say no, but she never did. After a few times, I knew that when he suggested it, we were going.
We had a routine. It was always just he and I. Brian (who was 5) only went with us once, but he was "too cranky". After that he was not asked to go, and he never protested when Dad and I went. The Big A is "Aqueduct", a race track in Ozone Park, Queens. It's where the thoroughbreds race in New York when they are not at Belmont or Saratoga. A workingman's racetrack.
We never parked in the parking lot, always in the street about a mile away. "Why should we pay to park?", my Dad said. So we walked through Ozone Park, past little houses and Italian grocery stores. When we got inside, Dad bought a program and a Daily Racing Form. The program was small but impressive, it gave you the basic information about each race: the horse names and post positions, the trainers, the owners, the jockeys (including their weights and "colors"). Dad told me that when we picked a horse to bet on, to remember the jockeys colors, especially his cap, so we could see him in the backstretch.
There were 9 races a day, with about 24 minutes between races. We used that time to "study our selections". The program was just for looking, while the Daily Racing Form was for studying. It had tons more info than the program, including the charts of each horses prior races. I learned how to read it pretty well. You had to look at the distances, times, surfaces, class, weights, jockey changes, trainer changes, and many other factors. Both the program and the racing form had a little "map" showing you where the starting and finish line were for the particular distance.
I always liked a 7 furlong (furlong is an eighth of a mile) race at Aqueduct, because the horses started "in the chute", and the chart showed that.
We always went and looked at the horses and jockeys in the walking ring, before they went on the track. There was a ritual to this. The horses would be walked around, while the jockeys would stand talking to the trainers. The jockeys would wear different colors for each race, with different colors for different parts of their attire, the program would tell you...."red cap, yellow sleeves, red sashes, polka dot hoops". I would always check that they had it right.
Dad told me about some of the jockeys. Our favorite was Braulio Baeza. He was from Panama, and although I did not know it then, he was one of the greatest jockeys of all time. I only knew what Dad told me, "Look at Braulio Baeza, he sits on a horse straight and tall and proud. No other jockey sits like him." It was true.
I always looked at Braulio Baeza first, to make sure he was sitting straight and tall. The other jockey I liked was Manuel Ycaza. There were three reasons I liked him. People called him "Manny", which was my Dad's name, his last name started with a "Y", which was unusual, and he rode aggressively. Several times I read in the racing form that he was suspended for "rough riding". I always hoped to see a race where he did that.
According to my Dad, some jockeys were "good on the turf", some were better with sprinters than closers, and some jockeys rode well for certain trainers. Who knew if any of this were true? Who cared?
When the horses were ready to go on the track, the jockeys would walk over to their horses, and a booming voice would call out "Put your riders up, please." At that moment all the trainers would give their jockeys "a leg up" and hoist them up on the horse. Then they would walk once around the walking ring and head to the track.....to the sound of the bugle.
We would follow, Dad would "make his wager", and then we would watch the race from our special vantage point. We had a stairway bannister leading to the upper grandstand. It was right on the finish line, and we would stand on the bannister and look over with a perfect view. I stood near the top, with Dad to my left, a little further down the bannister. We would wait for the magical voice of the track announcer, Fred Caposella, to say "It is now post time". I had to look long and hard to find a Fred Caposella race call, and here it is. At the beginning of the clip is a different announcer, and then it picks up with the real deal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liAwNjeKAvI&feature=related
In horse racing, you can't win every time. In fact, it's difficult if not impossible to win in the long run. We took our defeats in stride, and felt pride in our winners. On the way home we talked about the races. No matter how well or poorly our horses did, we always had a great day at Aqueduct. And, the experiences have stayed with me.......
When I visit Dad in Florida now, we always go to the track....there's a shocker.
When I pick horses now, I focus on the jockeys.
When I take Rebecca to Met games, we park on the street in Corona and walk a mile to the stadium. I'm not paying $18 to park, and for some strange reason, it feels like the right thing to do.
When it's the first Saturday in May, I always watch the Kentucky Derby.
Happy Springtime to all!
GOING TO AQUEDUCT WITH DAD
Sometimes on a Saturday, my Dad would suggest that he and I "head over to The Big A". Since I was only 7 years old, he wasn't saying this to me, he was saying it to my Mom. I wonder if taking me along made this activity more palatable to her. The first few times he said it, I worried that she would say no, but she never did. After a few times, I knew that when he suggested it, we were going.
We had a routine. It was always just he and I. Brian (who was 5) only went with us once, but he was "too cranky". After that he was not asked to go, and he never protested when Dad and I went. The Big A is "Aqueduct", a race track in Ozone Park, Queens. It's where the thoroughbreds race in New York when they are not at Belmont or Saratoga. A workingman's racetrack.
We never parked in the parking lot, always in the street about a mile away. "Why should we pay to park?", my Dad said. So we walked through Ozone Park, past little houses and Italian grocery stores. When we got inside, Dad bought a program and a Daily Racing Form. The program was small but impressive, it gave you the basic information about each race: the horse names and post positions, the trainers, the owners, the jockeys (including their weights and "colors"). Dad told me that when we picked a horse to bet on, to remember the jockeys colors, especially his cap, so we could see him in the backstretch.
There were 9 races a day, with about 24 minutes between races. We used that time to "study our selections". The program was just for looking, while the Daily Racing Form was for studying. It had tons more info than the program, including the charts of each horses prior races. I learned how to read it pretty well. You had to look at the distances, times, surfaces, class, weights, jockey changes, trainer changes, and many other factors. Both the program and the racing form had a little "map" showing you where the starting and finish line were for the particular distance.
I always liked a 7 furlong (furlong is an eighth of a mile) race at Aqueduct, because the horses started "in the chute", and the chart showed that.
We always went and looked at the horses and jockeys in the walking ring, before they went on the track. There was a ritual to this. The horses would be walked around, while the jockeys would stand talking to the trainers. The jockeys would wear different colors for each race, with different colors for different parts of their attire, the program would tell you...."red cap, yellow sleeves, red sashes, polka dot hoops". I would always check that they had it right.
Dad told me about some of the jockeys. Our favorite was Braulio Baeza. He was from Panama, and although I did not know it then, he was one of the greatest jockeys of all time. I only knew what Dad told me, "Look at Braulio Baeza, he sits on a horse straight and tall and proud. No other jockey sits like him." It was true.
I always looked at Braulio Baeza first, to make sure he was sitting straight and tall. The other jockey I liked was Manuel Ycaza. There were three reasons I liked him. People called him "Manny", which was my Dad's name, his last name started with a "Y", which was unusual, and he rode aggressively. Several times I read in the racing form that he was suspended for "rough riding". I always hoped to see a race where he did that.
According to my Dad, some jockeys were "good on the turf", some were better with sprinters than closers, and some jockeys rode well for certain trainers. Who knew if any of this were true? Who cared?
When the horses were ready to go on the track, the jockeys would walk over to their horses, and a booming voice would call out "Put your riders up, please." At that moment all the trainers would give their jockeys "a leg up" and hoist them up on the horse. Then they would walk once around the walking ring and head to the track.....to the sound of the bugle.
We would follow, Dad would "make his wager", and then we would watch the race from our special vantage point. We had a stairway bannister leading to the upper grandstand. It was right on the finish line, and we would stand on the bannister and look over with a perfect view. I stood near the top, with Dad to my left, a little further down the bannister. We would wait for the magical voice of the track announcer, Fred Caposella, to say "It is now post time". I had to look long and hard to find a Fred Caposella race call, and here it is. At the beginning of the clip is a different announcer, and then it picks up with the real deal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liAwNjeKAvI&feature=related
In horse racing, you can't win every time. In fact, it's difficult if not impossible to win in the long run. We took our defeats in stride, and felt pride in our winners. On the way home we talked about the races. No matter how well or poorly our horses did, we always had a great day at Aqueduct. And, the experiences have stayed with me.......
When I visit Dad in Florida now, we always go to the track....there's a shocker.
When I pick horses now, I focus on the jockeys.
When I take Rebecca to Met games, we park on the street in Corona and walk a mile to the stadium. I'm not paying $18 to park, and for some strange reason, it feels like the right thing to do.
When it's the first Saturday in May, I always watch the Kentucky Derby.
Happy Springtime to all!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Review of Citi Field
Although I was fine with Shea Stadium, I really wanted to like Citi Field.
The thing is, I love baseball, and I love the Mets. I love their history, their aura, their persona, their players. I think Jerry Manuel is cool. I loved Daniel Murphy from the first time I saw his perfect left-handed swing and his sharp batting eye. I think Johann Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, and he seems like a nice guy and a real leader. I know that David Wright wants to win, and has it in him to show the Mets the way. Sometimes Jose Reyes is so good it's scary. Last year our pen stunk, and Omar went out and fixed it.
I went to Citi Field Saturday afternoon for a Mets - Red Sox exhibition game. Granted, it was freezing so bad it felt like Shea Stadium. Granted, it was a humdrum exhibition game where Ollie Perez had nothing and the Mets were never in it. Granted, it was a day for the fans to check out the Stadium, and we all did.
There are a few impressive things about Citi Field. One is the large selection of places to eat and drink, positioned EVERYWHERE in the building. There are wide expanses of walking areas behind the seats, and beyond the outfield. There are huge rectangular walk-up bars all over the place. Walking in the "food court" area beyond the outfield was like being at the South Street Seaport. Cool if you are a tourist, kinda OK if you are there for the first time, but not someplace you really want to be.
When I'm at a baseball game, I WANT TO BE AT A BASEBALL GAME!!!!! I don't want to buy a blackened shrimp po-boy on a ciabatta bread for $14.50, with a $9 beer. I want to either bring my sandwich from a deli (made to order), with a bag of chips and some water, OR I want to buy a few expectedly overpriced stadium dogs and a beer, and watch the game. As I walked around the non baseball watching areas of the park (which is most of the usable space), and watched my fellow citizens zombying around, I became convinced that "Idiocracy" is in our future. You've never seen Idiocracy, the Mike Judge movie where a regular guy gets sent into the future due to a failed army experiment? Five hundred years from now, according to this Sci-fi/comedy, every stupid excess of our current society will become the norm, and a normal guy from now will be considered the smartest guy on earth. Here's a few clips......in this one we see the President, who is a wrestler guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ULZwzF9s5A&feature=related In the next one the hero gets arrested, and goes to court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQGsdjHTxsQ&feature=related I think the prosecutor was at Citi Field on Saturday.
OK, so lots to eat, and lots of places to shop. I guess this is important because when you have children, the most important thing is to "buy them stuff". Heaven forbid you watch the game with your child and TALK. On a nice afternoon, you can talk about the strategy of the game, and things you heard about particular players, or opposing players you haven't seen before. And if the game gets slow, you can talk about what a nice day it is, and how nice it is to be at the ballgame.
I've had people tell me that baseball is boring. I guess compared to a dance contest show, or celebrity gossip, or a reality show, it IS boring. Baseball is a game where you fill in the gaps in the action with some lost arts.....conversation and thinking. I used to get annoyed, even at "old fashioned" Shea Stadium when between innings, there was a non-stop barrage of noisy "entertainment" and blatant commercials. Citi Field will be the same, with better technology. I so wish it could just be about the GAME.
I have heard that the Mets do not want to Citi Field to be called a "stadium". They want it referred to as a "park" or a "field". Sorry guys, a park or a field is where you go to play a game, or watch a game, it's not a mega-entertainment center.
As far as the field itself, it looks to me like a pitcher friendly park. The dimensions are long and not uniform, and the fences are high in places. I think they are going for "quirky" and charming. We shall see. In right field there is an overhang, like in the old Detroit stadium. I was surprised that so many seats are in fair territory. There are several levels like this....I hate watching the game from there, but it IS close to the food concourse. Now THERE'S a surprise.
The other reason this will not feel like a park or a field is that most of the seats will be sold to corporations and businesses. This is not a day trip with the kids for most people. The whole experience has very little to do with kids, or baseball for that matter.
All the ill feelings aside, TODAY was opening day. I listened to most of the Met game on the radio, and even snuck out to a bar to watch the last inning on TV. It WAS still baseball, the game was still great. I will read about it in the paper tomorrow, and the season is on.
Spring is here, baseball is happening, and nothing can stop it.
The thing is, I love baseball, and I love the Mets. I love their history, their aura, their persona, their players. I think Jerry Manuel is cool. I loved Daniel Murphy from the first time I saw his perfect left-handed swing and his sharp batting eye. I think Johann Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, and he seems like a nice guy and a real leader. I know that David Wright wants to win, and has it in him to show the Mets the way. Sometimes Jose Reyes is so good it's scary. Last year our pen stunk, and Omar went out and fixed it.
I went to Citi Field Saturday afternoon for a Mets - Red Sox exhibition game. Granted, it was freezing so bad it felt like Shea Stadium. Granted, it was a humdrum exhibition game where Ollie Perez had nothing and the Mets were never in it. Granted, it was a day for the fans to check out the Stadium, and we all did.
There are a few impressive things about Citi Field. One is the large selection of places to eat and drink, positioned EVERYWHERE in the building. There are wide expanses of walking areas behind the seats, and beyond the outfield. There are huge rectangular walk-up bars all over the place. Walking in the "food court" area beyond the outfield was like being at the South Street Seaport. Cool if you are a tourist, kinda OK if you are there for the first time, but not someplace you really want to be.
When I'm at a baseball game, I WANT TO BE AT A BASEBALL GAME!!!!! I don't want to buy a blackened shrimp po-boy on a ciabatta bread for $14.50, with a $9 beer. I want to either bring my sandwich from a deli (made to order), with a bag of chips and some water, OR I want to buy a few expectedly overpriced stadium dogs and a beer, and watch the game. As I walked around the non baseball watching areas of the park (which is most of the usable space), and watched my fellow citizens zombying around, I became convinced that "Idiocracy" is in our future. You've never seen Idiocracy, the Mike Judge movie where a regular guy gets sent into the future due to a failed army experiment? Five hundred years from now, according to this Sci-fi/comedy, every stupid excess of our current society will become the norm, and a normal guy from now will be considered the smartest guy on earth. Here's a few clips......in this one we see the President, who is a wrestler guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ULZwzF9s5A&feature=related In the next one the hero gets arrested, and goes to court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQGsdjHTxsQ&feature=related I think the prosecutor was at Citi Field on Saturday.
OK, so lots to eat, and lots of places to shop. I guess this is important because when you have children, the most important thing is to "buy them stuff". Heaven forbid you watch the game with your child and TALK. On a nice afternoon, you can talk about the strategy of the game, and things you heard about particular players, or opposing players you haven't seen before. And if the game gets slow, you can talk about what a nice day it is, and how nice it is to be at the ballgame.
I've had people tell me that baseball is boring. I guess compared to a dance contest show, or celebrity gossip, or a reality show, it IS boring. Baseball is a game where you fill in the gaps in the action with some lost arts.....conversation and thinking. I used to get annoyed, even at "old fashioned" Shea Stadium when between innings, there was a non-stop barrage of noisy "entertainment" and blatant commercials. Citi Field will be the same, with better technology. I so wish it could just be about the GAME.
I have heard that the Mets do not want to Citi Field to be called a "stadium". They want it referred to as a "park" or a "field". Sorry guys, a park or a field is where you go to play a game, or watch a game, it's not a mega-entertainment center.
As far as the field itself, it looks to me like a pitcher friendly park. The dimensions are long and not uniform, and the fences are high in places. I think they are going for "quirky" and charming. We shall see. In right field there is an overhang, like in the old Detroit stadium. I was surprised that so many seats are in fair territory. There are several levels like this....I hate watching the game from there, but it IS close to the food concourse. Now THERE'S a surprise.
The other reason this will not feel like a park or a field is that most of the seats will be sold to corporations and businesses. This is not a day trip with the kids for most people. The whole experience has very little to do with kids, or baseball for that matter.
All the ill feelings aside, TODAY was opening day. I listened to most of the Met game on the radio, and even snuck out to a bar to watch the last inning on TV. It WAS still baseball, the game was still great. I will read about it in the paper tomorrow, and the season is on.
Spring is here, baseball is happening, and nothing can stop it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
More Thoughts on GM and Chapter 11
So, the government forces GM Chairman Wagoner to resign, ostensibly because they found GM's latest "plan" and loan requests unacceptable. What is REALLY going on here is the government knows that the only way GM can become viable is to file a Chapter 11, and Wagoner could not and would not do it. One might think that at SOME point, all the parties (unions, bondholders, banks, suppliers, management) would make sufficient concessions to prevent this bus from going over the cliff.
Unfortunately, it can't happen that way. A Chapter 11 reorganization will bring the hammer down on ALL the parties, painfully. However, the entire process is designed to do this as FAIRLY as possible, with all the parties participating. The reason a proceeding is necessary is that NONE of the parties can agree to the depth of concession necessary, even as it clearly IS necessary. A union head could not agree to a massive restructuring of health and retirement benefits, it's just not was he was elected to do. It's practically a breach of his fiduciary responsibility to do such a thing. Similarly, the Board Chairman can't propose to the shareholders that they agree to file a Chapter 11 and wipe out their equity. He'd be breaching his responsibilities if he did such a thing.
The Obama administration has looked at it, and has surely concluded that not only are the key players not able to voluntarily make the drastic cuts that are the only hope, they have also concluded that on the present path, the company CANNOT make it. Any Republicans who think Obama wants to "nationalize" the auto industry, or have the government take it over, are not paying attention. I don't know if GM will survive a Chapter 11 reorganization, but it will be worth the effort. It will be worthwhile for the government to back the effort. It will make way more sense than throwing money at GM without accountability, and without a REAL re-structuring.
Am I the only one who thinks that the "gap" between GM and the foreign competitors has narrowed? I wanted to be open minded and patriotic a few years ago, so I tried a Saturn Vue as our family car. I have never regretted it. When the lease is up, I hope to get another one. I want to be part of GM's emergence from the Chapter 11 I know is coming.
I think when the whole country actually sees how the Chapter 11 reorganization works, and they see that the pain is being spread fairly, and openly, Americans will buy American in droves. If GM survives, I expect they will emerge with a competitive edge, and they will use it to get on the cutting edge of the newest in automobile technology. These ideas are driving Obama toward the right move, orchestrating GM into Chapter 11 reorganization. Hmmm, competitive edge, capitalism, sounds almost Republican. Pay attention Republicans, you might learn something!
Unfortunately, it can't happen that way. A Chapter 11 reorganization will bring the hammer down on ALL the parties, painfully. However, the entire process is designed to do this as FAIRLY as possible, with all the parties participating. The reason a proceeding is necessary is that NONE of the parties can agree to the depth of concession necessary, even as it clearly IS necessary. A union head could not agree to a massive restructuring of health and retirement benefits, it's just not was he was elected to do. It's practically a breach of his fiduciary responsibility to do such a thing. Similarly, the Board Chairman can't propose to the shareholders that they agree to file a Chapter 11 and wipe out their equity. He'd be breaching his responsibilities if he did such a thing.
The Obama administration has looked at it, and has surely concluded that not only are the key players not able to voluntarily make the drastic cuts that are the only hope, they have also concluded that on the present path, the company CANNOT make it. Any Republicans who think Obama wants to "nationalize" the auto industry, or have the government take it over, are not paying attention. I don't know if GM will survive a Chapter 11 reorganization, but it will be worth the effort. It will be worthwhile for the government to back the effort. It will make way more sense than throwing money at GM without accountability, and without a REAL re-structuring.
Am I the only one who thinks that the "gap" between GM and the foreign competitors has narrowed? I wanted to be open minded and patriotic a few years ago, so I tried a Saturn Vue as our family car. I have never regretted it. When the lease is up, I hope to get another one. I want to be part of GM's emergence from the Chapter 11 I know is coming.
I think when the whole country actually sees how the Chapter 11 reorganization works, and they see that the pain is being spread fairly, and openly, Americans will buy American in droves. If GM survives, I expect they will emerge with a competitive edge, and they will use it to get on the cutting edge of the newest in automobile technology. These ideas are driving Obama toward the right move, orchestrating GM into Chapter 11 reorganization. Hmmm, competitive edge, capitalism, sounds almost Republican. Pay attention Republicans, you might learn something!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Top 10 Things I Should Blog About
Sometimes I have a bunch of blog ideas kicking around, and I can't decide which ones to actually DO. You might think this is a good thing, since I would have "a lot a material" to sustain my blogging over the coming weeks. The problem is, sometimes if you don't nail a good blog idea right away, it either becomes old news OR so much is written by others that there's nothing left to say.
A little amateur writer honesty is also in order.....sometimes it's easier to have a bunch of ideas than to actually write the pieces. This comes under the heading of "things that look easier than they are, until you try to do them". Like golf, fishing, and yoga. I'd feel worse about having blog ideas, without the blog pieces written, if I were a full time writer. Sometimes I wonder.....if I were a full time writer, and not a "lawyer doing my writing on the side", wouldn't it be easy to turn all the ideas into fully written pieces?
Actually, I do know better. It would NOT be easy. And my virtual hat is off to all REAL writers. Until I try it full time, I will always wonder if I could take writing to a higher level than I have at golf, fishing and yoga......things I have liked, tried, and sucked at. And yes, I do realize that one should not say they "suck" at yoga, that you "are where you are and you do what you can and that is OK", but it is also true that "when you do and you do and you are how you were", you suck.
Here are the top 10 things I should blog about:
10. The over-use of antibiotics is the main reason so many people are sick all the time.
9. The issue of the "shameful" bonuses is a bogus issue that has zero to do with the economic recovery. For Congress to pass laws imposing a 90% tax is the ultimate hypocrisy, and the type of ex-post facto law the founding fathers banned for the States, right in the Constitution. Today's Wall Street Journal editorial made this exact point. The 90% tax is purely grandstanding to distract folks from the irresponsible way the "economic stimulus" packages have been rushed and botched.
8. I have written that GM will soon be in Chapter 11, but the better story is that AIG should already BE in Chapter 11.
7. I am amazed how often intelligent, unmarried older people, with a LOT of money, die without a Will. The result of this is distant relatives inheriting their money. Did they really think they were going to live forever? Did they even CONSIDER making a Will and leaving their money to charity? Were they too cheap to pay for a proper Will?
6. The first and most important thing to do when thinking about a website for your business is: make believe you are the ideal customer/client for your business, and then Google every possible search term you can think of. Check the results and look at all the sites on all the page ones. That's your guide. It doesn't cost anything to do this, so if you are thinking about a website, do this right away.
5. AIG (yes, again!) is being treated different than any other company, and for good reason. They were the lynch pin in the giant Ponzi scheme that WAS the American mortgage system. The thumbnail version is that the mortgages could not have been grouped into bonds and sold, unless there was insurance. Big banks and government bought the bonds based on their value being "insured" by AIG. But AIG, and the banks who relied on their insurance, should have considered the following analogy........if I went to a sports book in a casino, and ALL the action was on one team, and the point spread was never adjusted, in fact, the point spread (interest rates, hehe) was adjusted to bring even MORE action on one team, and the bookie was not laying off it's bets, in fact it was continuing to take even more action on the same team, I would conclude that THE BOOKIE WAS GAMBLING!!!!! And so they were, and the other team won. And we are bailing out the bookie and all the bettors.
4. I learned how to play mah-jongg, and I really enjoy it. Whew, I admitted it.
3. The single most under-rated lawyering skill is writing good letters. It's the first thing I teach any new person in my office. I have a foolproof system for writing great business letters. Three parts to it: One: Identify yourself, and other pertinent parties. Two: Tell the story (this is the hard part, but telling the story well is what MAKES the letter) Three: Conclude by stating your position or asking for something. That's all there is to it.
2. A contested estate matter is like a contested matrimonial case, except there are more players, AND the one person who could possibly keep things under control is dead. Lovely way to spend one's time.
1. I can't imagine staying in law practice for the rest of my working life, yet I can't imagine not doing it.
Guess I'll be keeping my day job.
A little amateur writer honesty is also in order.....sometimes it's easier to have a bunch of ideas than to actually write the pieces. This comes under the heading of "things that look easier than they are, until you try to do them". Like golf, fishing, and yoga. I'd feel worse about having blog ideas, without the blog pieces written, if I were a full time writer. Sometimes I wonder.....if I were a full time writer, and not a "lawyer doing my writing on the side", wouldn't it be easy to turn all the ideas into fully written pieces?
Actually, I do know better. It would NOT be easy. And my virtual hat is off to all REAL writers. Until I try it full time, I will always wonder if I could take writing to a higher level than I have at golf, fishing and yoga......things I have liked, tried, and sucked at. And yes, I do realize that one should not say they "suck" at yoga, that you "are where you are and you do what you can and that is OK", but it is also true that "when you do and you do and you are how you were", you suck.
Here are the top 10 things I should blog about:
10. The over-use of antibiotics is the main reason so many people are sick all the time.
9. The issue of the "shameful" bonuses is a bogus issue that has zero to do with the economic recovery. For Congress to pass laws imposing a 90% tax is the ultimate hypocrisy, and the type of ex-post facto law the founding fathers banned for the States, right in the Constitution. Today's Wall Street Journal editorial made this exact point. The 90% tax is purely grandstanding to distract folks from the irresponsible way the "economic stimulus" packages have been rushed and botched.
8. I have written that GM will soon be in Chapter 11, but the better story is that AIG should already BE in Chapter 11.
7. I am amazed how often intelligent, unmarried older people, with a LOT of money, die without a Will. The result of this is distant relatives inheriting their money. Did they really think they were going to live forever? Did they even CONSIDER making a Will and leaving their money to charity? Were they too cheap to pay for a proper Will?
6. The first and most important thing to do when thinking about a website for your business is: make believe you are the ideal customer/client for your business, and then Google every possible search term you can think of. Check the results and look at all the sites on all the page ones. That's your guide. It doesn't cost anything to do this, so if you are thinking about a website, do this right away.
5. AIG (yes, again!) is being treated different than any other company, and for good reason. They were the lynch pin in the giant Ponzi scheme that WAS the American mortgage system. The thumbnail version is that the mortgages could not have been grouped into bonds and sold, unless there was insurance. Big banks and government bought the bonds based on their value being "insured" by AIG. But AIG, and the banks who relied on their insurance, should have considered the following analogy........if I went to a sports book in a casino, and ALL the action was on one team, and the point spread was never adjusted, in fact, the point spread (interest rates, hehe) was adjusted to bring even MORE action on one team, and the bookie was not laying off it's bets, in fact it was continuing to take even more action on the same team, I would conclude that THE BOOKIE WAS GAMBLING!!!!! And so they were, and the other team won. And we are bailing out the bookie and all the bettors.
4. I learned how to play mah-jongg, and I really enjoy it. Whew, I admitted it.
3. The single most under-rated lawyering skill is writing good letters. It's the first thing I teach any new person in my office. I have a foolproof system for writing great business letters. Three parts to it: One: Identify yourself, and other pertinent parties. Two: Tell the story (this is the hard part, but telling the story well is what MAKES the letter) Three: Conclude by stating your position or asking for something. That's all there is to it.
2. A contested estate matter is like a contested matrimonial case, except there are more players, AND the one person who could possibly keep things under control is dead. Lovely way to spend one's time.
1. I can't imagine staying in law practice for the rest of my working life, yet I can't imagine not doing it.
Guess I'll be keeping my day job.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
GM and Chapter 11
I want to get back to my "building a law practice" stuff, but this GM and Chapter 11 thing is really bugging me. I read today that the GM chairman strongly believes the company cannot go into a Chapter 11 because the public will not buy cars from a company in reorganization, and they will end up in liquidation.
Pardon my ignorance, but wtf is this guy talking about?
I don't need graphs and charts to see where GM is going as we speak.....on a straight line to liquidation. No bailout, no loan, no stimulus, no miracle is going to stop that. It's a competitive world, they are not competitive, they will go out of business. I've heard it said "they are too big to be allowed to fail". Isn't it obvious that they are "too big to succeed"? Being too big to succeed is the hallmark of un-competitiveness. They are weighted down with bad contracts, a bad dealer system, and product lines that have been behind the times and probably can't catch up. Certainly they can't catch up with all the excess baggage.
The brass at GM can keep referring to Chapter 11 as "bankruptcy", as if saying that will scare the country into endlessly bailing them out. Chapter 11 is NOT bankruptcy per-se, it is re-organization. If the reorganization does not work, THEN you go into liquidation (bankruptcy).
A Chapter 11 filing is a very powerful thing. It immediately stops the bleeding by putting a stay on your creditors. It compels the filing of a re-organization plan. It enables a company to renegotiate almost any problem on their agenda. Oh, and it enables the filing company to obtain fresh financing, as CHAPTER 11 FINANCING IS PREFERRED OVER ALL OTHER CREDITORS!!!! That's right, while a company is re-organizing, lenders who assist jump ahead of all other creditors, even secured creditors. The way the government should "bail out" GM is to either provide the Chapter 11 financing, or guarantee the financial institutions who will give the financing. Personally, I think this is what President Obama has had in mind all along.
I am struggling to understand why the GM leadership is so opposed to a Chapter 11 filing. I can understand why the unions are against it, the best parts of their contracts will be history, unprofitable plants will be closed (as they should be), and the company will be made leaner and more competitive. You would almost think that if it's so bad for the unions, management would embrace it. So why don't they?
Well, another party who takes a beating in a Chapter 11 is the stockholders. Hey, aren't most of the executives also big stockholders? How about executive jobs, and executive pay? Guess those would come under fire in a re-organization too. GM had some cash reserves that would have been nice to use as a cushion in a reorganization. But I guess it seemed better to deplete that, bleed the taxpayers of some useless bailout money, and then face the inevitable. Resisting the filing, and waiting until the company really should be in liquidation, may just doom the Chapter 11 to exactly what the executives claim they want to avoid.
Bankruptcy (reorganization or liquidation) are fascinating tactical cards, played in various ways at all levels of business. I've been involved in cases where the mere realistic brandishing of the bankruptcy sword totally changed a negotiation and settled an unresolvable situation.
The problem with GM is the brandishing and talk about a Chapter 11 hasn't convinced them to DO it. As is often true in bankruptcy cases, there has to be a catalyst, something that forces a companies hand. I can understand why President Obama did not force the filing in his first week in office. Had it been any other time, forcing a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 was clearly the right way to go.
Watch for this......when they get to the brink, and it won't be long, President Obama will orchestrate GM into Chapter 11. It's the only way. Hopefully it's not too late for a reorganization to actually work.
Pardon my ignorance, but wtf is this guy talking about?
I don't need graphs and charts to see where GM is going as we speak.....on a straight line to liquidation. No bailout, no loan, no stimulus, no miracle is going to stop that. It's a competitive world, they are not competitive, they will go out of business. I've heard it said "they are too big to be allowed to fail". Isn't it obvious that they are "too big to succeed"? Being too big to succeed is the hallmark of un-competitiveness. They are weighted down with bad contracts, a bad dealer system, and product lines that have been behind the times and probably can't catch up. Certainly they can't catch up with all the excess baggage.
The brass at GM can keep referring to Chapter 11 as "bankruptcy", as if saying that will scare the country into endlessly bailing them out. Chapter 11 is NOT bankruptcy per-se, it is re-organization. If the reorganization does not work, THEN you go into liquidation (bankruptcy).
A Chapter 11 filing is a very powerful thing. It immediately stops the bleeding by putting a stay on your creditors. It compels the filing of a re-organization plan. It enables a company to renegotiate almost any problem on their agenda. Oh, and it enables the filing company to obtain fresh financing, as CHAPTER 11 FINANCING IS PREFERRED OVER ALL OTHER CREDITORS!!!! That's right, while a company is re-organizing, lenders who assist jump ahead of all other creditors, even secured creditors. The way the government should "bail out" GM is to either provide the Chapter 11 financing, or guarantee the financial institutions who will give the financing. Personally, I think this is what President Obama has had in mind all along.
I am struggling to understand why the GM leadership is so opposed to a Chapter 11 filing. I can understand why the unions are against it, the best parts of their contracts will be history, unprofitable plants will be closed (as they should be), and the company will be made leaner and more competitive. You would almost think that if it's so bad for the unions, management would embrace it. So why don't they?
Well, another party who takes a beating in a Chapter 11 is the stockholders. Hey, aren't most of the executives also big stockholders? How about executive jobs, and executive pay? Guess those would come under fire in a re-organization too. GM had some cash reserves that would have been nice to use as a cushion in a reorganization. But I guess it seemed better to deplete that, bleed the taxpayers of some useless bailout money, and then face the inevitable. Resisting the filing, and waiting until the company really should be in liquidation, may just doom the Chapter 11 to exactly what the executives claim they want to avoid.
Bankruptcy (reorganization or liquidation) are fascinating tactical cards, played in various ways at all levels of business. I've been involved in cases where the mere realistic brandishing of the bankruptcy sword totally changed a negotiation and settled an unresolvable situation.
The problem with GM is the brandishing and talk about a Chapter 11 hasn't convinced them to DO it. As is often true in bankruptcy cases, there has to be a catalyst, something that forces a companies hand. I can understand why President Obama did not force the filing in his first week in office. Had it been any other time, forcing a "pre-packaged" Chapter 11 was clearly the right way to go.
Watch for this......when they get to the brink, and it won't be long, President Obama will orchestrate GM into Chapter 11. It's the only way. Hopefully it's not too late for a reorganization to actually work.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Yahrzeit Tribute to Mom
Although I've been on a law/business related blogging streak, I'm taking a day to blog about something personal. Today is my Mom's eleventh Yahrzeit (anniversary of passing). Two years ago I posted "Eulogy for Mom" http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Eulogy%20for%20Mom a printed version of the eulogy I read at her funeral. I wonder how eleven years of thinking about someone every day changes perspective. Although I think about her every day, I pick up the phone to call her less often. I am on my own now, imparting words, doing deeds and demonstrating values to all the people in my life. Eleven years later it finally dawns on me, I have a lot to give because I learned from someone who gave me her all. And so, in honor of Mom......
Top 10 things I learned from my mother:
10. Reading and writing are gifts, appreciate them.
9. Forgiving is better than holding a grudge.
8. If you are interested in something, don't dabble, GO FOR IT!
7. The best way to make friends is to BE a friend.
6. Payback is irrelevant when it comes to helping. Help because you can.
5. You don't have to be "religious" to be spiritual.
4. There are many ways to support someone, not everyone needs the same kind of support.
3. When people ask for advice, give it. Accept that whether they follow it is their decision.
2. Fight for what you believe, but always see reality.
1. Be discreet in your speech, but if something needs to be said, SAY IT.
Mom - it needed to be said, so I said it.
Top 10 things I learned from my mother:
10. Reading and writing are gifts, appreciate them.
9. Forgiving is better than holding a grudge.
8. If you are interested in something, don't dabble, GO FOR IT!
7. The best way to make friends is to BE a friend.
6. Payback is irrelevant when it comes to helping. Help because you can.
5. You don't have to be "religious" to be spiritual.
4. There are many ways to support someone, not everyone needs the same kind of support.
3. When people ask for advice, give it. Accept that whether they follow it is their decision.
2. Fight for what you believe, but always see reality.
1. Be discreet in your speech, but if something needs to be said, SAY IT.
Mom - it needed to be said, so I said it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)