Y'all Asked For It

Why is this all happening?
Why is there going to be massive health care "reform" and a big old new immigration extravaganza behind it?

The Republicans have wielded power or "veto power" in either Congress or the White House since 1980. Their political mantra has been, and still is "the best government is that which does least". They have sold the message so well that in actuality, they caused the government to do NOTHING.

They did nothing, and would still prefer to do NOTHING about our disgraceful health care system. I don't love every aspect of the current proposals, but I despise the notion that a responsible government would do NOTHING, with costs spiraling out of control and a significant percentage of our citizens lacking basic health coverage. What was the Republican plan to address these issues? The plan was to do NOTHING, and the plan was executed.

It's still the plan, and it may still work. Now that change is at hand, the entire propaganda machine is mobilized to stop the change. Never, EVER is there an actual workable counter-proposal, which reveals the basic problem......the view that the government should do NOTHING, and somehow let things get worked out in some "Darwinian (or creator-oriented)" way.

NOTHING was a bad and evil strategy. And now, the Republicans have probably lost their ability to negotiate and improve the details. It's a ramrod job.

Y'all asked for it.

Tomorrow - Y'all REALLY asked for it on immigration, and you're going to get it.

Paradoxes in the Health Care Debate

Wow, this stuff is complicated.

Some people told me that I've made some good points about certain issues in the health care debate, but they "don't know where I stand". I apologize for not yet deciding which slogan to latch onto, and for not yet being on auto-answer. I'll leave that to "Democrats" and "Republicans", who have decided they must condescend to all of us by taking thinking, reasoning and logic out of the discussion. Can't say that I blame them.....we make American Idol a top rated show, we buy Disney products, we allow hip-hop to be called culture, and we act like drinking diet soda is a healthy choice. If I were elected, I'd keep the debate to slogans too.

Fortunately, I didn't run, and if I did, I couldn't win. I can't do slogans. I'd rather look at the slogans, and use them as a basis for something unintended.....thinking and discussion. Here are a few:

"If health care reform is passed, a bunch of bureaucrats will be coming between me and my doctor about MY healthcare" ----- To anyone who says or thinks this, I ask the following:
Are the people at insurance companies who reject and reduce medical claims not "bureaucrats"? Are they better...somehow? Lemme see if I understand this....someone whose job it is to reject your claim so their company can maintain profits is better for you than someone who works for the government?


"We have the best medical care in the world" ------- Yes, if you have insurance. (Actually, I don't know if we have the best medical care; I'm as ethno-centric as the next person.....and truthfully, we don't seem like a particularly healthy country). I've heard the argument that even people without insurance still get treated, but the inequities in our current system are stark, and shameful.


"We want to improve the current system, but we do not need a drastic overhaul" ----- This one really gets me. The current system was and is spinning wildly out of control....anyone who is paying their own way for health insurance KNOWS this. This has been going on for years. Eight years Bush was President, and he had a Congress too, and they did not even sniff at this issue. Now a little tweaking won't do it. Now an attempt is being made to make it fair. It's worth the effort.


"Illegal immigrants should not be covered" ------ I actually agree with this one, but I have no problem with taking every undocumented person who is here working, giving them status, and making them work ON THE BOOKS, and paying to be in the health care system. If having them all in the system and paying brings the cost of health insurance down, I vote "aye".


"It will lead to socialized medicine" ------- I know a lot of doctors. None of them are socialists. Most of them are capitalists, and appreciate being among the best paid professionals in our society. Most people do not begrudge them this. Mandated health insurance will be the biggest boon to medical business in the history of business. That's why you don't hear many doctors speaking out against this, except a few insurance company whores. If you were in a business, and there were tens of millions of customers who needed your products and services, but couldn't really afford it so they held off buying it, and now it would be law that everyone would be able to pay for your products and services, would you like that law? Multiple choice question....... If you were a doctor in a small practice, how would you feel about universal insurance?
(a) You'd be sporting a woodie.
(b) You'd be creaming your jeans.
(c) You'd be humming the "Anticipation" song.
(d) All of the above.


"It's part of a master plan by Obama (and the Dems) to turn the country socialist" ------Note to people who say this....paranoia is not attractive.


"The public option will drive the insurance companies out of business" ------- Are they really going to just roll over and let that happen? Nah, what they will have to do is COMPETE, which I thought was the American way. Oh, is it "not fair" to have to compete with the government? If you give good service and fair prices, and people HAVE TO buy insurance, a private company should be able to kick the governments butt and get huge new business. Have the insurance companies gotten so fat that they can't compete? (How utterly American of them) Can anybody show me where they are competing with each other now? Are they competing on price? On service? Never and nowhere.
No, they will NOT go out of business....they will compete, and the strongest will survive. As it should be.


I'm getting closer to knowing whre I stand.
Can't wait to see what the Senate does.

World Series Preview

As a Mets fan, I know enough about both the Yankees and Phillies to write an objective World Series preview. I can do this because in addition to being a Mets fan, I am also a BASEBALL fan. I know good and bad baseball when I see it.

I saw a lot of bad baseball this season, having watched every Met game through the end of July. After that, well, everyone has a limit. One sentence sums up how bad the Mets were this year....."Luis Castillo was our best player."

I watch some Yankee games during the season, and I read about them every day, and I listen to the FAN. I do NOT listen to them on the radio, since John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman are un-listen-able, but I know the Yankees well enough to talk about them.

It's a funny thing about the Yankees, I root against them, but I like and appreciate most of their top players. I root against them because ever since George Steinbrenner blew into New York, the Yankees became all about winning by outspending, and using their money power to win, because apparently, baseball is about winning. Nothing else matters, the game of baseball doesn't matter, families enjoying the game doesn't matter, fair competition doesn't matter, and having the best player money can buy (at every position) is the way to go. I hate the idea that kids become Yankee fans "because they win", an idea fostered by their Yankee fan parents. Note to parents....this is not healthy.

That being said, the Yankees have some truly great, admirable players, who not only play at a high level, they go about it the right way. My favorites are....

Derek Jeter - When I'm an old guy, and some young person (hopefully) asks me who was the best baseball player I ever saw, Derek Jeter is the man. Statistics don't matter, if you know the game, and you watch enough, you know that not only is he a great player, he is a leader who makes his team better.

Jorge Posada - Switch-hitting catcher with power, super clutch. Plus, if you know about his son's hardships and his family's struggles with that, you have to root for him. I also like him because some people, even some of his team-mates, question his defensive abilities. He keeps proving them wrong.

Mark Teixeira - Wow, this is the guy I wish the Mets had gotten. On the famous "Luis Castillo drops the pop-up on the last out and the Yankees beat the Mets" play, Mark Teixeira was running all the way from first, and scored the winning run. Note to David Wright - would YOU have scored on that? Note to Met fans - would ANY of our current players have scored on that ball?

Mariano Rivera - He euthanizes the opponents when he comes in. He may never retire. He is not perfect, though as close as possible. However, if you get to him once, you better win that game because you are not getting to him again. Ultimate professional.

Andy Pettitte - How long has he been pitching? Fifteen years? It always looks like teams will hit him, but in big games they never do. He also told the truth about Roger Clemens, and about himself, and earned my respect for that.

You can have the rest of them, even A-Rod....OK, especially A-Rod. I don't have much use for Cano, or Melky, or Swisher, or Matsui. I feel kinda sorry for Joba, because he is destined to be "Mariano's replacement", and as much as the Yankees have ALREADY ruined Joba, that will finish him off. Sabathia is a great pitcher, but the fat man is a hired gun, and not nearly as much fun as David Wells.

It does appear that the Yankees will be hard to beat in the World Series. Now, about the Phillies.....

We (the Mets) play them a lot. I suppose it's not a secret, but let me say something about the Phillies.....They are TOUGH, and they fight hard. Position by position, the Yankees have a better team, with better pitching and a much better bullpen. But the Phillies come to play, and while they have three top players (Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard), the guys that beat you are Shane Victorino, Jayson Werth, and Raul Ibanez. I don't care what their statistics are, if there is a way to beat you, they will find it.

The Phils are vulnerable to left-handed pitching, so Sabathia and Pettitte should neutralize Utley and Howard. However, other than Mariano, I don't like the Yankees pen against either of those guys, in either ballpark.

Will the Phils actually pitch Pedro against the Yankees? It would be sad if the Yankees bomb Pedro, and while I'd have some regret if he pitches well, I must admit that would be my preferred outcome.

The Phillies have some guys who are either great, or terrible. Cole Hamels and Brad Lidge in particular. The thing with them is, IF they are on, they are hard to beat.

Baseball is a game of intangibles. It sure looks like the Yankees are a "team of destiny". That doesn't win the games. Clutch pitching, defense, and toughness wins games. This will be a 7 game series, the Yankees will win 3 blow-out games, and the Phillies will win the series in 7.

Whether I am right or wrong, I still love the game, and I will spend the winter thinking about Jose Reyes' hamstring, and other similarly important issues.

If The Analogy Fits.....

The people who are most vocal about the need for universal health insurance are those who don't have it. Generally they say they don't have it because they "can't afford it". Lots of people buy things they can't afford, and opt not to buy other things they probably could, but bottom line, it's a DECISION. I'm not saying it's an easy decision, but like many financial decisions, it involves allocating your resources and making judgments.

I recently heard a radio talk show caller say she worked two nursing jobs, made pretty good money, but did not have health insurance because it cost $500 a month. She was imploring the President and Congress to "do something". I wanted to say (well actually, I DID say....to myself, while driving) "Uh, you do know that President Obama is talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, right?" This little tidbit is often lost in the discussion, or tossed in with phrases like "if you can't afford it, we'll help you".

I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise. Breathe easy, you're gonna get health insurance, but YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.....BY LAW!!!!

Can the government do that? Make you pay for something that has always been optional?

The closest analogy is motorcycle helmet laws. If you live in a State that has mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, it seems like a no-brainer (ouch, bad play on words). Everyone accepts it, you kind of understand that the government is making a law requiring people to protect themselves, and also not make us all responsible for their stupidity. If you live in a mandatory motorcycle helmet law State, you may not realize that such laws are NOT universal. Check out this map http://www.fastfreds.com/helmetlawmap.htm I love the comment on the bottom "When I Ride I Decide... Not the State or the Safety Nannies". Yes, there are people who think this way. People who believe in an individuals right to decide things for themselves. This is very often a Republican trait, and the little map looks like Bush v Kerry or Bush v Gore.

Now we have some irony. The Federal government is going to tell a lot of people they must carry health insurance. And they must pay for it, month after month. I think in other contexts this is called "a TAX". Most middle class people, most Democrats, are fine with taxes on "corporations" and "rich people", but taxes on themselves are harder to swallow. I can't wait for them to start asserting their right to make their own decisions about health insurance.

I know that a logical response to this will be...."Well, if people can't afford it, and the government helps out, then it will end up with employers paying, which is also a tax....the pernicious sort of tax that cripples businesses and job creation". I don't think this can be pawned off on small businesses, the stretched backbone of our economy. I don't think so because businesses make decisions too, and if this becomes the playing field, if it becomes OUR TAX....we're not hiring.

What about the "public option"? I think when most people hear this, they assume this is "the free public coverage that I can opt for". I don't think so. I think it would be something affordable.....that you will be REQUIRED to pay for. Still like it? Getting DMV-like service and having to pay for it? It may end up being a big boon to private health insurers because once people accept having to pay, they will probably splurge for the better service of private insurance.

All this health insurance stuff is all about getting more paying customers. That's always what insurance is about. All the low risk people (ie - young and healthy people) are making a decision to stay out of the system. Now the government is going to make their decision, you are IN because we all need you in....to spread the risk around and make it affordable for everyone.

Damn it, we need more customers. And that is the 800 pound gorilla my friends, the 15 million hard working participants in our economy who do not have legal status, and desperately want it. The ones who are going to ultimately get legalized, and can then participate in our mandatory, you pay for it, health insurance system. They can all make a decision, stay and pay, or leave. They'll stay, and this is what will ultimately make the entire system work. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are surely onto this.

You can write it down.

The Part Obama (and a lot of other people) Don't Get

Dear President Obama (and a lot of other people):

Ultimately, entrepreneurs drive the economy, not the government.

People who run businesses and employ other people know this. Most people who work for other people don't get this. President Obama works for the government, and as far as I can tell has always worked for others. So has Michelle. They don't get this entrepreneur thing. Neither do 89% of Congressmen (Yeah, I made up the stat, but it's probably right).

Being an employER is way different than "working".

I don't have a "job", I run a business. I don't HAVE a job, I CREATE JOBS. I haven't just created my own little job, I created three full time jobs, plus I contract out meaningful legal work to four other lawyers, plus my little law office puts tens of thousands into the economy in numerous ways. I figure I've created enough business activity to feed eight families.

If I come up with good ideas, if I market well, if I am bold enough, I will create more jobs. I am motivated to do this by several things.....I want to make more money, I want to provide useful services, I want to be known, I want to be remembered, I want to be part of our economy.

I KNOW, as all business owners know, that I will create more jobs, and help the economy, in the long term, WAY more than any stimulus package or clunker program EVER will.

You would think the President would know this.
You would think Congress would know this.
You would think the voters would know this.
You would think people who work know this (some do, but not most)
You would think State and elected officials would know this. (The only one I can think of who seems to realize this is Mayor Bloomberg....an entrepreneur)

You would be wrong.

Hey, I want the health care system reformed and improved. After all, my premiums are now going up to $1880 per month. That's right, my working friends, I PAY that every f***ing month! It's not one of my "job benefits", I PAY for it. As do most businesspeople, IF they can still afford it. Right now, I don't pay for health insurance for my employees, who seem to have it "through someone else". Crazy, but true, and quite common.

I hope I can create more jobs, and help knock down the unemployment rate. I hope hundreds of thousands of small and medium size business owners can do the same thing. I hope we can afford to make business ventures, try new ideas, be vibrant, make the working world exciting and wealth producing. I HOPE WE DO NOT BECOME A NATION OF CIVIL SERVANTS.

How many jobs can "stimuli" stimulate?

Are we in a good environment for new businesses to start? I used to wonder why more people who were laid off didn't TRY to start businesses. But I now realize why. You'd have to be crazy (or at least illogical) to try, when the taxes and health insurance obstacles are insurmountable.

Are we in a good environment for businesses to grow? Uh, thinking that "universal health insurance" will likely mean a mandate that employers cover all, or that universal coverage will increase taxes even further, makes me pause. Entrepreneurs across the country are collectively paused, and will stay that way, and will prevent the unemployment rates from coming down.

Maybe I will make the logical decision to "get a job", and make things safer and easier for myself and my family. I'd probably be a great employee, and I suspect a firm would hire me. Former entrepreneurs usually make great employees. Something about "getting it" comes into play.

If I decided to "get a job", I guess the eight families I feed will have to find another way. I guess if entrepreneurs and employers across the country make this logical move, unemployment will go up even more, and the government will eventually employ most people. Maybe we ARE destined to be a nation of civil servants.

Businesses are where real solutions come from. We need the government to help the Country by letting us do what we do, create real jobs and build a strong, competitive economy. Mr. President (and a lot of other people), you don't get it, and it's going to kill us all.

Sincerely,

Barry Seidel
(proud capitalist)

Observations About Health Care Reform

The difficulty with reforming our health care system is that the whole situation is WAY too complicated. It does not fit into our shared cultural desire for a few slogans and buzzwords to sort everything out. Everything is so inter-related that it makes for bad politics. In an effort to untangle some of the confusion, I will offer a few observations:

1. Anybody who doesn't think there is a BIG problem with our current system is surely not paying for their own health insurance. As a businessman who pays for my own family plan (where I just got a notice that my premium is going up to $1880 per month!!), nothing irks me more than people with "jobs with benefits" who deny there is a problem, and claim "we have the greatest system in the world". It is especially galling when Republicans, who supposedly care about capitalism and entrepreneurship, are saying this.

2. In order for an insurance system to work, it needs a large enough pool so that risks can be spread, and prices can be fairly set. I don't have a real problem with making health insurance "mandatory" for all, and I don't think it's any different from law requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Yes I know, some States don't require helmets, under the theory that "people have a right to be jerks and let the rest of us bear the risk of their medical bills". Health insurance is no different. It's pretty stupid not to have it, but many people choose not to, primarily because it's too damn expensive. Clearly, the costs have to be lower for all if everyone is required to be IN.

3. Which brings me to another point. Isn't is obvious that health care reform and immigration reform are inexorably related? When health insurance becomes mandatory, I want the 12 million newly legalized workers to be REQUIRED to pay for health insurance, or for their employers to pay for them. If this is too onerous, please leave. I am sick of paying for your health care. While I'm on the topic, I would also make "working off the books" and "paying people off the books" felonies. That's right. Not only do I want my health insurance costs lowered, I want my taxes lowered too, because I want everyone who should be paying, to PAY. Am I the only one who is ticked off about this???

4. I am amazed when people talk about "tort reform" in the context of health insurance. Yes, we could use some tort reform, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a pimple on the body of the problem. Maybe if there were universal health care, the doctors would be billing so much they could better afford their malpractice insurance premiums. Hey, wait a minute, another insurance issue at the heart of things. OK, let's fix too, this while we're at it

5. Does anybody truly think that under the present system the health insurance companies are competing with each other? Are they competing on price? Or service? Somebody show me where that happens.

6. Another good one....."If the government is involved, a bunch of bureaucrats will be making decisions about my health care". And who at the insurance companies is making those decisions now? And what standard are they using to make their determination?

7. I'm thinking that if millions more citizens have health insurance, this would be good for the doctoring and hospital business. Am I missing something? Oh, it will probably also be good for that other scourge of true health, the pharmaceutical industry.

8. I do fear that those who vocally support "universal health insurance" will be shocked when they find out they "have to pay for it"....at least to some extent. I don't think there can be any viable plan where the consumers are not paying some part of this. So, it really comes down to a TAX. To this I say, "fair is fair", and I think Obama has been tip-toeing around this issue. Fixing this mess will require EVERYONE to pay, another complication that doesn't generally go down too well.

9. The government is not some "otherly" entity. WE are the government. For this thing to get fixed, WE are going to be paying, one way or the other.

Sorry for ranting.
Sorry to my doctor friends.
Sorry to working people.
Sorry to people working off the books.
Sorry to people paying people to work off the books.
Sorry to Democrats.
Sorry to Republicans.
Sorry to tort reformers.

Sorry to say....I'm not really sorry about any of it. If everybody could just see that we are all in this together, we'd have a chance to make some progress.

Nice Things About Rosh Hashanah

When I was a kid, say from age 11 until about age 39, Rosh Hashanah was not one of my favorite holidays. There were a few reasons for this:

Summer was over and we were back to school.
The services were long if I went, and the day was guilt-ridden if I didn't.
Services were a fashion event, uncomfortable since I felt so unfashionable.
I had to think about what I had done wrong in the past year.
I felt like I was being judged.
As "irreligious" as I was, I was the most observant person in my family, which felt like an unfair burden. (It's not logical, but that's how it felt)

In the last few years, my thoughts on Rosh Hashanah have changed, dare I say "evolved"? For a quick tutorial, here is the Wikipedia version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah Perhaps interesting to non-Jews, and I must admit, I learned a few things myself.

Some nice things about Rosh Hashanah that I now like, enjoy and/or appreciate:

1. Coming at the end of the summer, it seems like a natural time for a "new" year to start.

2. Unlike secular New Year, it is not mushed in with the "holiday season". This is not a knock on Christmas, or the holiday season in general, I just like the idea of reviewing your personal year, and thinking about the New Year, separated from holiday hubbub, gifts, tipping, shopping and holiday intrigue.

3. I like the special greetings and positive feelings that people express.

4. Stopping and evaluating (better than "judging") where I've been and where I'm going seems very worthwhile. What if we didn't all do this at least once a year?

5. Any reason to get together with family and/or friends.....has to be good.

6. Nothing is quite like hearing the shofar being blown. Not only does it connect all the listeners with something that goes back to ancient times, but it connects the listeners together. There is nothing else like it.

7. At services on Rosh Hashanah (and on Yom Kippur), I sense that people are PRAYING more than "reciting". I realize that praying and participation in any service is personal and individual, I am simply noting that I enjoy the feeling of communal prayer more, when it feels truly communal.

8. The prayers seem to have more "fill in you own" personal issues, and I like that.

9. I like listening to good sermons, and Rabbi's are usually at their best on Rosh Hashanah.

10.These days, I'm OK doing what I do, how I do it, and it took me a long time to get to this point. I've probably spent some quality time on past Rosh Hashana's thinking about this.

L'Shanah Tovah to all.

10 Best and 10 Worst Things About Being a Lawyer

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!!!

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.

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.