© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
People keep telling me that race relations have improved immensely over the past 40 years. They also point to advances in terms of how America treats women, the disabled, gays, and many other groups in society.
They are quick to pull up statistics to support their positions, and produce polls where the respondents express this new-found enlightened thinking.
However, I’ve never bought it. In my view, we just suppressed the views of the bigots and the narrow-minded, and made it unpopular and impolite for them to truly express themselves. What I submit has occurred is simply a shift in which groups are encouraged or allowed to express themselves.
Stop to think about it. There were many interracial couples who wanted to marry at an earlier time in our history, and were prevented, through miscegenation laws, from doing so. Gays had sex, which was prohibited by law, and were afraid to reveal themselves and their behavior.
One of my graduate schools classmates fell in love with an African-American man, and she did not disclose the relationship to her very liberal parents. They had only recently admonished her against going on a camping trip with another African-American friend, out of concern that “kooks” might attack them.
So you see, the suppression of expression comes in many forms. I submit that it is really all about economics, social positioning, and timing. (Religion also obviously has a role, although a complex one.) Much of what Hitler had to offer to the German masses had to do with convincing them that they deserved better than their pre-war status suggested.
Much has been made in recent days of the comments made by supporters of the McCain-Palin ticket at various campaign gatherings around the country. Some have dismissed the comments as those made by a “few kooks.” However, those kooks happen to be the brave or sick ones, and although unquantifiable, I suspect that their numbers are much larger than we are willing to admit.
Of course, the number of those willing to express themselves could quickly change. For those of you who consider yourselves students of recent history, check out France’s experience with Jean-Marie Le Pen during the late 1990s into the early 2000s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen.) Some of the same issues that were central to his emergence are also present here in America at the current time.
Earlier today, in the syndicated column, “Annie’s Mailbox,” formerly known as “Anne Landers,” and currently operated by her two former editors, a couple wrote in to seek advice about their adoption desires. The couple has two girls, ages 5 and 6, and they are interested in adopting a boy. They are also willing to adopt a child of any race. Interestingly, the step-father of the husband has already let it be known that if they adopt an African-American boy, he will not be allowed in the home of his grandparents.
Quite frankly, I think that it is better that the parents know the step-grandfather’s position now, rather than permit him to spew his hatred after the fact. It is far preferable for us to create the conditions to allow the bigots and the narrow-minded to truly express their feelings and expose them. They will, of course, suffer, or benefit from, the consequences of their expression.
In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that our country has made with respect to the goals of civil rights and equal treatment has been its use of the strong arm of the law. The Warren court of the 1950s, in particular, failed to behave as a part of the judicial branch of our government, and took on a legislative role.
That America did not have the political will, until some years after Brown v. Board of Education, to legislatively pursue the goals of equality tells you that the hearts and minds of American were not ready for it. Same with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is the legislature that has the responsibility for promulgating laws, not the judiciary.
That a relatively small number of “concerned citizens,” no matter how well-intentioned their motivations, should be able to impose their value system on the many, will always be a problem.
You see, the ultimate goal of any group in society seeking equal treatment is respect, and the appreciation by others of your true, core, basic, value based on your merit. People may be forced to respect someone out of fear or intimidation; however, their minds and hearts will never respect you. Furthermore, aren’t bigots and the narrow-minded entitled to be so?
People need to learn, individually and collectively, how to love, respect, and appreciate others on their own terms. To develop artificial contrivances, particularly those imposed by governmental or legal force, only serves to pervert the system and diminish the goal by perverting the principle of fairness.
Furthermore, it provides the bigots and the narrow-minded with further arrows in their quivers to continue to ridiculous debate about equality. There simply shouldn’t be any debate.
Additionally, we need to come to the realization that no decision in the world is fair. The best that we can hope is that we devise systems to treat people processed through it fairly to the best of our ability, and recognize that it still is not going to be perfect.
We, here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, previously delved into this subject matter. In one of our very earliest articles, we spoke of “How Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html.) In our Post No. 42, entitled “If You Really want to do Some Thinking,” we referred to an article in Edge (http://www.edge.org/) by Jonathan Haidt, entitled “What Makes People Vote Republican.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-no-42-if-you-really-want-to-do.html.) In the introduction to that article appeared the following:
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the “upper hand” because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”
In his article, Haidt suggests that, “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.” Bigotry and narrow-mindedness are also like a religion. You can’t just stamp out or suppress what people feel and believe. Additionally, those individuals who hold those views are offended by those who tell them that something is wrong with them for holding them.
I submit that they need to live [I purposefully avoided using “suffer”] the consequences of being bigoted and narrow-minded, whether good or bad, on their own terms. I have always felt that in the long run, it would have been far better for African-Americans to have quietly taken their business around the corner to Caucasian merchants willing to provide them public accommodations and services, than for the law to have forced all merchants and service providers to do so. Take a guess as to the financial impact of such action. By forcing a condition on the unwilling, we as a society only made them angrier and perhaps more bigoted.
Force also further delays the creation of circumstances where one can personally recognize the value of another human being.
Let me tell you this: more and more bigotry and narrow-mindedness will come to the surface as the economic status of the average citizen further deteriorates over the next couple of years. We need an outlet valve – the creation of a prominent third political party, The American Bigot Party.
Just think about it. All of the closet bigots will join, and they’ll be happy to once again speak their minds in public, without recrimination. All of the old racists, who were Dixiecrats and voted for George Wallace before switching allegiance when Ronald Reagan came along, will march down the street in solidarity parades. The Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis will also have a political outlet. Imagine the platform of that party.
If society truly considers the bigoted and narrow-minded to be a cancer on our society, then in order to deal with it, we need to know where and how it exists, not hide it. Common sense dictates as much. Come on out, let us see and hear you, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, accountants, farmers, bankers, and all….
The Republicans also have a major problem right now, with which they apparently have not figured out how to deal. They are the default party for the nuts and kooks of America, as least as far as discrimination is concerned. (The Democrats have a different set of nuts and kooks.)
It would be far easier for both the Democratic and Republican parties to join forces, contribute an equal amount from their coffers, and form the American Bigot Party, to sequester the problematic elements of both parties.
Let them be heard. Let them have their say. Then perhaps the candidates of both current major parties would be not have to distance themselves from the John Hagees and Jeremiah Wrights of the world, and if they had to do so, could do so with a straight face.
One final comment. Shortly after 9-11, I attended a seminar conducted by a constitutional law professor and scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky (http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/), about the importance of not allowing our government to engage in unconstitutional activity.
He noted that during times of crisis and fear, there is a tendency to ignore the Constitution and suppress individual rights. However, he further noted that the Constitution serves as a rudder to keep us on our “right path” and prevent the pendulum of public sentiment from swinging too far in either direction.
Let the concept work its magic. Just don’t pervert or distort its operation and thus encourage people to disrespect it.
Free the bigots! Let them speak and express themselves! Let them organize! We’ll be a better country for having done so, and hopefully, at the end of the day, they’ll just fade away.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Post 53a: Understanding the Word Swaps and their Role in this Financial Mess
Earlier this week, we mentioned that several former CEOs of AIG Insurance testified before the House of Representatives. During the course of that hearing, the interrogating Representatives and the CEO witnesses frequently referred to "swaps" and their risky nature.
It occurred to us that many others might not understand the concept of swaps and the role they played in our financial mess. We thought that more Americans might want to gain a better appreciation of this financial vehicle since there are "$62 trillion in credit-default swap derivatives out there. [Emphasis added.]"
One of our readers recently forwarded a September 27, 2008 article from The New York Times written by Ben Stein, entitled In Financial Food Chains, Little Guys Can't Win. In that article, Stein writes:
"[A]ccording to what I hear from my betters in the world of finance, the most serious problems are not with the bundles of subprime mortgages themselves — a large but not lethal quantum as far as I can tell — but with derivatives contracts tied to subprime and other dicey debt. These contracts are superficially an attempt to “insure” against risks of default, hence the name “credit-default swaps.” In fact, they are an immense wager — which anyone with lots of money or borrowing ability can enter — about how mortgage-backed bonds, leveraged loan bonds, student loan bonds, credit card bonds and the like will perform."
Read the remainder of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28every.html?_r=1&ei=5070&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1223740921-R1il7UykUJKI/O7CnpNPmw&pagewanted=print
It occurred to us that many others might not understand the concept of swaps and the role they played in our financial mess. We thought that more Americans might want to gain a better appreciation of this financial vehicle since there are "$62 trillion in credit-default swap derivatives out there. [Emphasis added.]"
One of our readers recently forwarded a September 27, 2008 article from The New York Times written by Ben Stein, entitled In Financial Food Chains, Little Guys Can't Win. In that article, Stein writes:
"[A]ccording to what I hear from my betters in the world of finance, the most serious problems are not with the bundles of subprime mortgages themselves — a large but not lethal quantum as far as I can tell — but with derivatives contracts tied to subprime and other dicey debt. These contracts are superficially an attempt to “insure” against risks of default, hence the name “credit-default swaps.” In fact, they are an immense wager — which anyone with lots of money or borrowing ability can enter — about how mortgage-backed bonds, leveraged loan bonds, student loan bonds, credit card bonds and the like will perform."
Read the remainder of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/business/28every.html?_r=1&ei=5070&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1223740921-R1il7UykUJKI/O7CnpNPmw&pagewanted=print
Friday, October 10, 2008
Post No. 53: Are We Really Interested in Crafting a Solution to Our Financial Mess?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Washington, we have a problem.
Now, I am neither an economist nor a rocket scientist, I am just a consumer, and as such, along with the rest of you, I am responsible for two thirds of America’s economic activity.
And, along with the rest of you, I don’t have much trouble defining the problem:
In the last ten years, the cost of energy has gone through the roof, taking the price of everything that moves, from food to flashlights, along with it.
Similarly, the cost of housing is up more than 50%.
Unfortunately, our real income has actually declined, along with the value of our homes… and in the last two weeks, the value of our retirement savings has declined more than 20%… some two trillion dollars worth of evaporated wealth.
But, if you had turned on the television and watched C-Span, as I did while generating this article, you would have seen the hearing, conducted in the House of Representatives on October 7, 2008, regarding the collapse of AIG Insurance.
Several former CEOs testified during that hearing. Probably most of us think that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have failed us.
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. In corporate think, the above problems seem to be our fault.
I strongly suspect that if you asked the average citizen, he or she would tell you that they feel that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, made out like bandits during the period of high flying and free wheeling, without much in the way of restrictions or regulation, or concern for the American public for that matter.
Virtually every nickel we contributed to the growth of the American economy, through productivity improvements and cost reductions, was channeled to the occupants of America’s executive suites.
Less than ten days after borrowing $85 billion from us to keep from going broke, the executives of AIG spent $400,000 on themselves at a management retreat at an ocean front resort. (One of the Representatives even had pictures of the resort, and a breakdown of the costs of the rooms!)
That’s FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS… and it obviously occurred to no one running that company that this might not be the best time to continue business as usual, as is their right and due. What good is being a Master of the Universe if you can’t enjoy the perks?
To borrow a notion from Ross Perot, perhaps we should reconsider who we put in charge of our financial well-being.
Perhaps we should reconsider allowing lawyers to become elected officials.
Perhaps we should do the same with CEOs.
Because what was to be witnessed during this hearing was not an effort to get at the truth and underlying causes for our current economic emergency, but lots of posturing, blame assignment, and defense of the status frigging quo.
You can’t really blame these guys; if any of us were trousering (oops, my bad, or skirting) $60 million a year, we would also mount the best defense that money could buy in support of our right to haul home such lucre.
Yesterday, we posted a poem by Pablo Neruda (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-52-and-now-some-pablo-neruda.html). Apparently neither the former CEOs nor any of our politicians have read You’re the Result of Yourself. It’s well worth a read.
Lawyers, particularly experienced ones, develop a skill for asking the right questions to get to the heart of the matter. They also know how to make arguments in favor of their positions, and against those of others.
That’s what they get paid for.
What should concern us now is that none of this is appropriate in connection with the current financial mess in which we find ourselves as a nation. And time’s awasting....
What we need now is for our politicians, leaders, and the members of our government to “dig deeper,” and try to expose the underlying causes of this situation (no matter who’s at fault), and how we might best prevent it from occurring again.
What we do not need is yet another PR campaign, pointing to a light at the end of the tunnel, and pretending that it is not an oncoming freight train. (By the way, the laws of physics repeatedly suggest that you will not beat that collision.)
I’m one of the few people who actually enjoys listening to hearings before governmental bodies. Any sensible person would not. Frequently, those being questioned present prepared statements, exculpating themselves from liability, and then proceed to provide responses more concerned about liability than solutions. In many instances they are accompanied by counsel who coaches the witness.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which the “questions” are posed, if you can really call them questions. During the House hearing, for example, we witnessed Representatives essentially make speeches, reflecting their positions, and condemning the conduct of AIG. They chose the words to characterize the conduct, and they injected emotion into the issue, when and where they saw fit.
It was more than clear that the purpose of these self-serving speeches had more to do with elections than economic enlightenment.
Once they had almost used up their allotted time, they would ask a very short question, which would be very difficult to answer considering the 3 minute monologue preceding the question. When the witness tried to answer, he was frequently interrupted by the Representative, only to have the time expire without the witness having said anything of real value or substance.
Now we know that many of you will simply say, “That’s the way these things work.”
However, in this period of economic uncertainty, that’s just frankly, unacceptable. That any of our politicians would place their continued occupation of a political position above our need to know and the financial interests of the American people is not only sad, but something in which we should no longer acquiesce.
This is ridiculous folks. Even I, an insignificant nitwit, could pose a series of questions designed to get to the bottom of this mess. Why can’t our highly compensated, highly educated, highly sophisticated, highly experienced elected officials pose questions that really matter, without consideration of their interests?
What’s more disturbing is that the ineffectiveness of conducting a hearing of this sort, at least in terms of getting to the root of the problem, is fairly obvious, even to the casual observer. That our politicians think that this is appropriate, and acceptable to us, is, quite frankly, pissing me off.
This is the question we need to have asked and answered until it makes sense even to an insignificant nitwit:
“You gentlepeople have managed to hitch this great country’s economic star to a wagon, and the mule just died. How do you propose we fix that, this week?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Washington, we have a problem.
Now, I am neither an economist nor a rocket scientist, I am just a consumer, and as such, along with the rest of you, I am responsible for two thirds of America’s economic activity.
And, along with the rest of you, I don’t have much trouble defining the problem:
In the last ten years, the cost of energy has gone through the roof, taking the price of everything that moves, from food to flashlights, along with it.
Similarly, the cost of housing is up more than 50%.
Unfortunately, our real income has actually declined, along with the value of our homes… and in the last two weeks, the value of our retirement savings has declined more than 20%… some two trillion dollars worth of evaporated wealth.
But, if you had turned on the television and watched C-Span, as I did while generating this article, you would have seen the hearing, conducted in the House of Representatives on October 7, 2008, regarding the collapse of AIG Insurance.
Several former CEOs testified during that hearing. Probably most of us think that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have failed us.
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. In corporate think, the above problems seem to be our fault.
I strongly suspect that if you asked the average citizen, he or she would tell you that they feel that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, made out like bandits during the period of high flying and free wheeling, without much in the way of restrictions or regulation, or concern for the American public for that matter.
Virtually every nickel we contributed to the growth of the American economy, through productivity improvements and cost reductions, was channeled to the occupants of America’s executive suites.
Less than ten days after borrowing $85 billion from us to keep from going broke, the executives of AIG spent $400,000 on themselves at a management retreat at an ocean front resort. (One of the Representatives even had pictures of the resort, and a breakdown of the costs of the rooms!)
That’s FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS… and it obviously occurred to no one running that company that this might not be the best time to continue business as usual, as is their right and due. What good is being a Master of the Universe if you can’t enjoy the perks?
To borrow a notion from Ross Perot, perhaps we should reconsider who we put in charge of our financial well-being.
Perhaps we should reconsider allowing lawyers to become elected officials.
Perhaps we should do the same with CEOs.
Because what was to be witnessed during this hearing was not an effort to get at the truth and underlying causes for our current economic emergency, but lots of posturing, blame assignment, and defense of the status frigging quo.
You can’t really blame these guys; if any of us were trousering (oops, my bad, or skirting) $60 million a year, we would also mount the best defense that money could buy in support of our right to haul home such lucre.
Yesterday, we posted a poem by Pablo Neruda (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-52-and-now-some-pablo-neruda.html). Apparently neither the former CEOs nor any of our politicians have read You’re the Result of Yourself. It’s well worth a read.
Lawyers, particularly experienced ones, develop a skill for asking the right questions to get to the heart of the matter. They also know how to make arguments in favor of their positions, and against those of others.
That’s what they get paid for.
What should concern us now is that none of this is appropriate in connection with the current financial mess in which we find ourselves as a nation. And time’s awasting....
What we need now is for our politicians, leaders, and the members of our government to “dig deeper,” and try to expose the underlying causes of this situation (no matter who’s at fault), and how we might best prevent it from occurring again.
What we do not need is yet another PR campaign, pointing to a light at the end of the tunnel, and pretending that it is not an oncoming freight train. (By the way, the laws of physics repeatedly suggest that you will not beat that collision.)
I’m one of the few people who actually enjoys listening to hearings before governmental bodies. Any sensible person would not. Frequently, those being questioned present prepared statements, exculpating themselves from liability, and then proceed to provide responses more concerned about liability than solutions. In many instances they are accompanied by counsel who coaches the witness.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which the “questions” are posed, if you can really call them questions. During the House hearing, for example, we witnessed Representatives essentially make speeches, reflecting their positions, and condemning the conduct of AIG. They chose the words to characterize the conduct, and they injected emotion into the issue, when and where they saw fit.
It was more than clear that the purpose of these self-serving speeches had more to do with elections than economic enlightenment.
Once they had almost used up their allotted time, they would ask a very short question, which would be very difficult to answer considering the 3 minute monologue preceding the question. When the witness tried to answer, he was frequently interrupted by the Representative, only to have the time expire without the witness having said anything of real value or substance.
Now we know that many of you will simply say, “That’s the way these things work.”
However, in this period of economic uncertainty, that’s just frankly, unacceptable. That any of our politicians would place their continued occupation of a political position above our need to know and the financial interests of the American people is not only sad, but something in which we should no longer acquiesce.
This is ridiculous folks. Even I, an insignificant nitwit, could pose a series of questions designed to get to the bottom of this mess. Why can’t our highly compensated, highly educated, highly sophisticated, highly experienced elected officials pose questions that really matter, without consideration of their interests?
What’s more disturbing is that the ineffectiveness of conducting a hearing of this sort, at least in terms of getting to the root of the problem, is fairly obvious, even to the casual observer. That our politicians think that this is appropriate, and acceptable to us, is, quite frankly, pissing me off.
This is the question we need to have asked and answered until it makes sense even to an insignificant nitwit:
“You gentlepeople have managed to hitch this great country’s economic star to a wagon, and the mule just died. How do you propose we fix that, this week?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Post No. 52: And Now Some Pablo Neruda
Some eight or so years ago, a childhood friend of mine introduced me to Pablo Neruda. He emphasized that Neruda was special. Not having read any of his work prior to that introduction, or since, I did not fully appreciate what he had shared with me.
Just a few minutes ago, I ran across the blog of another blogger, Vincent Robleto. He recently posted one of Neruda's works, You're the Result of Yourself.
Upon reading it, I realized that it embodies many of the principles central to the concepts discussed in this blog, and promoted by the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
Enjoy.
Don't blame anyone, never complain of anyone or anything.
Because basically you have made of your life what you wanted.
For the remainder: http://kerblotto.blogspot.com/2008/09/youre-result-of-yourself.html
Just a few minutes ago, I ran across the blog of another blogger, Vincent Robleto. He recently posted one of Neruda's works, You're the Result of Yourself.
Upon reading it, I realized that it embodies many of the principles central to the concepts discussed in this blog, and promoted by the Institute for Applied Common Sense.
Enjoy.
You're the Result of Yourself
by Pablo Neruda
Don't blame anyone, never complain of anyone or anything.
Because basically you have made of your life what you wanted.
For the remainder: http://kerblotto.blogspot.com/2008/09/youre-result-of-yourself.html
Monday, October 6, 2008
Post No. 51: Finally, Let Me Get this O.J. Stuff out of My System
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Post No. 50a: One of the Better Political Cartoons of the Year
Compliments of Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-summers-cartgallery,0,5845995.photogallery?index=orl-cart-constituents-100208
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-summers-cartgallery,0,5845995.photogallery?index=orl-cart-constituents-100208
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Post No. 50: O.J.'s Opportunity - Lost
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that there is more to a man than the worst thing that he has ever done. Unfortunately, the worst thing that a man has done, or perhaps is suspected to have done, always outweighs the other factors, no matter the nature or quality. It is out of self preservation that we are hard-wired to reach such a conclusion.
There is only so much “benefit of the doubt” that we, the observing public, are willing to extend to those who have been fortunate enough to have talent of some sort which results in their being placed on a pedestal.
I only personally met him briefly, for perhaps 20 or 30 seconds in a nightclub in Miami in the 1990s. However, I was connected to him, in a second hand sort of way, through many others.
His Mother was a hospital administrator, and his Father, a chef and bank custodian. As a child, he developed rickets, and wore braces on both of his legs until he was 5. His parents separated around the same time.
He grew up, and later attended City College of San Francisco, with someone who would become one of my most trusted business partners.
During his pro football career, I always marveled at his ability to give his absolute best, day in and day out, even when his team was at its absolute worst. An ordinary player would have performed at a level consistent with that of the other members of his team. Not O.J. He set records, and records, and records.
We all witnessed his transformation from an unsophisticated youth with rough edges, to a charismatic, professional, media personality, even though his characters might have, on occasion, been best described as cartoonish.
When I first arrived in Los Angeles, I, along with another friend who would later achieve pro sports recognition, attempted to get into The Daisy, the private club in Beverly Hills, where Nicole Brown Simpson worked. A good buddy who was a pro football star, instructed us to use his name in order to gain entry. Unfortunately, the maitre d’ did not recall our buddy’s name until almost closing time. However, we were able to have some champagne before our departure.
And thus I appreciated all of the favors and treats that are extended to pro stars - the hotels full of adoring fans, mostly female, and the merchants and service institutions bending over backwards to give the stars more favors and treats… and the restaurateurs, desperately seeking autographed photos to affix to their walls.
Over the years, I witnessed Nicole and her girlfriends as they participated in the “club scene.” They were of a different grade, only accessible by those who traveled in rarefied circles. I also had buddies who socialized with O.J. and Nicole together, and thus I gained some sense of that dynamic. Both were stars of a sort, in their own right, and developed a concomitant set of privileges and expectations, whether justified or not.
And thus it was a complicated culture and environment in which they operated, which few outside of that world could ever fully appreciate.
Most folks do not realize that The Juice started his own film production company, which generated mostly made-for-TV shows, such as the family oriented Goldie and the Boxer films. Most folks do not realize that he was a major participant in an annual charity event that raised millions for sick children.
So there I was, with all of this background, and sitting in my office in Brentwood, looking west toward Barrington, at the mauve-orange sunset, when I noticed several news copters level with my window on the 16th floor. I immediately wondered why there were so many of them, and why they were so close to the ground.
Five minutes later, I walked around the corner on Barrington to be told by the local convenience store clerk that they had found the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and I knew that things were about to get complicated - real complicated.
And then there appeared Lance Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito), with whom I had shared an office when I first started in the D.A.’s Office, and with whom my partner had attended law school. And then there appeared an older Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), who had appeared in my courtroom in a younger version, when I was a D.A.
And then there appeared Johnnie Cochran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran), who was the Assistant D.A. in 1978, and who extended the offer to me to join the Office. And then there was Geraldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_rivera) contacting my partner to seek an interview, which he graciously declined.
And then there were the women, who I knew in Brentwood, who were also friends of Ron Goldman, and who spoke about their relationships with him.
And thus I had way too much information to objectively form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and yet I knew that it would become a sad event, no matter what the verdict. Little did I appreciate how prescient the dissection would be, and its similarities to the nature of the dissection in the current presidential campaign?
On the day of the criminal jury verdict, my partner and I were with a group of clients in the Detroit area, when the verdict was read. We saw the same expressions of exhilaration and disbelief expressed throughout the world. Later that afternoon, we traveled to Chicago, to visit with a client who had been a J.A.G. lawyer handling criminal matters in the service, who was fascinated by our collective connections to O.J.
When I returned to Chicago one month later to make a presentation before a gathering of engineers, businesspeople, and attorneys connected with that client, at the dinner later that evening, I was asked at the last minute to explain, as a trial lawyer, how different people could have such widely differing perspectives on the evidence presented. I was amazed at how quiet the room was as I shared my thoughts. I was not arrogant enough to suspect that they were captivated by what I had to say, but rather they were amazed that any group of people could have thought of him as not guilty.
I would later tell inquiring minds that, from a legal perspective, I suspected that the ”system” had yielded the “correct” results in both the criminal and civil trials, based on the differing legal standards of proof.
Later, I would read an article regarding a private investigation conducted by a respected, retired, law enforcement officer out of Texas, who suspected that O.J.’s son, from a prior marriage, was actually the murderer. It appeared that he had acquired a job as a chef at a restaurant in Westwood Village, two blocks from my place, and that he was quite proud of his accomplishment. He was scheduled to cater a party for his niece, Sydney, whose birthday was that weekend. However, it appears that Nicole called it off at the last minute, and that O.J.’s son was absolutely livid. He reportedly left the restaurant that evening in a huff, with his chef’s knives, and fellow employees claimed that he had never done that before.
Only one close friend ever asked me my personal opinion as to O.J.’s guilt or innocence, and when I informed her, I lost that friend forever, never to be seen again.
I told her, as I tell you here – based on what I saw, O.J. knew who did it, but was not a participant. Why? Two main factors: (1) From all that I knew about O.J., he never would have left town and allowed his two minor children to be in a position to potentially find the bloodied body of their Mother sprawled on the sidewalk. (2) From all that I know about the first time that a human kills, or even witnesses the death of, another human being, one does not simply walk away cool, calm, and collected. We, as humans, are biologically hard-wired to have a violent reaction and to sweat. It takes time, and repeated killings, to become a cool killer, and get on a plane and have jocular conversation with fellow passengers.
And then there was Jackie Conner, with whom I had served in the Office, who sat as the Judge over the Ramparts Division LAPD scandal, involving Rafael Perez, who admitted to planting evidence in scores of case, and implicated numerous others, thus prejudicing scores of criminal prosecutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_(police_officer).)
Admittedly, for the past decade or so, O.J. hadn’t done much to advance his cause. I always thought that it was a sad situation, in that although he was no Muhammad Ali, he did have the potential to inspire other young men to improve their station in life, despite humble beginnings.
And thus I knew that O.J. would be convicted on all counts. He was not going to be given another shot, no matter what the evidence in the Las Vegas trial. And he should have known it also.
But what I also knew, after watching the intense, vituperative nature of the discourse during the political campaigns conducted over the past 18 months, was that all of our pre-conceived, perhaps previously concealed inner-most feelings about people, would erupt to the surface, and be expressed in many ways. This country still has lots of internal conflict and repressed feelings about our fellow citizens. This is the climate in which we currently live. This is the climate in which O.J. should have “steered far wide of the danger zone.”
Sorry O.J. Unfortunately, you’re “done fur.” You thought that you could pull it out one time too many. And that’s sad for those of us who got to know you in some tangential manner, even just as fans, but more so for those young folks who could have been inspired by your journey. Opportunity – lost….
It has been said that there is more to a man than the worst thing that he has ever done. Unfortunately, the worst thing that a man has done, or perhaps is suspected to have done, always outweighs the other factors, no matter the nature or quality. It is out of self preservation that we are hard-wired to reach such a conclusion.
There is only so much “benefit of the doubt” that we, the observing public, are willing to extend to those who have been fortunate enough to have talent of some sort which results in their being placed on a pedestal.
I only personally met him briefly, for perhaps 20 or 30 seconds in a nightclub in Miami in the 1990s. However, I was connected to him, in a second hand sort of way, through many others.
His Mother was a hospital administrator, and his Father, a chef and bank custodian. As a child, he developed rickets, and wore braces on both of his legs until he was 5. His parents separated around the same time.
He grew up, and later attended City College of San Francisco, with someone who would become one of my most trusted business partners.
During his pro football career, I always marveled at his ability to give his absolute best, day in and day out, even when his team was at its absolute worst. An ordinary player would have performed at a level consistent with that of the other members of his team. Not O.J. He set records, and records, and records.
We all witnessed his transformation from an unsophisticated youth with rough edges, to a charismatic, professional, media personality, even though his characters might have, on occasion, been best described as cartoonish.
When I first arrived in Los Angeles, I, along with another friend who would later achieve pro sports recognition, attempted to get into The Daisy, the private club in Beverly Hills, where Nicole Brown Simpson worked. A good buddy who was a pro football star, instructed us to use his name in order to gain entry. Unfortunately, the maitre d’ did not recall our buddy’s name until almost closing time. However, we were able to have some champagne before our departure.
And thus I appreciated all of the favors and treats that are extended to pro stars - the hotels full of adoring fans, mostly female, and the merchants and service institutions bending over backwards to give the stars more favors and treats… and the restaurateurs, desperately seeking autographed photos to affix to their walls.
Over the years, I witnessed Nicole and her girlfriends as they participated in the “club scene.” They were of a different grade, only accessible by those who traveled in rarefied circles. I also had buddies who socialized with O.J. and Nicole together, and thus I gained some sense of that dynamic. Both were stars of a sort, in their own right, and developed a concomitant set of privileges and expectations, whether justified or not.
And thus it was a complicated culture and environment in which they operated, which few outside of that world could ever fully appreciate.
Most folks do not realize that The Juice started his own film production company, which generated mostly made-for-TV shows, such as the family oriented Goldie and the Boxer films. Most folks do not realize that he was a major participant in an annual charity event that raised millions for sick children.
So there I was, with all of this background, and sitting in my office in Brentwood, looking west toward Barrington, at the mauve-orange sunset, when I noticed several news copters level with my window on the 16th floor. I immediately wondered why there were so many of them, and why they were so close to the ground.
Five minutes later, I walked around the corner on Barrington to be told by the local convenience store clerk that they had found the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and I knew that things were about to get complicated - real complicated.
And then there appeared Lance Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito), with whom I had shared an office when I first started in the D.A.’s Office, and with whom my partner had attended law school. And then there appeared an older Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), who had appeared in my courtroom in a younger version, when I was a D.A.
And then there appeared Johnnie Cochran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran), who was the Assistant D.A. in 1978, and who extended the offer to me to join the Office. And then there was Geraldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_rivera) contacting my partner to seek an interview, which he graciously declined.
And then there were the women, who I knew in Brentwood, who were also friends of Ron Goldman, and who spoke about their relationships with him.
And thus I had way too much information to objectively form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and yet I knew that it would become a sad event, no matter what the verdict. Little did I appreciate how prescient the dissection would be, and its similarities to the nature of the dissection in the current presidential campaign?
On the day of the criminal jury verdict, my partner and I were with a group of clients in the Detroit area, when the verdict was read. We saw the same expressions of exhilaration and disbelief expressed throughout the world. Later that afternoon, we traveled to Chicago, to visit with a client who had been a J.A.G. lawyer handling criminal matters in the service, who was fascinated by our collective connections to O.J.
When I returned to Chicago one month later to make a presentation before a gathering of engineers, businesspeople, and attorneys connected with that client, at the dinner later that evening, I was asked at the last minute to explain, as a trial lawyer, how different people could have such widely differing perspectives on the evidence presented. I was amazed at how quiet the room was as I shared my thoughts. I was not arrogant enough to suspect that they were captivated by what I had to say, but rather they were amazed that any group of people could have thought of him as not guilty.
I would later tell inquiring minds that, from a legal perspective, I suspected that the ”system” had yielded the “correct” results in both the criminal and civil trials, based on the differing legal standards of proof.
Later, I would read an article regarding a private investigation conducted by a respected, retired, law enforcement officer out of Texas, who suspected that O.J.’s son, from a prior marriage, was actually the murderer. It appeared that he had acquired a job as a chef at a restaurant in Westwood Village, two blocks from my place, and that he was quite proud of his accomplishment. He was scheduled to cater a party for his niece, Sydney, whose birthday was that weekend. However, it appears that Nicole called it off at the last minute, and that O.J.’s son was absolutely livid. He reportedly left the restaurant that evening in a huff, with his chef’s knives, and fellow employees claimed that he had never done that before.
Only one close friend ever asked me my personal opinion as to O.J.’s guilt or innocence, and when I informed her, I lost that friend forever, never to be seen again.
I told her, as I tell you here – based on what I saw, O.J. knew who did it, but was not a participant. Why? Two main factors: (1) From all that I knew about O.J., he never would have left town and allowed his two minor children to be in a position to potentially find the bloodied body of their Mother sprawled on the sidewalk. (2) From all that I know about the first time that a human kills, or even witnesses the death of, another human being, one does not simply walk away cool, calm, and collected. We, as humans, are biologically hard-wired to have a violent reaction and to sweat. It takes time, and repeated killings, to become a cool killer, and get on a plane and have jocular conversation with fellow passengers.
And then there was Jackie Conner, with whom I had served in the Office, who sat as the Judge over the Ramparts Division LAPD scandal, involving Rafael Perez, who admitted to planting evidence in scores of case, and implicated numerous others, thus prejudicing scores of criminal prosecutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_(police_officer).)
Admittedly, for the past decade or so, O.J. hadn’t done much to advance his cause. I always thought that it was a sad situation, in that although he was no Muhammad Ali, he did have the potential to inspire other young men to improve their station in life, despite humble beginnings.
And thus I knew that O.J. would be convicted on all counts. He was not going to be given another shot, no matter what the evidence in the Las Vegas trial. And he should have known it also.
But what I also knew, after watching the intense, vituperative nature of the discourse during the political campaigns conducted over the past 18 months, was that all of our pre-conceived, perhaps previously concealed inner-most feelings about people, would erupt to the surface, and be expressed in many ways. This country still has lots of internal conflict and repressed feelings about our fellow citizens. This is the climate in which we currently live. This is the climate in which O.J. should have “steered far wide of the danger zone.”
Sorry O.J. Unfortunately, you’re “done fur.” You thought that you could pull it out one time too many. And that’s sad for those of us who got to know you in some tangential manner, even just as fans, but more so for those young folks who could have been inspired by your journey. Opportunity – lost….
Monday, September 29, 2008
Post No. 49: Finally, Someone Explains Something That We Can Understand
I was fortunate enough to receive a decent education at some decent educational institutions. I also took corporate, business, accounting, banking, finance, and various other management courses.
However, I must be honest. I do not understand even a quarter of what occurred over the past 20 – 30 years to lead to our current financial situation.
Although I am sure that most of us can point to some emotional, conceptual issues, be it outsourcing, illegal immigration, two foreign wars, decreased industrial output, and greed, I just really feel like I am in the minority in terms of understanding investment banks, hedge funds, selling short, bundling, derivatives, and such.
Just last week, I contacted two of my graduate school buddies, one with a specialty in banking, and the other in corporate securities, and I told them that I hoped that they were in the Senate Banking Committee sessions to keep them honest.
One of them, “The Bear” (no relation to the term to describe financial markets), forwarded the following article to us by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. of Hussman Funds, entitled You Can’t Rescue the Financial System If You Can’t Read a Balance Sheet, which was posted by Dr. Hussman earlier today. It provides food for thought.
September 29, 2008
You Can't Rescue the Financial System If You Can't Read a Balance Sheet
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
This is a bad idea.
However the final legislation is written, the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) being rushed through Congress will evidently be built around its single worst provision, which is that the Treasury will have authority to purchase distressed mortgage securities from U.S. financials.
As I noted last week in An Open Letter To Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis, the sequence of bankruptcies that we've observed among U.S. financials has been almost exactly in order of their gross leverage (the ratio of total assets to shareholder equity). The reason for that is:
1) as the assets of a financial company lose value, the losses reduce the asset side of the balance sheet, but also reduce shareholder equity on the liability side;
2) as the cushion of shareholder equity becomes thinner, customers begin to make withdrawals;
3) in order to satisfy customer withdrawals, the financial company is forced to liquidate assets at distressed prices, prompting a further reduction in shareholder equity;
4) go back to 1) and continue the vicious cycle until shareholder equity goes negative and the company becomes insolvent.
Let's return to the basic balance sheet of a typical financial company before the writedowns:
To read the remainder, click on: http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm.
However, I must be honest. I do not understand even a quarter of what occurred over the past 20 – 30 years to lead to our current financial situation.
Although I am sure that most of us can point to some emotional, conceptual issues, be it outsourcing, illegal immigration, two foreign wars, decreased industrial output, and greed, I just really feel like I am in the minority in terms of understanding investment banks, hedge funds, selling short, bundling, derivatives, and such.
Just last week, I contacted two of my graduate school buddies, one with a specialty in banking, and the other in corporate securities, and I told them that I hoped that they were in the Senate Banking Committee sessions to keep them honest.
One of them, “The Bear” (no relation to the term to describe financial markets), forwarded the following article to us by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. of Hussman Funds, entitled You Can’t Rescue the Financial System If You Can’t Read a Balance Sheet, which was posted by Dr. Hussman earlier today. It provides food for thought.
September 29, 2008
You Can't Rescue the Financial System If You Can't Read a Balance Sheet
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
This is a bad idea.
However the final legislation is written, the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) being rushed through Congress will evidently be built around its single worst provision, which is that the Treasury will have authority to purchase distressed mortgage securities from U.S. financials.
As I noted last week in An Open Letter To Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis, the sequence of bankruptcies that we've observed among U.S. financials has been almost exactly in order of their gross leverage (the ratio of total assets to shareholder equity). The reason for that is:
1) as the assets of a financial company lose value, the losses reduce the asset side of the balance sheet, but also reduce shareholder equity on the liability side;
2) as the cushion of shareholder equity becomes thinner, customers begin to make withdrawals;
3) in order to satisfy customer withdrawals, the financial company is forced to liquidate assets at distressed prices, prompting a further reduction in shareholder equity;
4) go back to 1) and continue the vicious cycle until shareholder equity goes negative and the company becomes insolvent.
Let's return to the basic balance sheet of a typical financial company before the writedowns:
To read the remainder, click on: http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Post No. 48: A Missed Opportunity
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Candidate McCain has frequently noted that many of his colleagues headed to Washington to change Washington, and that Washington actually changed them. Unfortunately, the former naval fighter pilot may be the best example of that phenomenon.
The non-eventful first debate between the presidential candidates last Friday supports that notion.
There’s something “unique” about being an active participant in war. That unity of experience and emotion draws warriors together, no matter the generation. (And if you note, they rarely talk about it, until some documentary film maker shoves a microphone in their faces, or their remaining years are few in number.)
After a major earthquake in California in 1994, a WWII veteran father in North Carolina called his mid-40s son in an effort to ensure that he was not too rattled. Although he had never been in an earthquake, the father recounted his unsettling feeling when one of Hitler’s V bombs exploded next to him. That 87 year old veteran, despite a lifetime of voting the straight Democratic ticket, has hinted that he plans to vote for a fellow warrior, although of a different war.
In a recent article, we noted that any modern solder will tell you that in selecting a combat leader, they would not give a rat’s ___ whether he was white, black, Harvard or Academy educated, Democrat, Republican, old, young, eastern, northern, Christian, Muslim, male, female, pro-choice, pro-life, had “family values,” whatever that is, or ate caribou. (They would all want him to be a gun toter.)
They would tell you that they would want someone who could best manage to save their rear ends by their ability to manage the team and the dangers in front of them, right then and there.
They would also all tell you that the preceding 17 factors do not really bear on that elusive leadership quality. We must admit that there has to be something beyond all of that dissection.
On Friday night past, there was a one time, never to come again, opportunity for candidates McCain and Obama to walk across the stage...look each other in the eye...shake hands...and promise the American public that our economic engine would not self-destruct... regardless of who gets elected. With McCain having the background in triage and team building, and the benefit of experience, at a minimum, he should have suggested the maneuver.
They didn't do it.
Apparently, it is also considered political suicide to ask the American people to knowingly support the cost of current American foreign policy with the financial sacrifices necessary to support same.Or to admit that the $10 billion/month current cost of our Iraqi involvement, and our former bad planning, means there is no money for either candidate to fulfill any of their campaign promises.We’re now in a “war,” but not the type of war about which our current President often speaks. Question any Middle East expert who has studied Osama bid Laden’s game plan for the past 20 years, and they will tell you that despite the rhetoric about killing the Great Satan, the goal is not to kill our people...they want to convert them...
Twice they attacked the World Trade Center. Twice. If this is not about symbols and philosophy…. This is a war about values executed through a war on our economy, and there are probably lots of smiles in the caves these days.
By sucking us into a couple of wars in the Middle East, the cost of which our current administration is unwilling to acknowledge...we are right back to Viet Nam...and all of the nonsense that follows. That someone thought that we could somehow transport resources over thousands of miles to accomplish something that others could not in their own backyards should cause us to pause.
We suspect that the cost of our “enemy's” per person kill rate is running something less than $5,000/per funeral... and the cost of our kill rate is running something like $500,000/per... not including friendly funerals.
Maybe more.
A snarky guy might even suggest that our economic enemies are winning...at least on the only short term over riding measure we consider important.
When you think that you’re fighting charging water buffalos, and you’re really standing knee deep in a snake pit, things get a little distorted.
So...how do we fix this?
Radically change the paradigm. Back in June, we posted an article entitled, “How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-18-how-radical-action-could-be.html.) In that article, we suggested that each candidate name the other as his vice-presidential choice. Quite frankly, we’re not sure whether under the current political party rules, candidates Biden and Palin could be replaced by the names of McCain and Obama.
But who’s following rules these days any way? And these rules do not even have the force of law, in that they were not promulgated by legislative or administrative governmental bodies. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should take a lesson from the guys on Wall Street and do whatever they think is in their best interests.
Since we have faith in the basic, underlying motivations of these two mavericks, we are reasonably certain that they would do what was in the best interests of this nation. And that’s more than what the Wall Street guys did for us.
Once again, it’s the party handlers and consultants about whom we’re concerned.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Candidate McCain has frequently noted that many of his colleagues headed to Washington to change Washington, and that Washington actually changed them. Unfortunately, the former naval fighter pilot may be the best example of that phenomenon.
The non-eventful first debate between the presidential candidates last Friday supports that notion.
There’s something “unique” about being an active participant in war. That unity of experience and emotion draws warriors together, no matter the generation. (And if you note, they rarely talk about it, until some documentary film maker shoves a microphone in their faces, or their remaining years are few in number.)
After a major earthquake in California in 1994, a WWII veteran father in North Carolina called his mid-40s son in an effort to ensure that he was not too rattled. Although he had never been in an earthquake, the father recounted his unsettling feeling when one of Hitler’s V bombs exploded next to him. That 87 year old veteran, despite a lifetime of voting the straight Democratic ticket, has hinted that he plans to vote for a fellow warrior, although of a different war.
In a recent article, we noted that any modern solder will tell you that in selecting a combat leader, they would not give a rat’s ___ whether he was white, black, Harvard or Academy educated, Democrat, Republican, old, young, eastern, northern, Christian, Muslim, male, female, pro-choice, pro-life, had “family values,” whatever that is, or ate caribou. (They would all want him to be a gun toter.)
They would tell you that they would want someone who could best manage to save their rear ends by their ability to manage the team and the dangers in front of them, right then and there.
They would also all tell you that the preceding 17 factors do not really bear on that elusive leadership quality. We must admit that there has to be something beyond all of that dissection.
On Friday night past, there was a one time, never to come again, opportunity for candidates McCain and Obama to walk across the stage...look each other in the eye...shake hands...and promise the American public that our economic engine would not self-destruct... regardless of who gets elected. With McCain having the background in triage and team building, and the benefit of experience, at a minimum, he should have suggested the maneuver.
They didn't do it.
Apparently, it is also considered political suicide to ask the American people to knowingly support the cost of current American foreign policy with the financial sacrifices necessary to support same.Or to admit that the $10 billion/month current cost of our Iraqi involvement, and our former bad planning, means there is no money for either candidate to fulfill any of their campaign promises.We’re now in a “war,” but not the type of war about which our current President often speaks. Question any Middle East expert who has studied Osama bid Laden’s game plan for the past 20 years, and they will tell you that despite the rhetoric about killing the Great Satan, the goal is not to kill our people...they want to convert them...
Twice they attacked the World Trade Center. Twice. If this is not about symbols and philosophy…. This is a war about values executed through a war on our economy, and there are probably lots of smiles in the caves these days.
By sucking us into a couple of wars in the Middle East, the cost of which our current administration is unwilling to acknowledge...we are right back to Viet Nam...and all of the nonsense that follows. That someone thought that we could somehow transport resources over thousands of miles to accomplish something that others could not in their own backyards should cause us to pause.
We suspect that the cost of our “enemy's” per person kill rate is running something less than $5,000/per funeral... and the cost of our kill rate is running something like $500,000/per... not including friendly funerals.
Maybe more.
A snarky guy might even suggest that our economic enemies are winning...at least on the only short term over riding measure we consider important.
When you think that you’re fighting charging water buffalos, and you’re really standing knee deep in a snake pit, things get a little distorted.
So...how do we fix this?
Radically change the paradigm. Back in June, we posted an article entitled, “How Radical Action Could be a Good Thing Right Now.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/06/post-no-18-how-radical-action-could-be.html.) In that article, we suggested that each candidate name the other as his vice-presidential choice. Quite frankly, we’re not sure whether under the current political party rules, candidates Biden and Palin could be replaced by the names of McCain and Obama.
But who’s following rules these days any way? And these rules do not even have the force of law, in that they were not promulgated by legislative or administrative governmental bodies. Perhaps the two presidential candidates should take a lesson from the guys on Wall Street and do whatever they think is in their best interests.
Since we have faith in the basic, underlying motivations of these two mavericks, we are reasonably certain that they would do what was in the best interests of this nation. And that’s more than what the Wall Street guys did for us.
Once again, it’s the party handlers and consultants about whom we’re concerned.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Post 47b: First Draft of Economic Rescue Package Released at 5 pm EDST
View the first draft. Still to be finalized.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/draft-economic-rescue-package/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/draft-economic-rescue-package/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)