tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66046706799187666752024-03-12T21:26:40.911-07:00A LIFE AT 50-ISHA LIFE AT 50-ISH is a personal blog that includes the ramblings of a man of 50+ years, living in America in very interesting times. Most of what you read here is well-researched and true, whether or not you choose to agree with it.Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-89306666739514248512013-08-25T17:31:00.002-07:002013-08-25T17:31:37.456-07:00March on Washington + 50 Years<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s hard not to choke up listening to clips from the “I
Have a Dream” speech. So much promise, so much death during the 60s, and I
cannot help but focus on the fact that the many 1960s martyrs had children, my
age, and never got to see their kids grow up! As a product of a pretty stable
two-parent household, I cannot imagine the challenges these families faced in turbulent
times!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Emotions aside, I’m fascinated by how easily anyone can argue
for a nearly full or almost empty cup. On the full side? Exhibit A is President
Barack Obama. Elected, and re-elected—in not really very close election—despite
a poor economy and many other problems! Yes, there are people among us who
cannot deal with his being not like us. Some will ‘fess up, but that is the small,
uninteresting bunch. I’m interested in how firmly so many deny any racism when
their views reflect a level of discomfort with the president’s background. (“Don’t
call me a racist, but can you prove the man was born in Hawaii,” for example,
when no one questions where another candidate was born. Can you spell T-e-d
C-r-u-z?) Racism is far less acceptable than it was 50 years ago. Not
everywhere and not always, for sure, but the times have changed! </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
People of color vote! Barriers exist, and the fact that
minorities vote provides no excuse for not worrying about the barriers. But
minorities show up at polling places and they vote, and in many jurisdictions the
effort to prevent minority voting has spurred greater voter turnout!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Generally, people can eat where they want, sleep where they
want, travel as they choose, etc. Yes, there was a story about a restaurant
asking a group of African Americans to leave because they made the other guests
uncomfortable (<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/25/1233793/-White-Person-Makes-Restaurant-Ask-Party-Of-25-Blacks-To-Leave-VIDEO">Wild
Wings Cafe</a>), but that was news!!!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Empty? How about the vast number of black and Hispanic men
in New York City (and other big cities) who are stopped and frisked for the
crime of being … black or Hispanic? Imprisonment statistics—<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/">Prison
Race Stats</a>—reflect a race-biased justice system. And death penalty stats
are really awful (<a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race">Death
Penalty Stats</a>)!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed in 2013, just as
they were in 1963. Average black households have a net worth equal to about 10%
of white households (<a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/">Net
Worth by Race</a>).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Etc.! Being a person of color in these United States
presents everyday challenges. For all of our “melting pot” noise, our culture
does not like “different,” and it never has. Don’t believe me? Read up on the
Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Hispanic immigrant experiences. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I suspect how people see the progress over the past 50 years
depends, significantly, on their vantage point. I’ve never been stopped and
frisked and probably never will be. If I was black, especially in a big city
where people walk and use public transportation, I would almost surely have a
different experience. (And yes, that would be the case even if I was an
attorney!) On the other hand, people of color have many friends who, while they
have not walked in the same shoes, take pride in the successes of the past 50
years, even as they do not always appreciate how far the arc must still bend
before we live in a truly just society! </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, as we celebrate a milestone in our journey as a nation
and a culture, I hope we can all:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>take pride
in the successes; know that much work remains to be done (and get to work); benefit
from<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>appreciating the fact that our journeys
always differ from those of our brothers and sisters.</div>
</form>
Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-3895996627539556602013-02-16T15:03:00.000-07:002013-02-16T15:03:17.755-07:00Substantiating a Charitable Donation<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> If you are make charitable gifts, you must play by the rules, and what may seem like substantial compliance won't satisfy the Internal Revenue Service or the United States Tax Court. That's the lesson from <i>In re Durden</i>, T.C. Memo.2012-140 (May 17, 2012).<br />
<br />
Here are the basic facts. In 2007 David and Veronda Durden gave the Nevertheless Community Church $24,854 in a series of checks, each of which was for more than $250. The church sent an acknowledgment letter that covered every check, and sent it before the the Durdens filed their 2007 federal income tax return. Unfortunately, the church forgot to mention in the letter that the Durdens received no goods or services in return for the contributions. When the IRS asked raised the concern during a routine audit in 2009, the Durdens promptly obtained a new letter from the church that seemed to meet the IRS concern. Alas, while the new letter contained the right language, it wasn't dated before the 2007 return was filed. No deduction, said the IRS, and "Durdens, you lose," said the Tax Court.<br />
<br />
The relevant section of the Internal Revenue Code is 170(f)(8). Subparagraph (A) states: "No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee<br />organization that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B)." Subparagraph (B) must state the gift amount, whether the gift recipient gave goods or services in return for the gift and, if so, describe the goods or services and state their value."<br />
<br />
The Tax Court only considered the first, contemporaneous letter. Since it lacked any statement concerning the goods or services issue, that issue is mentioned in subparagraph (B) and subparagraph (B) is incorporated into subparagraph (A), the deductions were not adequately documents and were thus disallowed. The Durdens lost the ability to deduct their donations and were assessed at least one penalty.<br />
<br />
Key takeaways from the <i>Durden</i> case:<br />
<br />
First, if you are a giver check your letters as you do your tax return preparation. If you haven't filed yet, you may still have time to get a corrected letter from the charity.<br />
<br />
Second, if you are the charity, the short term problem is not yours, but consider how likely it is that you will retain a donor whose deduction is disallowed because your letter failed to include the right language.<br />
<br />
Here are links to <i><a href="http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/durdenmemo.TCM.WPD.pdf">Durden</a> </i>and <a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf">IRS Publication 526</a>, which tells all about taking charitable deductions.<br />
<br />
This post is intended to provide general information. Every situation is different, and by providing this information Mark Rubin provides no specific legal advice to anyone. For more information contact Mark Rubin at Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., 520.624.8886 or <a href="mailto:mrubin@mcrazlaw.com">mrubin@mcrazlaw.com</a>. <br />
</form>
Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-39922923706941785452013-02-09T10:37:00.000-07:002013-02-09T10:37:08.241-07:00Kicking Kumbaya<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />Recently I met with a group from a nonprofit about funding their program. An issue arose about the focused nature of their efforts, and one of their board members--a fine fellow and a friend--quickly noted the fact that they don't "just sit around and sing Kumbaya." I took umbrage, right away, asking "what's wrong with that?"<br />
<br />
Somewhere, somehow, Kumbaya became the whipping boy for people who are not really serious about what they're doing! In 2010 a nice little piece in the New York Time (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/20religion.html?_r=0">A Long Road From Here to "Kumbaya"</a>) detailed the history of the song and how it gets denigrated now. Interesting, especially, is the fact that all sides in the world of "important" people doing "important" things use the song to distinguish themselves and their grown up, "important" work from the naive people who hold hands and sing songs.<br />
<br />
Well ... every time I see a picture of Speaker John Boehner, surrounded by Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the boys, I think about children playing "grown-ups." Smug and self-satisfied, offering yet another set of proclamations or demands based on contempt for what their fellow travelers in the Bush II White House called "the reality-based community." (I also wonder, often, if Eric and the boys are there because they like to see themselves on television, or because one or more of them have shivs pressed against the Speaker's spine to remind him that his job depends on their mercy. Close call, and maybe the answer is "both reasons.") Adults doing important work? I think not.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I totally appreciate the need for more than "feel good" experiences if accomplishments are the goal, and I know lots of groups can get lost in the weeds. That said, if the "weeds" are a campfire with decent people bonding with one another, or a class of people--mostly men--who think the people's business gets accomplished with pronouncements and the daily photo-opp behind the podium in the blue suit with the white shirt and the red tie and the flag pin and the slicked back hair and the shit-eating grin or the serious grimace, gimme the campfire and Kumbaya!<br />
<br />
P.S. From all of the evidence I have seen to date, the group with which we met walks the talk! Nothing in this post is intended to put them--or my friend--down in any way.</form>
Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-58864519125774680402013-01-01T11:04:00.003-07:002013-01-01T11:04:49.952-07:00The Middle Class<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />Lately, we've heard plenty about the middle class, protecting the middle class, building the middle class, the evaporating middle class, etc. So who belongs in the middle class?<br />
<br /><input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" />
<br />
Income and wealth get very much blurred in our discourse. But for the lucky few whose wealth comes from those who came before them, wealth is a function of income. For those with investment assets, income is also a function of wealth. Both are, thus, important.<br />
<br /><input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" />
<br />
For 2011, the middle quintile of American households--households between the 40th and 60th percentiles-- had a mean (average) income of $49,842. Those households at the top end of the quintile earned $62,434. By way of comparison, $186,000 per year puts a household at the 95th percentile. (Those in the top 5% have an average household income of $311,444, a mean that includes the very few who earns tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year.) Here's the link to the income data for 2000-2011: <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=330">2000-2011 US Household Income by Quintile</a>.<br />
<br />
Wealth statistics are harder to capture so neatly. Every bit of information, however, demonstrates that households in the middle--50th percentile--have almost no wealth, and that what wealth they do have correlates highly with the equity in their homes. Table 721, reflecting 2007 (pre-crash) Census data shows a median net worth for all families of $120,000 and a mean net worth of $556,000. Here's the link: <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0721.pdf">Table 721</a>. For a discussion about wealth issues, Professor G. William Domhoff's article, <a href="http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html">Who Rules America?</a>, is worth a look-see! (Professor Domhoff is not without a position on wealth and its role in and on society, but he relies on plenty of authorities in advancing his views.)<br />
<br />
In 2013, anyone can call him/herself anything, I suppose. That said, it seems fair to wonder how anyone whose household income greatly exceeds about $50,000 per year can fairly fall within the middle class! You may not feel wealthy if you earn $150,000 or more per year, or if your net worth exceeds $500,000 because you have a home with plenty of equity, but you are far from the middle, relative to your fellow Americans.<br />
<br /><br /><input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" />
<br />
<br /><input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" />
</form>
Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-35625246305409293482012-07-13T18:28:00.000-07:002012-07-13T18:28:40.539-07:00Romney and Bain-Some Thoughts<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> I've been watching the Romney/Bain Capital situation for a long while, wondering how it will play out. I've been convinced, since day one, that the story is not about Mitt Romney's wealth or envy or anything like that, but let me share a few words about that matter before I address what really matters.<br />
<br />
Governor Romney was enormously successful as a financier. Good on him! I don't envy him and, frankly, am quite happy that my life does not involves the burdens attendant to making and having a financial fortune. My only quarrel about all that money relates to the several comments Governor Romney and his wife have shared about starting out with nothing, struggling, etc. For example, there's Ann Romney's comment that when she and her husband were in school those were not easy years, despite the fact that they lived on money invested by George Romney in his company, American Motors. Then there's Governor Romney's comment about being unemployed now, a statement that sits very poorly with people who don't work because there are no available jobs.<br />
<br />
Governor Romney started out with a huge leg up in life. His affluent family exposed him to a lifestyle that prepared him for becoming successful. He got the best education money can buy, and the opportunity to develop networks that are only available to the chosen few who attend the most elite educational institutions in the world. Good for him that he used these opportunities to the max, but could there be in all of this just a touch of humility? Maybe a nod to the fact that being born in America, in these times, might have played some role in his success? Yes, he's a big success, but how would he have done if he was born African-American and poor, or if he was trying to get going in Peru or Niger. (Please forgive me if Governor Romney has been humble in public. If he has, his comments are surely not easy to fine!) As an aside on this issue, here are links--text and video--to Michael Lewis' Baccalaureate remarks at the 2012 Princeton University graduation. They're relevant: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/87/54K53/">http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/87/54K53/</a> and<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiQ_T5C3hIM&list=UUcBYSgQTxc126-lj_gdrO8Q&index=1&feature=plcp">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiQ_T5C3hIM&list=UUcBYSgQTxc126-lj_gdrO8Q&index=1&feature=plcp</a>. <br />
<br />
Now, about the whole Bain thing. Governor Romney chose his message for the campaign. He could be telling voters he was a successful governor in Massachusetts, but he rarely mentions that part of his life. He could be focusing on his education, but he likes to slam Harvard. No, he asks us to pick him because he was a successful businessman. Well, fine! He invited inquiries into his career--maybe he thought he'd be able to just tell people he's a rich, successful businessman and leave it at that--and people have taken a peek.<br />
<br />
When people found stuff about the business career that was not so popular, like outsourcing (or offshoring, which is what Governor Romney calls it), Governor Romney denied any involvement with the activities, claiming he was gone by then. Easily, Governor Romney could have defended his actions by reminding people that he answered to investors then, and that his actions were lawful, blah, blah, blah. Instead, however, he chose the "wasn't me" defense.<br />
<br />
So why does this all matter. Well, I think we're in "it's not the act, it's the coverup" territory. Governor Romney dealt with residency issues in 2002, when he decided he wanted to become the Governor of Massachusetts and faced a residency challenge. His testimony suggested involvement with Bain between 1999 and 2002, and his words were offered to support his ties with Massachusetts.<br />
<br />
Then there's the matter of the Securities and Exchange Commission filings, which identify Governor Romney, between 1999 and 2002, as the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and sole shareholder of Bain. Documents that are filed with the SEC matter, a fact that should not be lost on a man who graduated from the Harvard Law School and the Harvard Business School, and who wants to be the boss of our country.<br />
<br />
Finally, the reports I hear indicate that Governor Romney received wages between 1999 and 2002. If he did, did Bain deduct those payments as ordinary and reasonable business expenses. If so, and if no services were provided--the story we get today--that's an issue. (I know nothing about Bain's corporate structure, but if Bain was a corporation it could not lawfully pay an employee for services if no services were rendered.)<br />
<br />
Romney supporters may find my nits unimportant. And in the grand scheme, they may not matter. Certainly false documents get filed all the time, and it looks like whatever may have been false was inaccurate and not false for some illegal purpose. For me, though, the nits say plenty about character. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) may have summed things up best the other day when he observed that "it's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally." Admittedly, Senator Graham was making a point, to wit: the tax code is really complicated, and it should be made simpler. Fine, but do we really want our President to be just like us? Not me, thank you very much. I want him or her to be a leader in all ways. Can't we ask for conduct that rises above the minimum threshold set forth in the tax code? Can't we expect a really wealthy man who's been running for President for six years to give up some of the sketchy deductions? Is there anyone who would fault the man if he told the trustee of his blind trust--a man who is, by the way, one of his closest friends, and a man who, for reasons unknown, managed to invest in a fund run by one of the Romneys' sons--to get every fricking dollar invested onshore, right here in America? And can't we, finally, ask the man who wants to lead us to take responsibility for a company he clearly owned, whether or not he was there on a daily basis? <br />
<br />
In conclusion, I am well aware of the fact that Governor Romney is the not the first guy whose investments have presented issues. (I'm buried in the four-volume Lyndon Johnson series by Robert Caro--second time around, and a fabulous bio--and Governor Romney looks like a saint compared to LBJ.) These are difficult times, however, and we have every right to expect the most from our leaders. As bad as the last five years have been, when we've been under the sway of Wall Streeters with their "anything goes" mentality, I fear it'll be much worse if we hand the keys to the country over to a man like Mitt Romney. </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-18987780625014286522012-06-22T21:25:00.000-07:002012-06-22T21:28:41.699-07:00ROAD TRIP!<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Later this summer my daughter and I will be driving to school--her school, my and Jane's alma mater--for her sophomore year. It's daddy/daughter time, and my chance for the road trip I've always wanted but never taken the time for!</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Our route takes us from Tucson to the Grand Canyon and, then, to W<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span>inslow AZ. In Winslow we'll be eating at the Turquoise Room at La Posada Hotel. We'll also take a moment to "take it easy, standin' on a corner in Winslow Arizona," although I'm sure there will be no girl "in a flatbed Ford, slowin' down to take a look at me." (BTW, bricks can be purchased for placement at Second and Kinsley in Winslow. We'll be looking for ours when we get there.) </form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
The next morning we'll drive from Winslow to Pueblo CO, by way of Albuquerque and Santa Fe NM. No specific eating or sleeping plans.</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Day three has us driving to the Mr. Rushmore SD area. Again, no specific plans.</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Day four will find us looking at the Presidents and, then, traveling east to Sioux Falls SD. No plans, and maybe you are detecting a theme. Stay tuned!!!</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Day five should be easy. Sioux Falls to Minneapolis MN, where my little sister lives. No plans, but no need for plans either. I'll be eating Walleye, and nothing else is set. (In fact, I'm not sure I've told my sister we're coming.)</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Day six of the "out" part of the trip is really short. We drive from Minneapolis to Rockford IL, where my other sister lives.</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Days seven and eight have us buying stuff and getting Cate settled in. Lots of heavy lifting, I'm sure. Think about every movie you've seen, where the student arrives and the goofy dad stumbles around under a load of boxes; I be him!</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Monday morning--day nine--starts the solo journey. I will have five-six days to drive a minimum of 1692.88 miles, door to door. I plan to drive more southerly, but am very flexible.</form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
So ... about the stay tuned! Cate's program involves photos--she's a very fine photographer--and I want to find safe, clean beds at night, good food all day and a very dry, very cold martini at the end of the day. I have lots of web-based blogs about eating, but we're not hitting culinary hot spots (other than the Turquoise Room on our first night out), and I haven't found especially great sources for places to see, spots to avoid, etc. So, my friends, I'd really appreciate any suggestions, recommendations, insights, etc. If our plans are bad in some respect or another, please offer a better idea, as we are committed to nothing other than getting to Rockford in no more than seven days, passing through Minneapolis and, pretty certainly, seeing the Grand Canyon. (I moved to Arizona at age four and was first at the Grand Canyon on my honeymoon at age 30. Cate, a native Arizonan, has never been.) </form>
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
Thanks in advance.</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-47887029507624176972012-04-21T13:06:00.000-07:002012-04-21T13:06:03.711-07:00You Can't Go Home Again<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />Our daughter Cate matriculated at Beloit College, a fine, small liberal arts college in Beloit, Wisconsin. Beloit--the town, and the college within it--is located along the Wisconsin/Illinois border about 95 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. That Cate enrolled at Beloit College is totally fitting, as she would not be alive if Jane and I had not both been Beloit College students who happened to meet in the fall of 1977, as I was wrapping up my 3-1/2 years at Beloit and Jane was starting hers. (It did take us almost nine years to connect up for real, but that's another story!)<br />
<br />
Beloit was not my home or Jane's before we arrived there. I was Tucson-raised, while Jane was born in Tennessee and attended high school in Virginia. Nevertheless, college provides a home for students, especially those who "go away." For me, for the better part of four years, Beloit was home. I did my laundry (when I did it at all) at a laundromat on Portland Ave. I drank my cocktails at the Golden Cove, where we all tried to see if we could leave, after paying, without Ben the bartender/owner saying goodbye. (We always failed; he was simply too observant!) I did my chilling outside in the winter, and when I say "chilling" I mean the cold kind. In the summer I helped fill with water and drop from a dorm roof the empty plastic bags that used to contain the milk you'd serve yourself from the stainless steel boxes. (We called the "droppings" unit displays, and for the "why" on that one you'd have to contact a Basic Elmo! Never mind, as before you know it you'll be all into dropping toilets from fire escapes, etc.) I did my picketing--grapes were definitely NOT IN in the mid-1970s--in front of Salamone's, one of the local grocery stores.) And I ate my pizza at a small place that shall go nameless, down the street from Salamone's. Great pies with a very puffy crust. Eight slices, which always created an issue with three of us sharing. And so on. Yes, "so on" does include attending classes, learning stuff, making friends, etc.<br />
<br />
I'd been back to Beloit a few times since 1977. I've also "kept up" over the years. I was my class agent, signing lots of letters, wondering why the class of 1978 gives markedly less than the classes of 1977 and 1979, and almost all of the other classes, too. (I also always listened politely to the fund development person explain why a generational shift that caught those people born mostly between late 1955 and 1956 caused a level of thriftiness not seen before or after, all the while knowing the lack of giving involved the identity of the asker.) I attended some reunions, and popped over to the campus once or twice while I was visiting my sister, who lives about 15 miles south of Beloit. Nevertheless, I missed plenty. (More accurately, plenty has occurred in the six or so years since we last visited.)<br />
<br />
An amazing new science building sits on what used to be "the back way" down to the dirty, smelly river, which is not dirty or smelly any longer. The student union is located in a building that was closed and locked when we attended and the old student union barely makes the map. (Ask someone about the Smith Building and when it stopped being the union and you get dumb stares.) Athletic facilities are new, newer and in one instance not yet finished. (No reason, any longer, for the coin toss winner in football games to consider avoiding having to run uphill in the second half, as the field is now flat.)<br />
<br />
When I arrived in Chicago in 1974 Mayor Richard J. Daley was the mayor. A bus met arriving Beloit students at O'Hare (which Mayor Daley called O'Hara). When we last visited in 2005, the Mayor was Richard M. Daley. (I don't know what he called the airport.) The mayor thing is significant because, in Chicago, signage identifying the mayor was always a big deal, although Mayor Rahm Emanuel must be preoccupied with the deficits Richie Daley left for him, as the signs have not been repainted.<br />
<br />
The first day at Beloit College for me did not include my parents, who stayed behind in Tucson. Frankly, if anyone's parents showed up, the event has been lost to the ages. That said, I can't imagine anyone being uncool enough to let his/her parents be seen in 1974.<br />
<br />
Now, there are parental events, just for the 'rents. Had we stayed home, our daughter would have likely been branded as "unwanted" or worse. The attending 'rents all look younger than our parents looked when we started college although our parents were almost a decade and a half younger than Jane and I are now.<br />
<br />
As for Beloit the town, there is the clean river. Salamone's is long gone, and downtown has a store called Bushel & Peck's, a grocery store and cafe that sells locally grown organic produce. (The only thing worth picketing now is Governor Walker and, as for him, one hopes the recall election will soon turn him into a bad memory!) And, alas, the pizza joint must have new owners, because the crusts taste like cardboard and the pizza maker must have graduated from the "more cheese is always better" school! <br />
<br />
What you have read so far was written in August 2011, days after Cate started her first semester. Now, with the chance for this piece to sit idly--and for Cate to be anything but idle--for the last eight months or so, I am delighted about how Cate is progressing and amazed by the pace of a full life. I also wish I could be a college freshman today!!! Alas, the title says it all ... !</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-74767031992072410902012-04-19T18:42:00.000-07:002012-04-19T18:42:58.446-07:00Reflections and “Epiphanies” From the Social Venture Partners International Winter Conference in Scottsdale<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">From my life as a member of a venture philanthropy partnership--Social Venture Partners of Greater Tucson--here's a piece I posted early today. For more information about SVPGT, go to www.svpgt.org, "like" SVPGT on Facebook or contact me. <br />
<br />
There is an old adage about seminars: Learn one thing and you’ve gotten your money’s worth! I attended the Social Venture Partners Turn Up the Heat: Next-Level Strategies for SVP Winter Conference in Scottsdale on April 16-17. I went to two programs, learned two big things and got a great reminder about the value of Social Venture Partners. Oh, and there was an EPIPHANY! Pretty good value!!!<br />
<br />
First, I attended a dinner focused on collective impact. Several presenters related collective impact experiences in their communities. The issues on which these communities focused varied, although most of them worked on education. The players were different, community by community, and the processes also differed. One strand, however, was evident throughout: Successful endeavors require a substantial amount of time, talent and treasure, and a total devotion to measurable outcomes.<br />
<br />
Can we “do” collective impact in Tucson? The Community Foundation for Southern Arizona is, already! As for “can we,” if the “we” is Social Venture Partners, I think the answer is “not right now,” for we lack the capital and other resources that are necessary to be successful. Can we use our social capital to help make things happen in our community? Absolutely, and I hope and expect that we’ll be discussing this issue in the coming months.<br />
<br />
Second, I attended The Art and Science of Fund Development, a full-day program about fund development issues. The big takeaway: Words really matter! Framing the way in which we communicate about Social Venture Partners—about why we do what we do, and how what we do matters—drives our level of success in broadening our support base. Of course, the message that words matter is not new, but the presentations about how we share our stories allowed me to see the issue from new perspectives. I deal with words every day from 8 to 5. I know they matter greatly. (Sometimes I tell people I am a technical writer whose forum happens to be the courts). Now I also know I need to give to my SVP life the same attention to words that I give them in my work life.<br />
<br />
I also had an epiphany about the fund development side of Social Venture Partners of Greater Tucson. There are epiphanies, though, and then there are EPIPHANIES! I had a few epiphanies during the session, and the EPIPHANY on the drive home from Scottsdale. The EPIPHANY: We own Social Venture Partners of Greater Tucson. We own this partnership, all of us, in the same way in which we own real estate, stocks and bonds, businesses, and other assets. We have made an investment, and now we are responsible for it. What that means, and how it translates into action, requires more thought and plenty of conversation. For now, I’m thinking about it and I hope and expect that it will be part of our conversation in the coming months.<br />
<br />
Of course, spending time with Partners always adds value to my life. The SVP network includes a really fine bunch of dedicated, interesting people. Being with them is truly pleasurable!</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-87711935807438465172011-11-25T16:02:00.000-07:002011-11-25T16:02:15.941-07:00My Big Takeaway From Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson is a great biography about a fascinating man. Much of the press about the book focuses on bad behavior, and I suppose no one should expect more. I know I wanted to assume Steve Jobs was a nice fellow, and I suspect I had plenty of company. In fact, the evidence suggests that, at best, Mr. Jobs could be charming when he felt like it, and that feeling like being charming consumed a very small part of many days. The media likes contra-stories, of course, so this is a lollapalooza!<br />
<br />
So what's the real takeaway? The Apple Marketing Philosphy, a one page lesson plan for successful marketing, written by Mike Markkula. Mr. Markkula, an Apple angel investor and executive who is a big-time Silicon Valley success, provided major assistance to Apple in its formative years. The Philosophy--I haven't been able to locate it, so I'm basing my comments on quotes from the biography and web sources--is comprised of three points: empathizing with customer needs; focusing on only key matters; and imputing core aspects of products within packaging. Put even more simply, put customer needs first (which means, of course, understanding your customers at a very deep level), focus on meeting those needs and make sure your customers know what you're doing in every possible way. If these core values are present, and you have some ability (and plenty of luck), success will come.<br />
<br />
Translatable lessons? Absolutely! I don't suppose any healthy individual can be as focused as Mr. Jobs was, but I know I can improve my ability to understand my customers and their needs--I call them clients, and they're buying services, but so what--and that I can package what I do in ways that help people better appreciate the services they are obtaining. New goal for the new year!!! </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-60483753288164233962011-09-11T13:31:00.000-07:002011-09-11T13:31:07.137-07:00NOTICE: IF YOU’RE A CONVENTIONAL THINKER, DON'T READ THIS POST! I REALLY MEAN IT!<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> I’ve wondered for years why 9/11 had to be such a big deal for Americans and America. About 3000 people died as a direct result of the attacks and the rescue efforts; reports actually vary with respect to actual numbers. That number represents about one person killed for every 100,000 residents of the United States. In Israel, a country that is plenty familiar with terrorism and its impact on daily life, a similar kill rate only requires the deaths of about 64 people. [In nine of the 20 years spanning the ‘90s and the aughts, more than 64 Israelis lost their lives as a result of terrorist attacks, albeit not on one day.] In Iraq the number is about 233. According to Iraq Body Count, between 2005 and 2007, there were an average of 60+ violent deaths in Iraq every day, the equivalent of more than 720 Americans dying violent deaths every day.<br />
<br />
In America, by the way, about 40,000 people die in motor vehicle-related incidents annually, a number that represents one of every 7500 people. Firearms play a role in about 30,000 deaths per year, or one death for every 10,000 people, and half of those are from suicides. About 25 times as many people die in the United States every year from drowning and boating-related accidents as the number of people who died on September 11, 2001.<br />
<br />
So, what happened? Why was a horrific terrorist attack so significant for our nation. First, al Qaeda used planes. People have a thing about plane crashes. They’re very upsetting! We accept a horrendous number of deaths from preventable causes–car crashes, shootings and drownings, for example–but, when one or two hundred people die in a plane crash, the impact on our collective psyche is huge. We recall these crashes and they take on a noteworthiness that simply isn’t present when we’re focused on the myriad ways in which people die.<br />
<br />
I have a theory on plane crashes. I think they’re a big deal because human beings haven’t fully accepted the notion of flight. Yes, most of us walk onto planes without giving much thought to crashes. I don’t think, however, that we understand what keeps the planes in the sky; I know I don’t. I know physics explains flight, but for me the whole deal is really an act of faith: Smart people build these machines, they work on almost every occasion and I need or want to go somewhere. Without an understanding of the mechanisms that keep these metal birds moving forward, however, when one of them falls out of the sky I know I am, at once, horrified and not the least bit surprised. <br />
<br />
The other issue associated with flight is a lack of control. We’re very controlling creatures, used to being in charge of stuff, whether that stuff is our automobiles, our children, the people we supervise at work, etc. Yet, sitting in seat 20E, in a long, hollow metal tube that is suspended in the atmosphere, eight miles high, stuck between two large people, not able to turn on my phone, not able to grab a hunk of cheese from the refrigerator and not able to use the facilities–that “stay in your seat” light is on–it should surprise no one that I don’t believe I control anything! The lack of control creates anxiety and, with it, fear.<br />
<br />
Second, there’s the matter of the targets and, in particular, the World Trade Center. Americans experienced the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, but this building was not a familiar site like the Twin Towers. Yes, Americans were saddened by the event, but the impact did not seem greater than many other tragic situations. Watching familiar landmarks fall, however, was exceptional. (I know, I know, the number of deaths in Oklahoma City was less by a factor of almost 20, and that was surely another factor, but I still think the nature of the targets played a significant role.)<br />
<br />
Third, Timothy McVey was one of us. White. American. A soldier. Yes, he went wrong, way wrong, and that is certainly a scary proposition, but he also valued life enough that he tried to get away. An awful man, but someone we can relate to. On the other hand, 9/11 involved this crowd from the Middle East, dark-skinned men from far away who pray to a different God and die for their cause. After 9/11 Osama Bin Laden told a reporter: “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.” Strange and much, much scarier! <br />
<br />
Fourth, we’re more than a little bit spoiled. We haven’t had a war on our shores since the Civil War, which ended 136 years before September 11. Terrorism affected the rest of the globe, including the major capitals of the world’s democracies, long before it reached New York City, Washington, D.C. and the empty field in Pennsylvania. For example, and by way of example only (as there are many, many more incidents not reported here, and what has happened in Israel is not mentioned), London had IRA bombings and shootings, along with Islamist bombings on December 26, 1983 and July 26, 1994. Bombings in the Buenos Aires Jewish community killed 29 (and injured hundreds more) on March 17, 1992 and killed another 85 (and injured hundreds more) on July 18, 1994. Almost 1000 people were killed and injured in a series of car bombings in Mumbai on March 12, 1993. Ignoring the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 (which simply did not get our attention), most Americans have never experienced an attack on our shores. Even Pearl Harbor was different. The Naval facility was thousands of miles from the United States, in a territory that many Americans had to find on a map. And, of course, almost all of those who died were sailors, people trained to be in harm’s way, as opposed to the brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald who woke up every morning in New Jersey, prepared to do battle only with the commuter trains and the bond and equity markets. [On December 7, 1941, 2350 Americans lost their lives. Sixty eight were civilians. On September 11, 2001, Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 employees.]<br />
<br />
Finally, we had an administration in 2001 that was predisposed to make 9/11 a big deal! In a post-9/11, pre-Iraq war conversation on February 22, 2003 in Crawford, Texas, between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar and others, there was the following exchange:<br />
<br />
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.<br />
<br />
Bush: I am an optimist, because I believe that I'm right. I'm at peace with myself. It's up to us to face a serious threat to peace.<br />
<br />
The public does not remember well the fact that the Bush presidency was foundering in the summer of 2001, locked into a battle over stem cell research. President Bush had promised to oppose any federal funding for stem cell research, a position championed by anti-abortion conservatives. During the summer of 2001 the President said the federal funding issue would be resolved during his August 2001 vacation. The decision–to permit funding, but only as to 60 existing lines–was announced in a televised speech on August 9, 2001. On August 10, Counselor to the President Karen Hughes told an interviewer:<br />
<br />
Several people told [the President], ‘This may be the most important decision of your presidency,’ or, ‘This is one of the most important decisions you will make. This has more ramifications than almost anything else you will do as president.’ A number of people made that point to him. <br />
<br />
By the way, it was during this vacation that President Bush received the August 6, 2001 President’s Daily Brief, mentioning that Osama Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States. His immediate response was to tell the briefer: “All right. You've covered your ass, now.”<br />
<br />
“Big” (and helpful to the President’s goals) was important to the Administration, and viewing an event through the “it’s big” prism will surely make it nothing less than epochal. President Bush had campaigned on a promise that his economic plans would not depend on the use of Social Security income to fund governmental operations. He even promised to establish a contingency fund for the purpose of protecting Social Security. For decades the government used Social Security receipts–the 12.4% of a portion of wages that you and your employer send the government–to fund deficits and had the Social Security Administration issue debt instruments that the government would have to repay in later years. In fact, when in President Clinton’s last two years in office the government ran surpluses critics argued that those surpluses still depended on the general fund using some Social Security income.<br />
<br />
By the summer of 2001, barely eight months into the Bush presidency, tax cuts and a poor economy forced the Bush Administration to consider using Social Security income for general purposes. The President rejiggered his promise, adding as special conditions for using Social Security income a recession, war or national emergency. By the fall, with the recession, the war in Afghanistan and 9/11, he told Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, that “he’d hit the trifecta” and, tastelessly and for the purpose of getting laughs, he later used the line to entertain Republican party big-wigs during fundraisers.<br />
<br />
There are also many reports, not seriously disputed, that as soon after the 9/11 attacks as the evening of September 11, the Vice President and others were focused on attacking Iraq, despite the absence of any evidence that Iraq was involved with the attacks. Again, the attacks served several purposes and, because they did, the Administration has no reason to downplay their significance.<br />
<br />
The administration also saw a situation that lent itself to the goal of increasing the power of the President. Vice President Cheney had long focused on the need for an Imperial Presidency–my words, not his–after so much power was allegedly lost as a result of Watergate, the CIA scandals in the 1970s and other mishaps occurring between the Nixon and Clinton Administrations. In The Terror Presidency Professor Jack Goldsmith observed, about the President, the Vice President and the lawyers who advised them, that<br />
<br />
[t]hey shared a commitment to expanding presidential power that they had long been anxious to implement. It is not right to say, as some have done, that these men took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to implement a radical pro-President agenda. But their unusual conception of presidential prerogative influenced everything they did to meet the post-9/11 threat.<br />
<br />
So, knowing what we now know, how could this horrific event ever be something less than what it became? We’ll never know, but it’s not an exercise in futility to consider a world in which the events of 9/11 were handled differently. What if our leaders started by, first, acknowledging just how lucky our country had been, having avoided the terrorists who had attacked most of the civilized world for so many years? What if our leaders adopted a slogan first put forward in 1939 in England, and told us to “Keep Calm and Carry On”? What if, quietly, our leaders put into place programs to protect us and left the baggage–using the 9/11 attack to boost the Republican party’s electoral prospects and the power of the Presidency as an institution–behind? What if, instead of making the central focus of our lives the clash between good and evil, our leaders had focused our nation on making itself energy independent and ready to meet the economic challenges of a new century? [As an aside, and without attributing bad or dishonest motives–for all of my harsh talk about certain political leaders, I believe they generally act in a manner consistent with their perception of what will best serve our nation–can anyone imagine President Bush and Vice President Cheney, oil men for many years, appreciating how reducing our dependence on oil might benefit the country. Ya, ya, I know all about the foreign oil thing, which goes like “if we produced more, we wouldn’t need Muslim oil.” In global markets, however, oil is fungible, which means any producer, anywhere, will sell to the buyer who pays the highest price and any buyer, anywhere, buys at the cheapest available price. So, “drill, baby drill” may lower prices–more supply does that–but it does not determine from whom we buy our oil or, without our quickly finding and developing vast quantities of oil, allow us to stop buying from anyone. Furthermore, without a carbon tax to reduce usage, any price reduction would simply increase usage, as energy use increases when the unit cost drops, and decreases when the unit cost increases. Bottom line, a national “drill, baby drill” policy simply allows our nation to depend on oil for more years and, when available quantities decrease, makes us more dependent on foreign oil and less able to transition to alternative energy products.] <br />
<br />
If we adopted a strategy that said “one incident can’t defeat us or change us,” might we not be stronger today. Certainly, no one can ignore the pain and suffering associated with the sudden loss of husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. But, when we let a bunch of “dead-enders” control our national policy, we do not serve our own interests! Frankly, and simply, we’re better than all that!</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-73532310136735564542011-08-14T07:43:00.001-07:002011-08-14T08:01:11.455-07:00Job Creators, Taxes and Regulatory Reform = Poppycock<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Lately we've been treated to lectures about job creators, the people who will get us out of the fix we're in by creating the millions of jobs we need to employ the millions of people who aren't working. Republicans claim, as necessary elements for job creation, lower taxes and the elimination of regulations that limit business activity. Right or wrong, or as Stephen Colbert poses the question, Yahweh or No Way?<br />
<br />
</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">No way, in a big way! No one WANTS to pay higher taxes, and no one WANTS to be told he or she cannot do this or that!!! So it's easy to come up with arguments for lowering taxes and eliminating regulations. And yes, it's certainly true that the tax code is very complicated and fundamentally irrational, and that governmental regulations and the way in which they sometimes get enforced often seem nonsensical. Frustrating, yes, but interfering with the hiring or workers, and responsible for much or all of the current employment crisis? <br />
<br />
</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Here's the point: I have represented business owners for 30 years, and have been a "job creator"--yes, attorneys do employ people*--for most of those years. I have never, not once, seen anyone make an employment decision based on tax rates or governmental regulations. To hire or not hire depends on one thing only, to wit: Does the customer base demand enough goods or services to warrant the expense associated with hiring someone? Nothing much more to it than that, and I've never once heard a client or one of my partners say, "We could hire Joe or Jane, but that 28% marginal tax rate is a killer," or "Gee, if the Arizona Supreme Court would just lighten up the disciplining of lawyers [I work in a highly regulated industry] we could hire some more people." Simply, no one makes these statements.</form><br />
Claiming lower taxes and less regulation equals more jobs serves the desires of those who make the claims, but there is no basis for thinking lower taxes or fewer regulations will produce more customers, and it's "more customers" that matter when it comes to hiring decisions. So, poppycock and No Way!!!<br />
<br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> </form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">*I was in a meeting several years ago, and a rather arrogant man asked me what I could possibly know about making a payroll. I guess he knew very little about the legal services industry!<br />
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> </form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><br />
<input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-38789344426074423972011-07-29T18:08:00.001-07:002011-07-29T18:10:55.858-07:00The Balanced Budget Amendment Fallacy<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> Not much, if anything, would be worse for all of us than a balanced budget amendment. Never mind how you feel about government, taxes and spending. Forget about the politics. Simply, the effing thing can't work.<br />
<br />
Budgets are devices that allow people to plan. In government-speak, however, a balanced budget law mandates that an entity not spend more than it collects. Fine! Anyone who lacks credit knows all about not spending more than what's in the till. (Can you spell "Got any spare change?") So what's wrong with telling government it cannot spend more than it has? Lots, if what you're doing involves more than simply expressing the notion that borrowing lots of money you don't have may not be a hot idea!<br />
<br />
Most governmental bodies budget for fiscal years, whether they run from July to June or November to October. A few budget for two years at a time, but let's stick with the more common approach. Suppose a governmental body thinks it will collect $2 trillion per year. That money comes from taxes, fees, income from national parks, etc. Smart people estimate the revenues by making assumptions. No problem so far, but if $2 trillions is the estimate, planners should not plan for more than $2 trillion in expenditures. Still no real problem. Truly, and I'm pretty liberal! Congress and the President will have to suck it up and tell people they can't have this or that, and they will need to raise tax rates on the most financially successful Americans to reach equilibrium, but none of that should seem impossible? Really! Go back to the 1990s and study up a bit. President Bill Clinton and Democrats in Congress, with no help from Republicans on the income side and some more than gentle prodding on the spending side, pulled it off, and for more than a moment or two. So, to those who are really after less borrowing, an amendment to the venerated Constitution need not pass the Senate and House by two-thirds majorities, and need not be ratified by the legislatures of 38 states.<br />
<br />
If a Constitutional amendment need not be passed to accomplish the worthy goal of borrowing less over a long period of time, what's the problem with passing one? It's really very simple: When the government adopts a budget, it makes educated guesses about income and expenditures. In a $16 trillion economy, how likely is it that all of those numbers will end up spot-on? Not very!!! (How close do you get to estimating how much you'll spend during a vacation day at the beach?) And no one knows, for the year, how things will turn out until the year ends. Forecasting lets the people in charge make corrections along the way, but if we're talking about the federal government, just exactly how does that work. "Revenues are off this month, so close down the FAA; if things pick up, it can reopen next month." "That hurricane last week was a doozy. No health care payments for awhile." Etc.<br />
<br />
Governments cannot function without a cushion to smooth things out. And, when any enterprises lacks an adequate cushion, it loses its ability to make good judgments and often its costs increase. Laying people off and rehiring them is expensive and, in many instances, will result in revenue losses. (When the Republicans shut down the FAA last week, the government stopped collecting airline taxes--the airlines, in the main, are pocketing those sums--and airport projects have stalled. When they start again, damaged equipment will need to be replaced, work will need to redone, etc.)<br />
<br />
That all sounds pretty bad, and I've spared you the bad examples, like not maintaining the military, not paying Social Security or Medicare bills, and stuff like that there. But there's more, and this is the really bad part. Who will decide, if revenues do not cover appropriated expenditures, who gets paid? The Amendment says nothing about this issue, except for provisions that allow the Amendment to be ignored if a declaration of war is in effect, or--or is it and, as the Amendment is ambiguous--when the country is involved in a military conflict. Presumably, only the courts can resolve these issues. Congress cannot act, and the President has no power. It's hard to imagine the House of Representatives, with a Republican majority, wanting the hated, unelected, undemocratic autocracy that is the federal judiciary deciding how money should be spent. Who else, though? The gang of this or that many? Some Congressman who knows it should be this way or that? (One friend of mine suggested across the board cuts. So we'll have a federal judiciary on half-pay, a plan that violates the Constitution. Prisons half-staffed. One pill per day, so old people will die, but not as quickly. Really?)<br />
<br />
People are frustrated, and the comment I hear most often is "at least they're trying something." F for effort, for often the best solution is "don't do something, just stand there." The nation's problems can be solved, but the solution requires an acknowledgment that the problems are not simple, that they are long in the making and, therefore, will take years to solve, and that we all have to be part of the solution, not just "those lazy-ass people who are sponging off of ME!"<br />
<br />
The Balanced Budget Amendment is a lazy, poorly thought-out attempt to solve a problem, so that its authors and proponents can kick some ass and feel good about themselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-39645220760123854582011-07-04T07:02:00.000-07:002011-07-04T07:02:04.710-07:00Lessons From Highway Driving<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> <br />
I get most of the highway driving duty in my family. I guess we're a pretty traditional trio, and within our milieu driving long distances is "men's work." We never go very far: Round trips to Phoenix are the norm, and there's a very occasional excursion to San Diego or Orange County. Thank goodness!<br />
<br />
As a young driver I learned a few rules of the road. One that stuck was "stay to the right." Drive in the right lane on the highway, move to the left lane to pass and, then, move back to the right lane. Simple and sensible! And the law, as well, as it is set forth in Title 28, Section 721, Arizona Revised Statutes.<br />
<br />
So why do so many people, mostly in Arizona, place their cars in the left lane and leave them there? My wife says it's random, but her theory falls apart when the facts confront her. At any given moment there may be a line of 10-20 vehicles in the left lane and, in the right lane, there's us, three or four pokey-ass semi-trucks, maybe a pickup truck loaded up with everything a family may own and perhaps, a really old car with an even older driver.<br />
<br />
So what's the answer. I'm pretty sure I know, but I thought I'd test my theory and, perhaps, generate some commentary on this frustrating aspect of life.<br />
<br />
I think the American psyche, writ larger than usual in Arizona circa 2011, explains the lawbreaking behavior. If you're an Arizona citizen--there's actually no such thing, as citizenship is a national concept, while residency is a state-law thing--you have a God-given right to be certain no one can or will move ahead of you in the line, even if that means everyone is driving at about 58 miles per hour. Here in the Grand Canyon State, our people are committed to the notion that if working together will let us all arrive at our destinations more quickly, and if being ahead of the other guy means we're all on the road a while longer, Choice No. 2 is the right choice and the other choice is for Obama-loving Socialists! None of that "village" stuff we got from Madame Secretary in her prior life, no sirree. That's for lib'ruls!<br />
<br />
And the real lesson: Jane should be our new highway driver! Nothing will change the behavior of our fellow travelers, but when she gets a dose of their driving habits, there will be peace in the valley!!!</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" type="image" /> <img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" /></form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-90396006771890565592011-06-18T15:18:00.000-07:002011-06-18T15:18:48.301-07:00A Father's Day ThoughtI'm reading The Social Animal by David Brooks. (Yes, that one!) It's sort of a work of fiction about an imaginary couple and, so far, their son. I've followed the relationship between Julia and Rob and have observed their son Harold from birth through, so far, his senior year in high school. Throughout, Mr. Brooks provides a ton of information about how people relate to one another and, in the process, learn and love.<br />
<br />
So yesterday, I'm sharing with my wife how much success in life depends on the bonds we have with parents, other relatives, teachers, etc. Jane asked, if that's so, how do we scale up when so many people don't have these relationships in the right doses in their lives? A very good and very fair question, and one I pondered during my 90-second sojourn into the convenience store to buy a bottle of iced tea while we were hurrying to the movie.<br />
<br />
The answer was evident as I opened the car door. We--Americans--do too much on the "one size fits all" plan. We make rules, we fund programs and we measure results. When we don't get the results we expect, we blame someone and move on to the next approach or, as often as not, to the next problem. Never mind the fact that there may never be a reason to believe our approaches might work; that's how we roll! (Congress is judged by how much it spends on an issue. Thus, people can blame Congress for not supporting health care for seniors because Medicare reform eliminated $500 billion of wasteful spending. Better, perhaps, to waste the $500 billion over 10 years and prove to old folks that you're on their side?) We have a template for addressing problems, and that's that and that's all!<br />
<br />
Of course, the other element we cannot ignore is that fact that the problems many people deal with simply don't affect the powerful, wealthy, achieving class. Our elites go to schools where teachers can give their students the attention they need. The powerful among us are not holding down two and three jobs, so they have the time--and money--to enrich their children's lives. These people, when someone is ill, do not have to pass on mortgage payments to buy medicine. Thus, the power class can take comfort in the fact that their children learned in public schools and assume others are lazy or dumb. Etc. <br />
<br />
None of what I've written will shock most anyone who knows me. That said, the epiphany for me was the fact that as we ignore our problems we are destroying our future, and that it's not only about money. Our children need us, mindful of their mental, physical AND emotional development, if we want them to be successful. Yes, we need to focus more financial resources on our people and their needs, but we cannot buy solutions. We get solutions when we invest ourselves in others!!!<br />
<br />
Happy Father's Day Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-28956584421913760822011-05-29T14:03:00.001-07:002011-07-03T05:02:11.524-07:00Creative Thinking About Healthcare<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> <br />
<br />
Here's an interesting perspective on a significant problem with our health care delivery system. In our "free market" system it's hard to imagine the concept ever being implemented, but the notion is worth considering. <br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29bach.html?ref=opinion">Why Medical School Should be Free</a><br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" /> </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-67789319020251340932011-05-29T11:17:00.000-07:002011-05-29T11:17:53.618-07:00Lower Tax Rates = More Jobs?<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /> <input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> <br />
I’ve been an employer for about 30 years. “But you’re an attorney,” you say. “Yes, of course I am, but I’ve always had a secretary, and the firms with which I have been affiliated have had associates, contract attorneys, legal assistants, bookkeepers, files clerks, etc.” So, directly and indirectly, I’ve been employing people for three decades.<br />
<br />
My practice focuses on business and real estate issues. My clients are employers, large and small, in many, many different industries. I’ve represented my clients in times good and bad, and often talk with them about employment issues.<br />
<br />
My point? Never, not once, have I decided to hire someone because I–or my firm–had extra money lying around. And never, not once, has a client of mine told me he or she hired someone because they had some extra money in the bank.<br />
<br />
We–people who hire employees–hire them when we have work for them and think we will earn more money on account of the work they do. No mystery here; it’s really that simple!<br />
<br />
So I get a little nutty when I hear about the Republicans’ job creation scheme. Lower marginal tax rates for the highest earners, they claim, and small business owners will have more money and, thereafter, start hiring. Rubbish, and here’s why:<br />
<br />
Assume I own a business. I have employees. We generate gross revenue of $500,000, and I net $250,000 after paying all expenses. My income tax bill (federal) is about $45,000, leaving me with after-tax income of $205,000.<br />
<br />
Now, assume all of the same facts, but change the highest marginal tax rate on my income from its current 33% to 25%. When the math is done, I’ll have an extra $10,000 in my pocket. Cool, but the extra money gives me no reason to hire someone else. After-tax income of $205,000 or $215,000 changes nothing about how I run my business, as we’re still focused on the sweet spot, where I am maximizing revenue and minimizing expenses.<br />
<br />
I know, I know, if lots of people all have an extra $10,000, they’ll buy more stuff and maybe, just maybe, they’ll buy it from me. Then, I’ll need to hire more people because demand for what I sell will actually increase.<br />
<br />
True, but what if I decide to save the $10,000, or use it to pay off debt? In fact, with an income of $250,000 there’s not much I need. Maybe I don’t appreciate the consumer culture–I, of course, don’t have a credit line of $500,000 at Tiffany, like a certain “regular guy” who’s running for President–but the notion that, somehow, high-earners who pay less to the government will spend their tax savings and cause employers to hire people is just as silly as the old supply-side canard that if we lower tax rates enough tax revenues will increase. There aren’t that many high-earners, and there’s only so much “stuff” we can buy.<br />
<br />
If people want lower tax rates, fine. Let’s be honest, though, about two things: First, lower rates means government collects less, which means government must borrow or do less. And, second, putting extra money in people’s pockets does not cause employers to hire more workers unless the extra money increases demand, which won’t likely happen if we focus on demand generated by our highest earners. <br />
<br />
Note: The opinions offered here are mine, and mine alone, although they happen to be supported by the Congressional Budget Office and lots of other groups that know this stuff much better than I do. </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-87361694572534913492011-01-27T20:46:00.000-07:002011-01-27T20:46:35.386-07:00A Little Truth, Part 1<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />A Little Truth, Part 1, is the first post of what I hope are several more, identifying falsehoods in our discourse that don't get challenged. I hope you enjoy these brief encounters with reality, that they make you more critical thinkers and better citizens, and that you tell your friends.<br />
<br />
So, it's a given that people live longer than they used to and, therefore, the United States of America must raise the retirement age for Social Security to save us from ourselves. Right? No, wrong, although I'm sure those people who argue for increasing the retirement age will quibble with my characterization of their main argument in support of their position. To them I say, get your own damn blog!<br />
<br />
So, wrong? Why? Let's stick with white males, only because I am one and, surprise, the life expectancy tables start with white males. A boy born in 1850 would be expected to live, on average, for 38.3 years. A boy born in 1950 would, on average, be expected to live for 67.55 years, almost 30 years longer. That's a lot of extra years. Hmmm. Still wrong? Yes.<br />
<br />
Let's look at how long 1850 boy, if he lived to be 50 years old, would be expected to live. 20.76 more years, all the way until 1920. And 1950 boy in 2000, when he turns 50? He'd be expected to live for another 28.2 years. So over 100 years the average 50 years old's life expectancy lengthened by less than an eight years.<br />
<br />
To recap, at birth lives lengthened by almost 30 years over a century, while at 50 years old the same century only gave us middle-aged white guys an extra eight years. Why the discrepancy? That's easy; it's all about surviving childbirth. When a generation lives longer lives than its predecessor generations, but its older people's life expectancies are not significantly greater, mathematics tells us it's all about people dying before they get older. <br />
<br />
What does all of this have to do with the Social Security retirement age? Soon after Social Security came into being in the mid-1930s, 60 year old men were expected to live for about 15 years when they retired. And now, 75 years later? About 20 years. Not very much longer, and certainly nothing worthy of "people are living longer, so we have to raise the retirement age." I'm no expert on Social Security, but I do know this: When you talk about people living longer in the context of Social Security, overall life expectancy matters not at all! Instead, it's about how long people will live once they receive benefits. And the little truth is that over the past 75 years, retirees aren't living all that much longer.<br />
<br />
So, when you hear noise about people living longer, find out who the people are who are living longer, how much longer they're living, and ask yourself, Does this matter?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> <input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" type="image" /> <img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" /> </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-86911089755722107822011-01-16T15:39:00.002-07:002011-01-16T21:13:10.236-07:00Random Thoughts On The Tucson Tragedy<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" />I've been quiet until now. "Mostly quiet, " to be totally truthful. We did have a dinner party on January 8--the food was ready and the friends close, so we saw little reason to cancel--and, at about 9:30 and with a snoot full of wine in me, I answered the phone. A reporter from JTA, an international Jewish news service, was calling from Washington, wanting a referral for an article he was writing about the shooting. (Long story about why he was calling me.) I told him I'd get him Jonathan Rothschild's number in the morning. Jonathan is my law partner, a dedicated Democrat, an active member of the Jewish community (and, most likely, the next Mayor of Tucson.) I must have said more than "I'll get you Jonathan's number in the morning," however, as the story that was released on Monday identified me as a Tucson-area lawyer (right) and a Democratic Party activist (huh), and quoted me thusly: “You have a vice-presidential candidate for a major party who runs ads with targets saying ‘remove Gabby Giffords’ and a young man with issues. You're going to spend a long time convincing me it doesn't have something to do with it.” (My partner was more temperate, but he spoke with the reporter in the morning!)<br />
<br />
I promised random thoughts. <b>First one</b>. If you've met Congresswoman Giffords, she's your friend. I've met a fair number of politicians over the years, but never one like Gabby. No pretense, and lots of fun and funny. (And she must have a photographic memory for faces and names.) Plenty smart and strong, but I've never seen her proving her smarts by putting someone down or building herself up. Just a really nice person. (BTW, it takes a certain amount of confidence to be a young woman in what is still a man's world, slight in stature, and call yourself, and let others call you, Gabby!)<br />
<br />
Big deal? Yes, as I believe Gabby's personality plays a significant role in our reaction to the horrid events. Of course, I can't be proved right or wrong, but if Tucson was represented by someone who more closely fits "central casting" for a Member of Congress, our community's reaction might be different. (Nothing about Judge John Roll, the other prominent victim, changes this theory. Another exceptional person, totally approachable and friendly, albeit in a way very different from Gabby's.)<br />
<br />
<b>Second one</b>. About the criticism of the memorial service: Get over it, critics. Everyone mourns differently. The Right Wing owns this tragedy no more than it owned 9/11 (despite its claims to the contrary), and if the service at McKale Center on Wednesday didn't suit someone's taste, all he or she had to do was leave or, more likely, turn off the television set. Yes, if weird is a synonym for unfamiliar, the opening by Dr. Carlos Gonzales was weird. Of course, weird is not a synonym for unfamiliar! Dr. Gonzales is an American with a non-Anglo Christian heritage--like so many people in Tucson, Arizona--and, like Christians, Jews, Moslems and others, he follows a tradition that he knows. That he shared it with tens of millions is very cool. That a few people found this weird--yes, you, Brit Hume, among others--is very sad.<br />
<br />
<b>Third one</b>. About the tone, and all that. I heard no public official blame the shooter any less because of the intemperance we've all experienced over the past two years. (Yes, the Sheriff of Pima County is a public official--and not a very liberal one at that--and no, he did no such thing. Read what he said!) One group in this country has gotten very good at taking what other say, amping up the words and, then, screaming about the unfairness of it all. In my workaday world we call this a "straw man argument." Throw something out there, blow it down and call it a day! It's crap in a courtroom, and it's crap on cable, too.<br />
<br />
On the same issue, I am reminded of <i>Hamlet</i> and "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Yes, campaign is a political term with origins in the language of war. Yes, Democrats have run ads with bullseyes. Yes, sometimes people associated with Daily Kos and other liberal blogs forget every mother's adage: "If you don't have something nice to say, be quiet."<br />
<br />
Agreed, politics is a tough game. But there's a difference between a bullseye and what's seen through a rifle scope. (And no, Sarah Palin, the surveyor's scope bit won't sell!) And when a candidate in Florida shoots at a target with with the initials DWS (for Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz), that's not OK. Nor is candidate Jesse Kelly holding an event that gets promoted in this way:<br />
<br />
Get on Target for Victory in November<br />
Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office<br />
Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly <br />
<br />
It wasn't OK when it happened, and it can't be OK after January 8, 2011. We're all better than this! Really, we are! And as for Daily Kos, does the Far Right really want to compare some blogger with many of its elected leaders and its propagandists. I mean really, some guy posts something and you all want to liken him to Glenn or Rush or Newt or Sarah? (In passing, on the Jesse Kelly event, who gets off on shooting an M16? I'm sure I'd feel like a fool, hanging out with a bunch of guys and being all macho with guns!) <br />
<br />
<b>Fourth one</b>. Last thought. The Tea Party crowd swears by the Constitution, but I cannot recall another election cycle in which we heard more chatter about amending the Constitution, all of it offered by Tea Party candidates. They suggest doing away with the 16th and 17th Amendments (taxing authority and direct election of Senators, respectively), the 21st Amendment (which repealed the 18th Amendment, which instituted Prohibition), and those portions of the 14th Amendment that make people citizens if they're born here and subject to our jurisdiction when they're born. For a crowd that thinks the Constitution is Biblical in its import, they seem to have issues!<br />
<br />
I have an issue, too. My issue is the 2nd Amendment. Why is it so sacrosanct? In fact, courts have routinely allowed for reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, but with the National Rifle Association in control of state legislatures, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, the notion that any legislative body would adopt the most minimal of restrictions seems unimaginable. Yet, we have a problem that seems obvious: More guns than any other developed nation and more gun deaths. We can't fix the problem because of the 2nd Amendment, so we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Fat chance, of course, but why is the 2nd Amendment not worthy of thought, when those who swear most loudly their adherence to the Constitution want so badly to rewrite it? <br />
<br />
I could say much more, about so many other things, but I think I've said all I need to say, save one thing. Be kind to your children, your spouse, your friends and others. If we <b>all</b> learned anything from what happened last week, we now know a quick trip to the grocery store, a visit with a friend or any other daily activity can turn everyone's world upside down. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="PT55JBVZZHNYQ" /> <input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" type="image" /> <img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" /> </form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-89471827905201305282011-01-15T08:15:00.001-07:002011-01-15T08:16:52.253-07:00Don't Sell Us Out!!<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">I met with a client not long ago and heard a story I can't let go of. My client's business interfaces with the federal government. One of his employees failed to comply with a notice requirement associated with a regulation. A screw-up, absolutely, and a violation of a federal regulation, you bet! That all said, the violation was insignificant and, when it was discovered, my client's people self-reported the violation. What followed was Kafka-esque, and only ended with the payment of a very, very large fine. The fine bore no relationship to the harm caused by the violation. (X times nothing, with nothing representing the harm, will always equal nothing.) I imagine my client could have fought the assessed penalty, but the business depends on a positive relationship with the government. Good sense said, Pay the man! Good sense prevailed.<br />
<br />
Several years ago another client had a problem with a different federal agency. (The problem related to a signature not being notarized on an administrative appeal. For want of the notarization, the appeal would have been granted, according to the agency.) Not so dependent on the good graces of the government, this client had me sue the federal government to avoid a six-figure penalty. A very nice fellow from Washington, DC defended the suit by filing a motion to dismiss. Lots of blather in the motion about the need for compliance with laws and all that, and about courts not interfering with administrative regulations. I gave as good as I got and, finally, we had a hearing on the motion. The judge (the late John Roll) asked the Washington lawyer--he flew out to Tucson for this hearing--to address anything not addressed in his memorandum. He couldn't and, after fumbling around for a while, Judge Roll asked me to speak. I started to explain why my client had a right to have the court test the propriety of the penalty, whereupon Judge Roll said: "I agree." He also suggested, from the bench, that we discuss a resolution.<br />
<br />
The case settled for about $10,000 a few days later. When I spoke with the lawyer after we reached an agreement, I asked him about the regulation, as he was the lawyer for the government who was tasked with enforcement. He said the agency had promulgated the regulation and was giving it a "test drive." I asked him about his success rate. "Not so good," he said. "I'll bet," I thought.<br />
<br />
</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Government has the power to solve problems for real people. In fact, many problems our society faces, slogans and buzz words aside, can only be solved by the federal government. So, when I hear about nonsense like the fine my client was (effectively) forced to pay, and when I have to file a lawsuit to avoid a ridiculously large penalty being assessed because someone forgot to carefully read some instructions, I ask myself, How does the government expect those of us who believe government is a force for good expect us to sell that position to others? How can I tell my clients they ought to believe government can be a positive force in our society when the federal government takes their money, and only takes it because it can?<br />
<br />
There are millions of people like me who believe government makes people's lives better, but we also know government works best when people believe it can solve more problems than it creates. So, government, be smart whenever you can be. Focus on long term impacts. Make friends, not enemies. You'll be more effective, and we'll all be better off. <br />
<br />
<br />
</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-10065374918347967872010-11-13T16:38:00.000-07:002010-11-13T16:38:01.247-07:00Straight Talk About Tax Cuts<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Tax cuts, and whether they will expire at the end of 2010, have been discussed for months. Sadly, almost every article/column/blog post I've read has been wrong on simple facts. <br />
<br />
The facts are really simple. Proposals advanced by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress leave the so-called Bush tax cuts in place with respect to the first $250,000 of taxable income earned by families. Thus, the Bush tax cuts will remain in place for <u>all taxpayers</u> who pay federal income tax, as to the first $250,000 of taxable income.<br />
<br />
The 2% figure you hear about represents the percentage of Americans with taxable incomes that exceed $250,000. As for them, they get the lower tax rates on the first $250,000 of taxable income. The balance of their taxable income will be taxed at the rate in effect when Bill Clinton was the President, back when our government spent less money than it collected (and was using the excess to reduce the national debt.)<br />
<br />
As for the $250,000, that represents taxable income. That sum represents total earnings before deductions and exemptions. Many people with taxable income of $250,000 have gross income of more than $300,000.<br />
<br />
So when you hear a story that claims tax cuts will only be available for 98% of all Americans, that's a false story. When someone claims tax cuts will only people making less than $250,000, that's false too.<br />
<br />
This is not terribly complicated stuff! Unfortunately, those people who report on public policy debates--and some of the debate participants, because they are lazy thinkers or dishonest advocates--are often wrong on the facts!!! <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-4562914281755656462010-08-07T06:37:00.002-07:002010-08-07T10:10:32.697-07:00A LIFE AT 50-ISH (the book)<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Buy A LIFE AT 50-ISH right here, right now, for $15! Or, if you're not a Paypal person, contact me at markdrubin@gmail.com.</form><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /><br />
<input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="ARX8RKKNQ2XLC" /><br />
<input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" type="image" /></form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-77124910053751824032010-08-07T06:31:00.006-07:002010-08-07T17:22:43.447-07:00PizzaI've been eating pizza for 50 years. I've had lots and lots of good pizza, some bad pizza and a fair amount that falls "in between." And that only includes the pizzas made by others, for I've been making my own pies for 35 years or so. In that realm there have been a few good ones, and many that have been unremarkable.<br />
<br />
For the past several years I've been curious about "the best" pizzas. Are they really good? Exceptional? Memorable?<br />
<br />
There's no standard for "the best," of course. (My daughter used to be sweet on Chuck-e-Cheese pizza. I thought she wanted to play games and collect little red tickets, so she could exchange them for plastic junk I'd throw away when I cleaned out drawers, but then she wanted to know if Chuck-e-Cheese delivered. Wrong I was, I guess, about her taste in pizza!) There are, however, purveyors who receive recognition, far and wide, for exceptional pizzas. By 2010, I decided it was long past time for me to start answering my questions.<br />
<br />
In Phoenix Pizzeria Bianco resides just east of downtown, a mere 116.51 miles from my garage door. Alas, PB does not take reservations, it's only open Tuesday through Saturday from 5-10 and the wait is generally 2-3 hours. It's always on my mind but, like cleaning the garage and losing the extra 10 pounds, it never seems to happen!<br />
<br />
Last month we had more than one good reason to be in Los Angeles, so we decided to try Pizzeria Mozza, the restaurant owned by Joe Bastianich, Mario Batali and Nancy Silverton. The joint has a national reputation, and it takes reservations. So, while getting there involves more travel than a round-trip to Phoenix, if one needs to be in LA, the travel is not a huge burden.<br />
<br />
Pizzeria Mozza is a very nice place. It's small, comfortable and the staff is very friendly. (None of the LA "attitude" one gets in certain places.) Prices are not low, but they're also not ridiculously high. Pizzas run from about $14-21, salads and sides are mostly less and wine prices are fair.<br />
<br />
And the pizza? Very nice. Good. Tasty. Memorable? Not really. (Frankly, Pizzeria Vivace makes very similar pies in Tucson, they're as good or better, and the drive is 15 miles, round trip.)<br />
<br />
I'm sure I'll try Pizzeria Bianco someday. (Ed Levine, in <i>Pizza: A Slice of Heaven</i>, gives his "best pizza" in America award to PB.) My journey to LA has given me an operating hypothesis for the time being, however: Some dining experiences are not meant to be memorable. I'll never forget a meal I had at Aureole, a fine French restaurant in New York. Or the sweetbreads and grilled octopus I ate at Sardinia Enoteca Ristorante in Miami Beach in 2008. Or the Pinot Noir I had at Sogno Di Vino, the wine bar next to Buon Appetito in San Diego. (I remember how wonderful it was, and how annoyed I was that I didn't note the name.) Pizza, though, is pizza. It's good and certainly pleasurable. (Some have said that, like sex, when pizza is good it's great and when it's not so good, it's still pretty wonderful. Of course, never having experienced "not so good" sex, I can't say.) It may be, though, that it's simply too simple to be really wonderful. Just not one of those "I'll never forget it" foods. Or, maybe, I simply haven't had the best there is!!!<br />
<br />
P.S. You can buy A LIFE AT 50-ISH, for better documented observations about many other important phenomena, by contacting me at markdrubin@gmail.com or by clicking the <b><span style="color: red;">Buy Now</span></b> button below.<br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"><b><input name="cmd" type="hidden" value="_s-xclick" /></b><br />
<b><input name="hosted_button_id" type="hidden" value="ARX8RKKNQ2XLC" /></b><br />
<b><input alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!" border="0" name="submit" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" type="image" /></b></form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-54965276629524366852010-03-05T18:48:00.024-07:002010-03-06T08:10:38.812-07:00Liz Cheney and the LawyersSo Liz Cheney (former Vice President Cheney's darker incarnation) and her pals on the Way Far Right have taken out after lawyers who work for the Justice Department now and used to represent detainees. Never mind that, when lawyers who represented detainees later worked for the Justice Department in the GWB Administration, there was nary a public peep from Ms. Cheney, Bill Kristol (a fellow board member with Ms. Cheney at Keep America Safe) or anyone who talks on Fox News. And never mind the fact that Ted Olson--it was his lawyering that put W over the top in the Supreme Court in the last days of 2000, and it was his wife Barbara who died when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001--took out after Ms. Cheney for her comments! Never mind all that, because I have but one question for Ms. Cheney and her gang of crazies:<br />
<br />
What gives with the criticism of lawyers for supporting a cause, as opposed to simply being in it for the money?<br />
<br />
(Supporting terrorism is hardly noble, but if someone thinks terrorism is a worthy cause, we can hardly say they are unprincipled when they support that cause. Misguided, crazy and absolutely best dead, but not unprincipled.)<br />
<br />
I'm confused because, for most of my career as a lawyer, I've listened to your crowd complain about lawyers only being in it for the money. Y'all have been after trial lawyers for decades. (BTW, every trial I’ve ever been in has always had at least two lawyers, and whenever the crowd you like shows up for court, they’re always represented, and always by well-paid, highly skilled lawyers.) You come at us hard, constantly, as if society’s ills will vanish if we can just get rid of the lawyers!<br />
<br />
Have you changed your minds? Decided lawyers really might be principled from time to time. That we might be so scrupulous that we'll give up money to support a cause? If so, welcome to the right side of the line. Now, just take another step or two in the right direction and consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, the principle these lawyers have advocated, and continue to advocate, is adherence to the law. The law as it is written in the Constitution. The law as the U.S. Supreme Court applied it in case after case, against the Bush Administration, with respect to detainee rights. Maybe, just maybe, that's the principle these lawyers--these people you claim are so principled that they adopt their clients' causes, never mind the money--are following!<br />
<br />
P.S. When y'all rant about safety concerns if terrorists are tried in the United States, how ‘bout a little candor? The decision to store people at Guantanamo was never based on any worry about U.S. security, and you know it! Guantanamo was always about the oddity that is Guantanamo: Kind of "U.S. lite," controlled by us but ... not too much, so we can run the place but we don't have to follow U.S. law when we do it. For pity's sake, how ‘bout a little bit of honesty? Just a little? Please?<br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"></form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-81123981958103744922010-03-04T21:30:00.013-07:002010-03-04T22:35:27.301-07:00Where I've Been<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">Sorry about the lack of blog postings. Writing A LIFE AT 50-ISH has occupied lots of time during 2009 and the early part of 2010. I also closed my law practice and joined a firm, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., and that process occupied plenty of hours I'd have otherwise spent writing here. Expect more posts going forward!</form>Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604670679918766675.post-19142033311854204222008-12-25T19:35:00.000-07:002008-12-25T20:14:52.706-07:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Isaac Toussie</span><br /><br />Isaac Toussie is hardly a household name in our country, but he's getting his 15 minutes of fame as a result of a pardon taken back. Mr. Toussie was convicted in 2001 and 2002; both convictions related to fraud arising out of home loans to poor people. Apparently, the pardon was granted before the White House knew Mr. Toussie's father had donated $28,500 to the Republican Party and $2300 to John McCain. (These donations would mean less if Toussie <span style="font-style: italic;">pere</span> had been a regular donor to Republican causes; apparently, he wasn't.) Allegedly, when the President learned about the donations, he said: "not on my watch."<br /><br />The people who talk and write are in an uproar, comparing this event to the Marc Rich pardon at the end of the Clinton Administration and other pardon scandals. (With the nomination of Eric Holder--who played a role in the Rich pardon--to be Attorney General, the Rich situation was already getting plenty of attention.) Lawyers are debating the right to withdraw a pardon, referencing a case from the 1860s and debating the interplay between the Constitution and a pardon "bureaucracy" the Constitution never contemplated. Others focus on the political aspects, with one observer believing Karl Rove must have played a role in the "do over," as message control hasn't been what it was when Mr. Rove ran things.<br /><br />With respect (the commentators get paid to comment and I don't), the noise machine is missing the point. Who cares, really, that the Bush Administration is mopping up a mess less than four weeks before Barack Obama takes over? And, while the legal issues are interesting, Mr. Toussie has already served his sentence and, thus, who really cares if he goes through life as a convicted felon or not?<br /><br />The real issue here relates to priorities. This Bush Administration has been more parsimonious with pardons than any recent President who served more than one term. (Ronald Reagan used the power rarely, as compared with his predecessors, yet he granted more than twice as many pardons and commutations as has President Bush.) Yet the powers that be decided, in the face of what looks like the worst financial crisis since the Great Depresssion, to pardon a man whose crimes relate directly to the primary cause of the fix we're in: the housing bubble and dishonest lending. Mr. Toussie roped poor people into bad loans with lies and, to make matters worse, they got houses that were falling apart. Bear in mind, in all of this, that he was prosecuted by the United States of America while the Bushies were in charge. This guy must have been a bad dude to be noticed by an Administration committed to the free market and <span style="font-style: italic;">caveat emptor</span>.<br /><br />In sum, the noise about withdrawing a pardon dominates, while we really ought to be asking this question: Why, with a group of people in charge who see little reason to forgive anyone, did someone/anyone think Isaac Toussie deserved a Presidential pardon?Mark Rubinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10520965326778497314noreply@blogger.com0