Conflicts of Interest

One of the major areas of legal ethics deals with conflicts of interest, and what lawyers can do to get around them.  The integral part, regardless of how you approach the subject, is full client disclosure.

Why isn’t this true in politics, too?  Think of the American people as the “client” of their elected representatives.  They represent us, our best interests.  But when they start doing things that are difficult to explain how they serve our interests, shouldn’t they be forced to tell us why they are doing what they’re doing and what possible other interests they are serving?

For instance: Senator Arlen Specter (Wikipedia) apparently has significant ties to Comast, a cable company that is currently embroiled in a messy fight with the NFL over the NFL Network. 

Many have questioned Specter’s motives for pressuring the NFL. He responded to a question about his link to the cable company Comcast, which is battling the NFL over the NFL Network, by saying, “I’ve been at this line of work for a long time and no one has ever questioned my integrity.”  (Source)

Except now.  Don’t you think that Senator Specter owes the American people an explanation about why he has such a hard-on to mix into the NFL’s housekeeping, when it seems to blatant to anyone who thinks about it that he wants to stick it to the NFL on behalf of his second largest campaign contributor?

Is Congress going to investigate how every league handles the adminstration of its internal rules and punishments?  If Specter doesn’t like how the refs are calling penalties in the next Eagles game, is he going to call for a congressional investigation?  This is overreaching by congress, and stupidly embarassing at that.

Specter has a penchant for comparing this to the Mitchell Report.  Except he misses four very key factors that distinguish this: (i) Senator Mitchell was not an active member of the Senate at the time of the Report, (ii) Senator Mitchell was preparing the report for MLB, not Congress (iii) the mitchell report involved the use of drugs and other substances that is against the law and (iv) MLB ASKED HIM TO (not Congress). 

I don’t like the way the NFL has handled the SpyGate stuff either, to be perfectly honest.  I think it’s an emabrassment that they destroyed the tapes.  But nothing the Pats or the NFL did was against the law of the United States.  Taping isn’t illegal, it’s cheating within the confines of NFL rules (arguably).  Destroying tapes isn’t illegal, just stupid (the tapes aren’t “evidence” in the legal sense, that destroying them is “destruction of evidence”).  The NFL doesn’t owe the public anything on the SpyGate matter.  Senator Specter has said that, “[w]e have a right to have honest football games that are played according to the rules.”  No, you have no such right.  Certainly, as a market consumer of football games, my interest in continued consumption depends on contests that I think are fair.  But the NFL doesn’t owe me jack squat.  The NFL could decide to become WWNFL, make all the games and characters scripted, and see what happens.  They might lose billions of dollars in ticket, merchandise and TV revenue, but that would be a decision the NFL could make.  We don’t have any “rights,” and the good Senator should know that.  He should be able to separate rights from expectations based on the market and consumption.  He’s a senator for crying out loud; he should be aware of the concept of bsaic rights.  Fair football games isn’t in the bill of rights.

The NFL can make a decision that handling SpyGate by sweeping it under the rug is the best move for itself, and that market will determine whether it’s right, based on how many people tune out.  My guess, not many.  Congress has no place or right to get involved.  And I suspect Specter, in his heart of hearts, knows this. 

He is alone on this crusade, and leading a charge with no cavalry behind him (notice that the person with the power to call for such an investigation, Chairman Leahy, hasn’t).  And I think it’s well within the rights of the citizenry to question their representative about why (call it “redress of grievances” :)), and expect Senator Sepecter to come up with an answer that addresses all of these concerns, without dismissing them with a trite “nobody’s questioned my integrity before.”  And he should fully disclose the nature of his interest with Comcast and the NFL.

Blogging About the Yankees

Geez Lou-frikkin-weez!  What else is there to say other than “they suck?”

OK, so I know they’ve got a couple of critical injuries (A-Rod and Posada) so they have no righty power.

But that’s no excuse for Giambi to be hitting .047 or whatever.  He’s just shitty.

And the young pitching experiment isn’t quite working out as they’d hoped.

And my GOD they were even considering giving Kei Igawa another start?  That’s the lowest of the low.  Thank god for the rainout.  All we could hear about was how stocked the farm system is, and how wonderful all their young pitching is. Guys like Jeff Marquez and Alan Horne and whoever else.  And we end up with Kei Igawa?

And we get the Mets coming this weekend, who tweaked their rotation so Johan Santana would start game 1 of the series.  And for all the strategic talk and whatever else, you just know that motivation #1 was the Mets being able to say “Hey, Yanks…look what we got.  You could have had him but we got him.  Where’s Hughes and Kennedy?  Let’s get a picture.  Kind of like a special moment kind of thing.  Oh, they’re not here?  Shame.  I thought they were in your Major League plans for this season.  What’s that?  They were?  Sorry to hear that.”

Screwing Up

Not in any way that would be or cause a real problem, other than looking bad to the client, I screwed up today.

See, what happened was this: I was asked to review a lease and condominium declaration to specifically ascertain whether the Landlord (our client) had the right (subject to what conditions and requirements) to alter and modify the lobby of the building.  So I did that.  That was last week.  I drafted a memo about, and it went through a couple of drafts in advance of a conference call.  The memo was supposed to go to the client before the call so they could review it.

Sometime between last week when I started on this and today, the client started piling questions on the partner about unrelated issues.  Of course, partner directed those questions to me.  (See the general rule of corporate/law firm life: shit rolls downhill)  Since those weren’t the focus of my initial review, I was a little unprepared for them, and had to fumble around to answer them.  Partner, anxious to impress new client with the potential to be HUGE client, wasn’t happy that I was fumbling.  Not wanting to look bad on the conference call, I made an assertion about answering a question.  Problem is, I was wrong.  Dead wrong.  And not in a “Bank Error In Your Favor; Collect $200″ way either.

In a nutshell, the question was whether the tenant has the right to terminate the lease if the Landlord doesn’t finish certain aspects of the renovation of the common areas of the building by a certain date.  I reviewed the relevant dates, and didn’t see a termination option.  Problem is, when I said “there is no termination option,” I was wrong.

Later on, going back into the Lease with some more time and greater depth, I found the termination option (buried in a separate paragraph).  Flagged and hilited from my first review last week (among a whole slew of other things I thought might be “important” when I first read the lease, but then ignored when they weren’t the focus of the memo).

So I manned-up, and emailed the partner to tell him that I missed it, and in fact there is the termination right (which puts a much greater pressure on our client to finish the work in time).  Then I called the client (who I knew would still be in the office) and told him what I found.  He wasn’t so pissed (he was kind of aware that it was there, and had actually just found it himself and was preparing me an email).  When the client emailed me and the partner about his questions to what was discussed on the call (to get ready for a bigger call that involves more senior people from the client), the partner emailed me back, stunned at the change of course (apparently having ignored my warning email).  Given that he really wants to impress this client, I can only imagine that he’s not happy.  The good news is he hasn’t called me from home to yell at me yet.

The bad news is that I probably won’t be able to sleep tonight waiting for getting chewed out tomorrow morning.

Hello, Pot…

So I was all set to write a post titled “Why the Electoral College Sucks” and the only thing in would be a link to this post at With Leather.  (The joke being that it’s the electoral college that essentially makes Ohio the only state that matters in a presidential election.)

Then I realized that making fun of Ohioans for waiting in three-hour lines for Pizza and causing traffic back ups all over the city because the pizza only cost 23 cents would be a little pot/kettle of me.

Because, let’s be honest, Jews wait on three-hour lines for pizza (erev and motzei Pesach) and the traffic around town thing is simply a numbers game.  It’s any regular shul kiddush, on a city-wide level.

And who am I kidding?  If Sabra’s ran the same promotion, the line of cars double-parked on Central Avenue would extend into Far Rockaway, and possibly Brooklyn or Queens.  You would be standing in Benjy’s, waiting on line for 23 cent pizza at Sabra’s.

(I guess it’s a good thing that a kosher pizza store would never offer that kind of promotion.  Their pizza is closer to 23 dollars than 23 cents.)

Updating the Blogroll

Well, well, someone finally got around to taking his blog outside during a thunderstorm and shocking it to life.

Welcome to the party, General R. Blie.  Follow his exploits over at Vorshtein.

Just another in the long line of Noy G spinoffs.  I would wish him to last longer than Blorena and When the Blog Blows, but that would mean that the economy is still in the shitter.

For the sake of all our jobs, let’s hope he gets too busy to blog reeeeeal soon.

Who Saw This Coming?

I’ve been reading and talking quite a bit lately with people about whether what Chris Paul did this season (and is doing this post season) is coming out of nowhere.

For the most part, the opinion seems to be that it is.  For instance, read what Eric Neel wrote on Page 2, just today:

Part of it is that he didn’t come to us the way LeBron did, prepackaged for greatness, so hyped that every remarkable thing about him feels ordinary and expected. And he didn’t emerge — as Kobe did — alongside a giant, in the shadow of the Hollywood sign, below a baker’s dozen’s worth of championship banners. We didn’t see Paul coming. We saw him selected fourth in an uninspiring 2005 draft, after a Bogut and two Williamses and just before a Felton. We figured he could play, but we weren’t thinking he would bowl us over. Now every insane 30-15 line he posts is amplified by our surprise and delight at the way he’s toying with Manu Ginobili on the perimeter or taking it to Tim Duncan at the rim.  (Emphasis added)

This surprises me.  Not Chris Paul, but this opinion.  Because I think it’s entirely wrong.  I’ve had this argument with a couple of train buddies (these are lawyers, so for the most part, they were arguing over the semantics and what the words like “superstar” and “saw” and “coming” meant, and whether better in college means as good now and other such nonsense) and I’ve tried to impress upon them, that at the very least I saw this coming.  And since my opinion isn’t informed by personal knowledge, that means that other people, people who know things, saw this coming.  They argue that he wasn’t this good in college.  I argue that the skills he’s displaying now are/were the same skills he had in college, just with a couple of years of extra maturity and growth and polish.  Obivously, the numbers won’t be the same because his teammates are better and he’s playing longer games, but the skills (if not the stats) are the same.

But like I said, my opinion isn’t informed.  So I looked it up.  Needless to say, as I am posting this on my blog, I was right.

Here’s Aran Smith, writing for NBA Draft.net on September 20, 2004:

Strengths: Paul is the consummate point guard. He is a mature leader, wise beyond his years. He can score and get into the paint and drop the catchable pass with the best of them. A 3 point marksman that will knock it down if given room. His foot quickness makes him a capable ball hawk on defense when he picks his man up. To lead the ACC in steals as a freshman tells you a little about his defensive ability. His character and heart on and off the court make him a GM’s dream. Will have a chance to be a star in the league, and it will be his passion for the game that will keep him from falling off.

Weaknesses: At under 6 foot, he’s very small for the pro game. His intangibles and athleticism help to make up for it some. Improved strength and a year of maturing will help him avoid the dreaded sophomore jinx that Chris Thomas suffered a two years ago. Point guards are judged by their teams play, and with his team this year should reflect the type of player he is, a Champion. (Emphasis added)

Or Maybe Chad Ford writing a draft recap/preview for ESPN (Insider access only, aren’t you glad you know me?):

Recap: The Hornets are the big winners early on in the draft. They get an elite point guard at No. 4 who will push the ball and be a leader on and off the floor. When the Hornets gave away Baron Davis at the trade deadline, it looked like the franchise was in ruins. But Paul has more potential than Davis on the court and has the intangible leadership qualities that Davis lacked. When you factor in that he makes much less money and doesn’t have the injury issues of Davis, the Hornets just made a huge upgrade at a key position.
Similarities: ISIAH THOMAS
Positives: Paul is T.J. Ford with a jumper. He’s lightning quick, has unbelievable court vision, is a superb decision-maker and shoots the lights out from the field and the 3-point line. He pushes the ball relentlessly on offense and already is one of the best penetrators in the game. Despite the pace he plays out, he keeps turnovers to a minimum. His defense is also top notch. He’ll be one of the steals leaders in the NBA when he gets there.
Negatives: Size does matter in the NBA and Paul just barely cracks 6 feet, the bare minimum for point guards in the league. Allen Iverson is the last player under 6-foot-8 to go No. 1. Teams wish Paul was stronger, but given his age they believe that will come.
Summary: Paul is the complete point guard prospect. He’s quick, athletic, shoots the ball extremely well, and most important, is a true floor general who knows how to lead. (Emphasis added)

His destruction of the Knicks notwithstanding, Isiah Thomas is generally regarded as one of the greatest pure point guards in history, if not the best, and was named as one of the 50 greatest NBA players of all time.  With all the praised heaped on Chris Paul at draft time, about his leadership, his defensive ability, calling him a champion, and on and on and on, I think it’s pretty clear that comparing him to one of the best point guards ever, who lead his team to back-to-back titles, is pretty high praise.  And, an indicator that living up to that hype is not at all shocking.  He is doing exactly what you’d expect someone who drew comparisons to Isiah Thomas (as a player) to do.  Be a leader and lead his team to greatness. I don’t mean to degrade CP3 at all.  What he’s doing is magnificent.  But let’s not call it unexpected, either.

Davening Faces

I got into (more like baited my friends into) a discussion today about davening, and the effectiveness of it.  But I kind of want to avoid that in favor of a more practical discussion of davening:

If davening doesn’t hurt, are you doing it wrong?

I wonder, because I was away for Pesach this year (not that that’s relevant, necessarily, but it’s true) and saw there a couple of young men being mispallel.  One looked like he was having an appendectomy without anesthesia.  There was another that seemed to be undergoing a colonoscopy.  Since these two guys were clearly frummer than me (I mean, they were wearing black hats!), so I wondered if they knew something that I didn’t.  Clearly, davening involves some sort of pain or intestinal distress that I’m just not getting.  I never learned that.

“You’ll Need a Tray”

A few years ago, I was flipping channels, when I stumbled on an HBO comedy special.  Since those were always worth seeing if the comedian was worth watching (that was convoluted sentence construction, but you know what I mean), I stopped and watched for a second.  The comedian was a British dude wearing women’s clothing.  Weird.  But, he was frikkin’ hilarious.  His name’s Eddie Izzard (see his official site, here).

Anyway, I ended up watching the whole thing, and laughing my ass off the entire time.  Then YouTube was invented, and I could search for others of his bits, and laugh at those, too.  (See: YouTube Search: Eddie Izzard).

One of the bits he does is about Darth Vader trying to order lunch in the Death Star cafeteria:

Someone then went and made a Star Wars Lego movie set to that bit.  See it here:

Roger Clemens is Seriously Scum

I pulled that one from the file I have by my desk labeled “Least Schocking Headlines.”

It just keeps getting worse and worse (and grosser and grosser) for Clemens.

Quick rundown:

Did steroids.  Lied about it. Threw his trainer under the bus.  Secretly taped a phone conversation with the trainer.  Played the tape for everyone in a press conference.  Threw his friend under the bus.  Threw his wife under the bus.  Mouthed off to Congress.

Then it gets bad.  (This isn’t in chronological order of when it happened, but when it came to light):

Had an ongoing affair with a country singer that started when she was 15!!  Had an ongoing affair with this chick, including paying her rent for her.  Then he got on with John Daly’s sloppy seconds.  Eww!

All this while happily married and father of four kids.  Nice.  Dad of the year, that one.

At this point, does he have a single shred of credibility or dignity left?  This guy is clearly one of the grossest slimeballs in baseball in his era.  And yet, Barry Bonds gets worse treatment for being surly to the media.  Hmmmm.

Paula Embarasses Herself

Check out the video at the bottom.

I have several questions about what exactly went on:

Was Paula reading from pre-fab comments that she prepared from rehearsals?

Was Paula reading from pre-fab comments that someone else prepared for her, based on rehearsals?

Was Paula reading from comments that someone else or she prepared to read regardless of the actual song sung?

Is this the way the judges (or, specifically, Paula) comments on everyone, every week (ie: by having someone else write her comments in advance, regardless of what the performance may be like)…(that would explain a lot)?

Or, as her defenders will likely point out, and as she scrambled to say before they cut off her mike, was she just reading the notes on the next performance?  (I have trouble believing this because of her  excalamtion that “ohmigod I thought you sang twice?” and the fact that later on, her review of David Cook’s first song, which would presumably be next on her comment sheet, was good, and what she read was bad.  And her comment on the as yet unsung second Jason Castro song was in line with what Randy and Simon would say later on.)

Finally, is this the faux pas that finally gets Paula fired?  How many times can she say or do idiotic things that embarass herself and the show, or, you know, be plainly drunk on the air, until she loses her job?

See for yourself, and let me know what you think in the comments: