Head Slapper of the Week

Since legal issues are such a hot topic these days, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some of the interesting  workings of the trial courts.  One working that occurs in trial courts are motions, legal procedural actions to bring limited, contested issue for decision.  One such motion occurred in the Tampa, FL area where Frank Louderback, an attorney representing a man accused in a murder-for-hire scheme, asked the judge to suspend the trial for one day to participate in the Ernest Hemingway Look-Alike Contest in Key West, FL.  Here's some details from the news article:

In his motion for trial suspension, Louderback wrote that he would need to drive to Key West when the trial recesses on July 19, and that he blocked out six hotel rooms for family friends and others "and has had to pay non-refundable deposits."

Well, the judge apparently wasn't too sympathetic:

U.S. District Court Judge Steven Merryday countered in his decision on Louderback’s motion: "Between a murder-for-hire trial and an annual look-alike contest, surely Hemingway, a perfervid admirer of grace under pressure, would choose the trial." (Perfervid: impassioned)

He then quotes a Dorothy Parker article about Hemingway from the Nov. 30, 1929, New Yorker: "He works like hell, and through it .... He had the most profound bravery. ... He has never turned off on an easier path than the one he staked for himself. It takes courage."

The judge continued: "Perhaps a lawyer who evokes Hemingway can resist relaxing frolic in favor of solemn duty." He then quotes Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises: “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

Merryday’s decision: "Best of luck to counsel in next year’s contest. The motion is denied."

I guess it never hurts to ask.  Three Head Slaps

ead more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/29/2873976/lawyer-suspend-murder-trial-so.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/29/2873976/lawyer-suspend-murder-trial-so.html#storylink=cpy

Obamacare Reax

So SCOTUS has spoken on Obamacare.  Let me talk about what questions were addressed in the case:

• Is the individual mandate that imposes a penalty for those who do not purchase health care a tax?  The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, said that the mandate is a tax under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  He said based on judicial precedent  (Hooper vs. California) that “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”  By citing Congress’ authority to “lay and collect taxes” under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the individual mandate is cited as constitutional.

• Does the individual mandate (which is never directly labeled in the 2,000 plus page legislation) fall within the limits of the Commerce clause in the Constitution?  The majority, again led by Chief Justice Roberts, said that that “the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”  In layman’s terms, an individual mandate exceeds Congressional authority to compel one to buy health insurance.

• Is the individual mandate “severable” from the rest of Obamacare?  Since the individual mandate was ruled constitutional, this question was rendered moot.

• Should states be conscripted to pay for the expansion of Medicaid to uninsured adults? The majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, stated that states cannot be conscripted to expand Medicaid through a threat of loss of funding.  They can be given “incentives” to expand Medicaid, but not coerced.   Thus, individual states can opt-out of Medicaid expansion.

So to sum it up, Obamacare survives largely based on Chief Justice Roberts’ threading the needle that the individual mandate is a tax.   So Obamacare lives on for now, although not in its complete form.

But I assume as readers of this blog that you are not surprised by the decision.  Recall my comments on March 27.

“While many of my colleagues who oppose Obamacare believe that it will be overturned in June through a ruling of an unconstitutionality of the individual mandate and that since it is not severable, I’m not one of them. I’ll just say for now that while many think that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote on the issues in this case based on his previous jurisprudence history, I disagree. I tend to think the swing vote in this case in no other than Chief Justice John Roberts. Why? It’s based on my observation of his confirmation hearings and his previous history.

In particular:

•   In his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts stated that he does not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy. In fact, he explicitly stated that he did not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document"

•   Chief Justice Roberts has shown a great inclination towards “judicial modesty” in pragmatically approaching different issues of jurisprudence. So while he has proven to historically show a deference to federalism in his rulings, he’s one that does not believe in “legislating from the bench” as he said in his confirmation hearing regarding the judiciary’s role in reviewing acts of Congress:

"The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform. ... It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

"Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic."

Thus, based on Chief Justice Roberts’s jurisprudential philosophy of calling “balls and strikes” and his history of promoting “judicial modesty” and respecting precedent, I’m thinking that he is the Justice to watch in this debate. In my myopic opinion, before the arguments are completed, I’m of the opinion that Obamacare will either be upheld in total or the individual mandate will be ruled in violation of the Commerce Clause, but severable from the rest of the law, leaving the country with a whole lot of new regulation that will be very expensive to implement. But we will see what happens. If you read what I said, you not only would know I mean what I say, but you wouldn’t be surprised with what happened.

I’m chary to gloat.  But I will say I did get some responses similar to this one today:

“You are wasting you time in business. Get to the Law School #WestBankSweep” (I earned two masters degrees: Masters of Public Policy and a Master of Business Administration, from the “West Bank” of the University of Minnesota)

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t plan to go to law school, but as an observer of current events, this result doesn’t surprise me at all simply because of what I said in March: 1) the Chief Justice doesn’t have an all-encompassing judicial philosophy and 2) he’s deferential to legislative authority.    I call it as I see it.

What will happen now?  We’ll see.  However, in my myopic opinion I have a couple conjectures:

• Healthcare will become a central issue of this fall’s election. While many opponents of Obamacare will say that by interpreting the individual mandate as a tax is legislating from the bench, Chief Justice Roberts essentially threw the issue back to Congress to address the policy issue.  In fact, the Chief Justice lowered the threshold to repeal Obamacare altogether since he made it a budget issue, which means only a simple majority of both houses of Congresses and a President’s signature is needed to repeal it.   Throwing that question out there in a middle of a Presidential election campaign certainly draws a contrast in choices of candidate.

• Mitt Romney will be helped financially through his campaign coffers, yet the rhetorical argument will have to be quite nuanced since Obamacare largely used Romney’s health care reform in Massachusetts as a model.  Romney argued in the primary that having everyone pay at least a penalty to deter “free riders” in the Massachusetts health care system.    That’s exactly the argument that supporters of Obamacare use.  Kind of hard to oppose something where its supporters are using the opponent’s old argument.

•  I have a better feeling that to get even more conservatives enthused about Romney while also addressing his shortcomings in addressing the healthcare issue, Bobby Jindal VP nominee chances have improved notably.  Who better to be advocate to repeal Obamacare than someone who was Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation and also has opposed Obamacare as a governor?

However, those are just my myopic opinions.  Feel free to comment.

A Dated, yet Interesting, Video

Dated, yet still interesting video of a retaining wall collapsing in Duluth near the Whole Foods Co-op

Myopic Musings

A couple a myopic musings:

- The Obamacare ruling is very likely going to happen this week.  As I said previously,  I'm thinking that there's a 50 percent chance of the individual mandate being struck down, but the rest of the law remaining in tact, a 30 percent chance that the law will remain as is and a 20 percent chance that the entire law will be struck down.  Chief Justice Roberts will be the swing vote in my opinion.

- I heard on the radio today that relating to the debate on the MN constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one women that the fundraising between the two sides are staggering.  The opponents of the measure raised over $4.5 million dollars compared to supporters who have raised about $1.4 million.   Quite the wide gap from what I see.  What does that mean?

Reflections Following the Flood

I spent Saturday in the Duluth Superior area to get some work done at the Golden Inn.  It was also a chance for me to take a first hand look at the flood damage in my hometown.  While I didn’t see much of the city, it was quite apparent that the damage was quite extensive.  Like here showing Highway 23 near Jay Cooke Park, I road I used to travel with my parents on as a child working at the father’s previous restaurant, the Jade Fountain.

When I arrived at my mom’s house in Duluth, I instantly ran into a sinkhole in the driveway.

A minor inconvience, yet a notable reminder how hard the rains were coming down.  Nearly 11 inches of rain fell during the storms.   In fact, I had to alter my route to the Golden Inn from my mom’s house because Highway 2 was closed due to a mudslide that blocked off the road.    From what I saw, apparently Target (i.e. Best Buy competitor) was closed for some time due to some excessive water.

However, it appears that the floods did less public infrastructual damage in Superior than it did in Duluth.  This is perhaps because Duluth is a hilly city where the water hits the hill and gains momentum down the hill, acting like a hammer against anything it hits.   Houses built on the sides of hills were having sediment washed out from under them, leaving them prone to mudslides and other calamities.  Superior, on the other hand, is quite flat.  While there were some significant areas of public infrastructural damage, it appears that it was mostly just flooding of basements, parking lots and buildings.  Here is a sinkhole by Barkers Island, a quarter mile from the Golden Inn.

I’m very glad that my mother’s property and the Golden Inn did not suffer much infrastructural damage, as they stayed open throughout the storms and floods.   The only call I got was from my mother from the Golden Inn telling me that the restaurant phones were out and she was quite irritated that customers couldn’t call in their orders.  So seals are floating across the street from the zoo and my mother is irritated that customers couldn’t call in their orders.  That’s a lady myopically focused on the bottom line.  I gave the only answer I can, “What do you want me to do about it?”

All and all,  I am glad that no one died, there was no Katrina and that I can freely go to and from the city like I am used to do doing.  But it’s also a reminder of how easily the Almighty can show that circumstances are not solely in our control.  Perhaps some wisdom can come out of these events.

Head Slapper of the Week

During this time where the United States faces fiscal peril and yet another downgrade in its debt rating, the U.S. Senate has come together to pass a $969 billion farm bill.  The bill funds everything from farm subsidies, planting trees to food stamps.  However, as part of the bill is about $200 million a year over the next ten years (or $2 billion total) to the Market Access Program (MAP), which is meant to promote U.S. products overseas via trade lobbyists.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1354981#overlay=node/604981/edit

One of the recipients of these is Espree, a company that produces a styling spray for dogs.   Since 1999, Espree has received over $93 million of taxpayer funds for its product.    So apparently great smelling and sparkling looking dogs are essential to promoting U.S. farm products.   In my myopic opinion, it appears to be corporate welfare.  Three Head Slaps

A Trip to the Alma Mater

Yesterday I was able to take the journey down to Northfield to attend this year’s Carleton Reunion.  I was my 10 year reunion, which makes me feel quite aged since I still vividly remember the days I was on campus as an economics major well-known for penning opinions that were contrary to liberal orthodoxy in the college newspaper, The Carletonian.  Yet here I was, four and half hours after returning home from an all-night prayer vigil, visiting with old classmates at the alma mater.

When you come to Carleton, you have to know how to toss the disc.  Folks get mighty intense regarding this activity.

I pretty much spent the day walking through campus spending time looking at the new buildings and talking to old classmates about how life’s path has treated them.  Some have become very successful, more than a few have forged ahead and are growing a family and yet others are just scraping to get by in work and/or school.  Pretty much everyone was noting my weight loss and glad that I’m doing well.   I have to say that while almost all the folks I talked are well-aware that I see things differently from them in all aspects of life whether morally or politically, they were all very collegial and were generally interested in reconnecting on issues of common ground.  


That’s one thing that I recall from my Carleton experience as a student that hasn’t changed while I was at Reunion, the high degree or respect folks have for each other and the acknowledgement that everyone has good intentions in making a difference in society, even if there is a disagreement on what that means. To me, Carleton was a great experience for me because it constantly challenged me both academically and my development as an individual.  That's one thing that everyone should get from a liberal arts education, not the "liberal" in a political sense, but the challenge to develop one's analytical ability not just in the classroom, but in all aspects of life.

For a better explanation of why I feel Carleton was such a positive experience for me, I turn to former Secretary of State Condi Rice’s comments during her recent SMU commencement address:

"Education is transformative. . . . education has always been the key to human beings and their dreams – a force that erases arbitrary divisions of race and class and culture, and unlocks every person’s potential."

Regarding how Carleton challenged me to become a better analytical thinker that has to think of all sides of the issues, which has certainly helped me professionally (I am a data analytics professional),  Condi Rice has comments for that:

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately. But at those times when you’re absolutely sure that you’re right, talk with someone who disagrees. And if you constantly find yourself in the company of those who say “Amen” to everything that you say, find other company”

Thinking of all the commentary I was receiving from certain professors and classmates while as a Carleton student, I certainly found that “other company.”  However, finding that “other company” was perhaps the best thing to happen to me because it really caused me to examine myself.  Self-reflection is generally a good activity in my myopic opinion.

All in all, while a bit tired, I enjoyed my time at Reunion.  Although I may not fit the Paul Wellstone stereotype of a Carleton alum, but I agree with what former Carleton President Larry Gould said: “You are a part of Carleton, and Carleton is a part of you.”

It is what it is.  Carleton will always be a part of me.

Head Slapper of the Week

In what is a measure of either temerity, naiveté or stupidity,  John Sullivan (not the Vikings center) tried his luck as a former Atlanta Braves pitcher at the alum softball game.  While acting as an impostor is bad enough, Sullivan didn't even try to train for the game as it was reported his swing was "less than 30 MPH" or figure out that the Braves did not have a minor league affiliate in Greensboro before he claimed he played there.  Details, Details.   Three and a half head slaps.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/impostor-crashes-braves-alumni-1456183.html

Random Thoughts…Myopically?

I’ll just take the time to say that my first three weeks at Best Buy have certainly kept me busy.  A whole lot of learning going on during these interesting times in company history.  By the way, did I hear the President say that the “private sector was doing fine” and that what is needed to jump-start the economy is more teachers and firefighters?  Who pays for the teachers and firefighters, those folks in the “fine” private sector?

I had my weekly checkup with the Medifast counselor Monday evening to assess how my diet is going.  Currently I’m in the maintenance phase of the diet, a yearlong assessment of my behaviors to make sure I’m maintaining a healthy weight.  However, the counselors the past couple months have advised me to figure out ways to incorporate more protein in my diet to build muscle while gaining back some weight.  I have to say I don’t ever feel hungry since I pretty much snack through the workday with fruit, popcorn and oatmeal and the evening having my daily serving of veggies, protein and capping the evening with Greek yogurt and fruit, drinking water throughout.  Yet today I weighed in less than 160 pounds.  That’s quite the change from Christmas time, where I was about 45 pounds more than I weighed today.  The counselors are puzzled how I could keep losing weight despite not using any of their meal replacements.   Currently, I’m burned off about 50 pounds of fat since I began the diet and maintained muscle at about the same level.  So I’m under orders to try to gain weight in a healthy way.  We’ll see how that happens.

A quick political gander and I have to say that I’m not too surprised on what happened in Wisconsin last week.  Having experience in a business in Wisconsin, I was well aware of the whole recall effort.  While GOP has had a great amount of success in Wisconsin over the past two years, it is not as easy to assess Gov. Walker’s success in fighting off the recall last week as many think.   While the GOP has every right to feel that they have the momentum after fighting off union-backed efforts to take over the State Senate and the Governor’s Mansion mainly successfully (the Dems did win control of the Senate last week, although ephemerally, since the Senate already adjourned for the year and the GOP favored to take control back this fall in GOP newly designed re-drawn districts; the Dems don’t really control any agenda items).  I more or less think that while the fiscal condition of Wisconsin’s public institutions has substantially improved, I largely think Wisconsin citizens were largely tired of having to repeatedly cast ballots in these recall efforts and any chance to end the process they would become strongly disposed towards.  So while I am strongly disposed towards Walker’s agenda, let’s not confused last week’s elections in Wisconsin to extrapolate what will happen on November 6.  However, I will say that Gov. Walker’s tactics have done something that the US President’s tactics have not done:  save government bureaucrats jobs.

A Few Random Thoughts

So a few random thoughts…..

- I have made the transition to a public blog.  Since I won't be talking about how my work at Best Buy is going and the readers have made it known to me that an open blog is desired, I have decided to give it a try for I fear nothing for saying what myopic observations I have and I a desire to make this blog as easy for you to read as possible.  If you have further comment, well, leave a comment.

- I have made the transition from the stabilization phase to the maintenance phase of my Medifast diet.  I've down about 45 pounds since I started the program.  Don't worry, I still eat good stuff, just not all the time or in the same portions.  But the weight loss is not so much an accomplishment for me as much as fulfilling a commitment.  As you recall at the beginning of the year I stated I made a commitment to health, both financial and physical.  My philosophy is when I make a commitment, I do whatever it takes to fulfill that commitment. Whether it's a goal such as obtaining an education, physical health, financial health, relationships, etc.   Not putting forth a full effort to fulfill a commitment is just something that I couldn't see myself doing in my myopic opinion.

- SCOTUS (i.e. Supreme Court) could be putting forward a decision on the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) in the next few weeks.  I've previously provided commentary on the issue, but here are the odds I currently think the decision will go.  I may change my mind at any time.

50% Mandate struck down, rest of law stays
35% Obamacare is utterly struck down
15% Law stays as is and we're got to live with Obamacare.

Head Slapper of the Week

In what can be said as a strictly Orwellian move, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a ban on carbonated soda at restaurants, delis, movie theatres and sports arenas. So if the ban is codified, one can have a huge pastrami sandwich or multiple hot dogs from a local food truck, but not a 1 liter Diet Coke to wash it down.  Now as one who has largely given up carbonated soda as part of my 40 pound-plus weight loss, I advise you that drinking 1 liter Diet Cokes is not great for your figure.  However, I would not mandate that you do so.  Alas, Bloomberg continues to demonstrate his strong hand on NYC.  Perhaps we can call him the following:

It is what it is.  Three and a Half Head Slaps