Audiobook Recommendation #3: "The Wisdom of Joseph Campbell"

It's been awhile, but I started a series of posts about the best audiobooks I've found over the last few years. Number 3 is a hard to find audiobook of conversations between Joseph Campbell and Michael Toms of New Dimensions radio called The Wisdom of Joseph Campbell.

The four cd set reminds me of Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, the book that introduced millions (including me) to Campbell's work, but I actually like it much better than the Moyers series. While Moyers is one of my heroes and has had a great impact on my life, Moyers is a journalist/generalist while Toms is much more of an expert on mythology. Thus, while Moyers questions probe Campbell to describe his life's work in detail, Toms' questions propel Campbell into lively descriptions of the joys of growing old when you've found and followed your bliss.

At one point, Toms stops Campbell, asking him to go back and restate a point he's just made and Campbell can't, exclaiming that "that's so hard, you talk out of an excitement..." In other words, while Toms tries to get Campbell to slow down for Toms' audience, the great conversation between them has prompted Campbell to talk so excitedly that he goes beyond his prepared material and into a zone of spontaniety that's wonderful to witness. In fact, at one point, upon signing off, Campbell tells Toms that he "feels like he's talking to a brother" in what must have been one of the high compliments of Toms' life.

At another point, Toms reads Campbell a selection from Campbell's early work The Hero With a Thousand Faces. I forget the passage, but Campbell responds that when he wrote the selection he was writing out of what he had read at that time. He goes on to describe how moved he was by his own writing, thinking "I wrote that?," before going on to say that now that he listens to it in old age (Campbell is in his 70's or 80's when the conversations took place) he has now lived through what he described in this book and has witnessed it to be true. When Toms comments that his conversations with Campbell make him not fear growing old, Campbell responds with a quote "grow old with me, the best is yet to be." It's a nice message about myth, in other words, and a rare example of a conversation between two people with an in depth knowledge of mythology.

At one point, Campbell describes Christianity in a rare, but true, way. He says:

"One of the obsessions, I think, in Christianity is the Devil. When I turn from reading Oriental and tribal mythologies to any orthodox Christian work, suddenly the Devil is there. I think he's more important than God. He's the reason for all the wars against other people. He justifies the massacre of primitive tribes. They are all "Devil worshippers." Anyone who has an experience of the divine that's not of some particular clergy, is worshipping the Devil. And "Devil" is the word that's actually used for other people's gods."

At another point he responds to a call-in question about whether primitive people lacked a spiritual life. Campbell disagrees respectfully but strongly, describing that despite their tough lives, primitive peoples' belief systems were often more advanced than our own. In fact, he points out the depth of visions like the one described in Black Elk Speaks in which Black Elk not only had a vision that Harney Peak in South Dakota was the center/ still point of his Sioux tribe but that this vision continued and deepened as Black Elk saw a series of interlocking hoops across the world and went on to describe the center of the world as "everywhere." Campbell describes this as "a tribe that thought it was It is now in a multiple heteregeneous world."

Campbell describes this vision as "good stuff for today." I agree and highly recommend this audiobook or the abridged printed version called "An Open Life."

Joseph Campbell on Native Americans

I'm reading The Hero's Journey: Joseph Campbell's Life and Work which features transcripts interviews he gave throughout his life. I read anything and everything by Campbell and will soon start listening to the audiobook of The Hero With a Thousand Faces. Just yesterday I finished, again, a great series of interviews Campbell did with Michael Toms of New Dimensions Radio entitled 'The Wisdom of Joseph Campbell." Excerpts of this audiobook are also available in Michael Toms' book An Open Life.

But today I ran across a great quote from Mr. Campbell in the Hero's Journey that rings true but which also represents a perspective I rarely hear but that he spoke in the early 80's. He said:

Today you read of our interest in clearing up apartheid in South Africa and we don't think about our own Native Americans, taking the mote out of our neighbor's eye with a beam in our own that isn't matched in the history of civilization. And those people, our own native people, are still living in a subcivilized condition that's been put upon them. I don't see any of our ambitious youth picket-lining to give Indians their due.

Stuttering: The King's Speech

I caught a little bit of the Oscars with my daughter and loved the part where the old man who won Best Screenplay for The King’s Speech concluded his speech by saying “stutterers have a voice.” This hit home for me because stuttering runs in my family. When I was a kid, in first grade, I left the regular classroom twice a day, once to go to with the second graders for reading and once to go with the kids who needed help with their speech. I have two brothers and two of us stutter. I say “stutter” because it never really goes away, although it’s improved greatly over time and no one, not even my wife, knows when I stutter.

Here’s how it works: When I have time to think about starting a sentence with a certain sound I cannot say it and instead must trick myself into starting with a different word. For example, if I have to say the word “when” (‘w’ sounds are particularly troubling) I have a choice of either stuttering, “w, w, w, when… or changing the sound and beginning with, for example, “um, when …”

To those of you who’ve never stuttered this must sound crazy. In fact, reading over it and putting it down on the page makes me laugh at myself. How is it that I cannot simply say a simple sound? I truly don’t know, but know that this slight reminder of the chronic stutter I had as a child still remains. Even more puzzling is that simply talking about it will make even worse for a few weeks, until the memory that I am a slight stutterer fades back into my mind.

In some ways, having this slight stutter has its benefits. For example, it can act as an indicator of stress in my life as when it “acts up” or when I find myself almost stuttering (and having to think of different words) for sounds that used to flow smoothly, I’m reminded that my mind is overtaxed and falling back into old habits that I thought I’d overcome.

Another benefit is empathy. I work with a lot of alcoholics and addicts as well as a lot of people who can’t understand why they can’t simply walk away from the drug they’re addicted to. It reminds me of being a kid and stuttering over a word and then having someone try to help me by modeling the way my mouth should move to pronounce it, as if somehow I’d forgotten to just move my lips around the sound. I wanted to say, “Don’t you think if that were the problem that I’d have tried that by now?” or “Do you think I’m that stupid?”

But, like addiction, it’s very hard to reverse roles with the person who’s afflicted. Right after college I worked at a consulting company designing marketing materials for people whose main job was to speak to large groups of people. I worked behind the scenes, writing and editing some of the materials they used and occasionally speaking before them. When I struggled, the audience was not very forgiving because I was failing at a skill they took for granted and which likely came very naturally for them. When I fell silent for a minute and tried my trick of thinking of a different syllable to begin a sentence, they frequently finished my sentence for me, impatient with my lack of speed and command. I didn’t dare confess to being a secret stutterer to this group as this would have been viewed as a weakness rather than an affliction.

One day at this job, however, my boss corrected me emphatically. I told him, probably wanting to avoid having to avoid speaking in front of a group, that I “was a bad public speaker.” He was a very patient individual, an amazing speaker, but he also understood that the key to solving problems was knowing where to begin. He said, and I’ll never forget this, “Stop saying that you’re a bad speaker and start saying “I need to work on my speaking skills.” It sounded ridiculous at first, sort of like the person who told me, when I stuttered, to “just say it,” but I told him I’d give it a try. He pressed on, asking me if I would commit to presenting in front of a large group at an upcoming conference. Terrified, but having just agreed to try something new, I told him I would.

When the day arrived, I didn’t stun the audience with my command of language, but I did o.k. There were two reasons for this: (1) My boss set the stage for me by introducing me and convincing the audience to welcome me with a big round of applause which created a welcome environment, and (2) simply thinking of myself as needing to work on my speaking skills rather than simply being a “bad speaker” gave my brain permission to look for ways to solve the problem and opened up the possibility that I wasn’t simply bad but just needed to work on acquiring this skill. I found this simple trick, which I laughed at at first, to be amazing in practice.

Not long after that, as I presented a different boss with something I’d written, and commented that I lacked the speaking skills to deliver it she commented that “if you have the mind to create it, you can have the mind to present it. It’s the same process.” This was even more stunning to me because I’d always thought of myself as a writer rather than a speaker. Hearing that moving from creating something that worked on a page to something that worked on a stage, or at a podium, was “the same process” was also stunning to me. More importantly, it gave me permission to open a closed door and stop pretending that I was just “bad” at speaking in front of a group. Instead, her words gave me permission to work on a skill that I lacked rather than hiding behind this deficiency as if it could never change.

Shortly after that came law school. I was 29 years old and would know no one in my class. Since I was late to the law school game, I had the benefit of hindsight to know that I wanted to do something I enjoyed. I decided the path that sounded most intriguing was to be a trial lawyer. Rather than admitting that I was a bad public speaker or even that I needed to work on my public speaking skills, I decided to tell myself and anyone that would listen that I was going to be a trial lawyer, as if my public speaking skills came as naturally as those silver tongued orators and natural public speakers that graced Court TV at night.

I approached the President of ATLA my first week of law school and announced that I wanted to join. I expected her to hand me a sign up sheet or a brochure, but instead she dug in her locker and handed me a thick file. She was a 3L, looked stressed beyond belief, and she said, “Here you go, you’re the new president.”

When I got out of law school and did my first jury trial I was scared beyond belief. Pretending to be a trial lawyer may have worked to trick my own mind and a few classmates, but these stakes were high and real. I felt like the jig was up, like I might be discovered or my stutter return. But I also discovered something as puzzling as my stutter when I stood beside my client. When it was about him and not about me, I didn’t think about stuttering. Sure I was nervous, but stuttering didn’t enter my mind. If I “tripped” over a letter or a sound, I could get around that easily since once I got going I didn’t have time to think about old, bad habits that crept up only when I had time to worry about them. Since this was about his future and about winning against that prosecutor, neither stuttering nor my old belief that I was bad at speaking entered my mind.

When the judge called us back in chambers after the case went to the jury he said I did well with what I’d been given. When the jury hung, I felt like I pulled of a great trick. And I was hooked.

I used to feel guilty about stuttering, as if I made a bad choice or couldn’t overcome a simple problem on my own. Then once I attended a large family reunion and witnessed an uncle, whom I’d never met up to that point, stammer and stutter over his words, nervous to be speaking before the group and unable to sound out the same sounds that often tripped me up or made me start over. It was like looking in a mirror.

It also made me realize that the stutter I’d heard my father describe also had it’s roots on my mother’s side of the family, as it was her brother whose speech seemed so much like mine. It also offered proof that this problem was likely hereditary, that it was more like a disease to be treated than a weakness to be hidden or ashamed of.

Once in awhile I speak to a client and quietly tell them that I know their secret. I tell them that only I can spot it but that I see them doing exactly what I do, trick their own mind into avoiding an obvious stutter by choosing different words before their mind has time to trip them up. Not once has anyone ever argued with me over this and every time they’ve seemed amazed that I can spot what they so craftily conceal.

I go on to tell them not to feel ashamed, that it’s only noticeable to someone like me and that it “takes one to know one.”

It’s nice to see some attention paid to this issue, to know that more people will understand it or at least not be so quick to judge it or so patronizing in their stated cures for it. It’s nice to know that stutterers can learn to have a voice.

PTSD Tribes Needed

I just finished Tribes by Seth Godin. Scott Greenfield once wrote a post or two referencing Godin and somehow the name stuck, prompting me to pick it up in the library. The book’s timing was perfect as I’m pondering how best to craft marketing strategy, how to be a better leader, and whether the best way to do this is to take Godin’s advice and become a heretic.
Godin describes a tribe as a group aligned around an idea, connected to a leader and to each other, going on to describe how creating a tribe is easier than ever, thanks to the internet and social media which make connecting simple and instantaneous. He goes on to describe tribe leaders as heretics who “must believe.. [who are] challenging the status quo... daring to be great... [who are] not just punching a clock [and] who must have confidence in [their] beliefs.”

According to Godin, size doesn’t matter, at least not at first. I described to my daughter, who wants to be an artist, Godin’s description of a successful artist building a career upon a few hundred true fans. He doesn’t pretend that a few hundred fans will make you rich or even pay your bills, but points out that a few hundred true fans will spread your message and attract enough fans to create a movement.

I saw an example of this kind of “movement” today in the Omaha World Herald and was surprised how quickly this once small group reached the headlines. The group is called “At Ease” and their aim is to help soldiers with PTSD reenter society. Here is how I came to know them:

Last June: I stop in Dick’s Sporting Goods and buy a kayak.
The “kid” (he’s about 22) and I get along well and he talks about how he, like me, likes to go to Zorinsky Lake in Omaha and how he’d like to start kayaking in local rivers if he could ever find the time. We talk about the College World Series, how he found tickets and went with his friends the day before. I tell him that I took my daughters to couple games, how they have great memories of Rosenblatt and how we couldn’t miss the last year there.

Last July: I am in court and see the “kid” who sold me the kayak pleading to a second offense DUI. I hear his lawyer tell the judge how he came home from Iraq with PTSD and hear the judge sentence him to probation, telling him he has to get down to the root of his problems or end up in jail.

The next day: I tell my wife how badly I feel for the kid, how hard it must be to be in Iraq one day and back in Omaha the next with people expecting you to settle right in, despite what you may have seen or been asked to do. She tells me about a program one of her friends’ husbands has started that aims to help soldiers coming home from Iraq with PTSD. When I google the name, “At Ease,” I have to dig for information, but eventually find a few web pages about how Scott Anderson uses space at a church in Bellevue, NE. I can’t let this “kid” go it alone (and don’t have any confidence that his own lawyer will go the extra mile for him) so I stop in at Dick’s and deliver the information, along with Scott’s phone number.

A couple months later: I am appointed to a case and my client describes coming home from Iraq and struggling with PTSD. I don’t know if he ever uses it, but I find the information about “At Ease” and tell him that he’s not alone, that someone locally has started a group for people like him who are, understandably, having trouble settling back into America after being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Last week: I am walking through the courthouse and strike up a conversation with a guy who tells me about his service in the Marine Corps. We end up walking out along the same path and he goes on to tell me how lucky he is, how he doesn’t feel he deserves the veteran benefits he receives. I’m shocked later at his lack of a sense of entitlement as he tells me how his combat experience in Iraq left him with on-going PTSD. When I ask him if he’s ever heard of At Ease he pauses and says, “I couldn’t live without it.” I think to myself how great it is that people like him can join this tribe and hopefully get some relief from PTSD.

Today: I pick up the Omaha World Herald and read that former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey spoke out in support of At Ease:

Kerrey argued Monday that non-profit programs such as At Ease — a 16-month-old effort to provide PTSD treatment to Omaha-area veterans and their families — have the best chance to bring struggling service members back into civilian society.
“This is a situation where we have to solve it, we have to provide help,” Kerrey said of post-traumatic stress disorder before his speech. “It's working.”

Godin’s message is that if you lead well, you will attract the type of people who commit to your vision and spread the word, leading to something that both works and spreads.

Maybe what made me want to help people with PTSD was a sign I wrote about a few years ago, posted by soldiers in Iraq. It said “America isn’t at War. America is at the Mall.”

But maybe that kid you see at the mall was just in Iraq and is having trouble adjusting to the distance between these two worlds. Thankfully people like Scott Anderson, the founder of At Ease, (who took great pains to not take personal credit for its success) are stepping up to help them bridge this gap.

Can you help him spread the word or do whatever you can, even if it takes just a moment, to help someone coming home from wars we seem to have forgotten?

Law Review about The Wire

I read a great law review article recently about The Wire, which is available here. I have only watched a few episodes of this highly-reviewed show, but even these few gave me new insights into a system that I work in every day from but typically only see from one angle. I don’t remember the specific scene or story that hit home with me, only that, after watching it, I felt as if I had more insight into the motivations of the other players in the system, as if I had, however slightly, “reversed roles” (a term associated with psychodrama) with police officers or prosecutors after watching and thinking about this rare, non-melodramatic portrayal of a complex system.

The article made me want to watch the entire series, calling it, “a riveting show: the greatest television series ever made.” While “riveting” shows with compelling drama are important to draw viewers in, what’s often missing from “cop shows,” at least in my view, is truth. I’m not complaining about a lack of nonfiction shows on t.v., only pointing out that, of the vast majority of “cop shows,” most feature some variation of the same old story which essentially places a black hat on the defendant to match the white one given to the pure-hearted prosecutor, or the evil-fighting cop. You know the story, the poor, toiling cop or the outgunned prosecutor, the one who fights for justice all alone, who would have gotten to the killer if it wasn’t for that meddling Constitution, as quoted by the slick defense attorney who clearly wants to put the guilty pedophile back into your kids’ school. It’s the same old story and it’s running in several slightly different versions across cable reruns as we speak.

Thus, the problem isn’t that there are too many fictional shows, only that the one-sidedness of this story, and the repetition of it create archetypes within viewer’s minds and thus create something potentially dangerous: people who stumble into the system for the first time (as jurors or observers, or people who question you at a party about “how do you defend someone you know is guilty?”) with preconceived beliefs, stories which feature defense attorneys as pro-crime, and systemic problems as simple, and solvable, if we’d simply stop that pesky Constitution from getting in the way of “the good guys” who work for the government.

But the system I see, and that these people typically pre-judge, is nothing like the one featured on t.v., (at least outside of The Wire and a few exceptions, like Raising the Bar) in this heavily cliched genre. Here’s one example: since Omaha’s Police have a very powerful union, their contract is correspondingly generous, giving them (the last time I checked) 4 hours of overtime for each court appearance. Thus, when I appear in traffic court in the morning I see less of a call for justice as I do a call for overtime.

These police officers aren’t necessarily greedy, they simply understand that the quickest way to make the most money, to maximize their payment under their contract with the least possible time commitment, is to make a lot of minor traffic arrests. Here’s how it might work: You’re an officer and you work the night shift, getting off in the early morning. If you appear in court, you have to appear in court at 9:00 a.m., but you get overtime pay for four hours for simply showing up. If you arrest someone for driving under suspension, it doesn’t take long and the case is usually wrapped up in under an hour.

In fact, I’ll never forget the look on my client’s face when he told me he had a good case since “even the officer said I should plead not guilty at arraignment and take it to trial.” I had to educate him about the system by explaining that the officer wasn’t giving that advice for his benefit but simply needed him to enforce his right to trial for the four hours of overtime he needed. His shining face in the second row proved it, and also meant the driving during suspension case against my client was a slam dunk, sending the officer home in about fifteen minutes. The City, however, paid him four hours of overtime for that appearance and, who could blame him, he laughed all the way to the bank almost every day.

Sadly, however, hardly anyone within the system was in a position to change it, to save this clear waste of tax dollars In fact, the prosecutor’s attempt to curtail this, which involved asking for money to hire another prosecutor whose job it would have been to secure early pleas and whose salary would be paid many times over in cost savings to the city was met with resistance, likely by the city councilman who knew how powerful the police union was and how they treated politicians who tried to cut into it. In short, the system I saw was complex, driven both by a desire for self-enrichment as well as its obvious goal of law enforcement.

But, while the latter goal was visible, and retold on television many times a night, the less visible goal, that involved the officer who knew how to work the system to maximize his income, was never seen on t.v. In fact, even when I try to tell it here, it likely doesn’t resonate, as it’s complex, not very dramatic and has difficulty competing with the “last honest cop” story that’s deeply imbedded on our minds, put there as we watched Southland, or Blue Bloods, (or fill in the blank) last night.

But the Wire is different. The law review article describes it as “in the business of telling America truths about itself that would be unbearable even if it were interested in hearing them.” While the fact that America isn’t even interested in these “unbearable” truths is depressing, the fact that the Wire ran so successfully is reason for hope. In fact, if the writers and producers of the Wire have figured out a way to tell these stories that captures the attention of us modern “t.v. babies,” who naturally like our drama to reinforce stereotypes rather than uncovering hidden truths, that creates the possibility of a happy ending to this sad story. As the article puts it, the Wire pulls this off as it “demonstrates that complexity and social context can make for a gripping tale.”

Maybe television can educate rather than inculcate, I thought. Then I read further and discover that The Wire educates us about something I see all the time but that is rarely discussed:

The Wire shows us something truly frightening about systemic dysfunction- that most of the harm done is neither dramatic nor venal. Sometimes individuals make heroic or repugnant choices, but the Wire insists on complicating not only the notion of villainy, but also the notion of heroism. It repeatedly presents individual choice as severely constrained, even dictated, by the logic of the system. Harm is done, day in and day out, by regular people trying to do and keep their jobs.

... the viewer is shown how how moral choice is shaped and constrained by systemic forces.... Those who attempt to live within an organizational structure but refuse to obey these rules... are nearly always punished, demoted, forced to resign, banished, murdered...

This reminds me of the Supreme Court case Garcetti v. Ceballos, in which a Deputy District Attorney did his job as a prosecutor and investigated the truth of an affidavit sworn out to secure a warrant. When he found inaccuracies, he recommended dismissing the case, but was met with resistance. When he complained further, he was denied promotion. Shortly after that he transferred, or banished, to the Palookaville Division. His “mistake” was in making an individual choice, rather than a systemic one. If he would have simply passed the potential harm onto the the defendant, ignored his oath and letting the officer’s lie lie (as the system likely demanded) he would have kept his job, perhaps even received a promotion.

While this truth that the Wire reveals, and the real example of it, are depressing, what’s exciting about the show is simply that it was made and that it was successful, running for years on HBO. Thus, while the Wire illustrates that “those who attempt to live within an organizational structure but refuse to obey these rules... are nearly always punished,” it somehow survived what was likely a similar organizational structure, lived to see the light of day, and told important stories that still circulate. In a world filled with the melodramatic stories of which Law and Order is composed, is people’s minds are still open to stories that go beyond the stereotypical, melodramatic stories that make up most of primetime.

Benjamin Wittes' Prefers "Civility" over Law, English Language

Glenn Greenwald wrote this week about Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution, quoting Wittes as calling the Obama Administration’s decision not to investigate the Bush Administration for approving torture “one of the more courageous things ... it has done.”

That’s a common sentiment, but Wittes goes further, claiming that “there has actually been a great deal of accountability for past detention policy -- the disclosure of internal memos, for example.”

Imagine making that argument in court, after your client was convicted of, oh, say obstructing justice for destroying the videotapes that documented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.

Or imagine that your client was convicted of simply waterboarding KSM one of these 183 times, as occurred during the Reagan Administration, when the DOJ prosecuted, and convicted, a Texas Sheriff, and his deputies (whose “only following orders” defense was unpersuasive to the jury) for waterboarding suspects.

Imagine beginning your sentencing argument, “Your Honor, a lenient sentence is in order here because ‘there has actually been a great deal of accountability’ because of ‘the disclosure of internal memos.’” The judge put your client in prison, a place which, to Wittes, “has only the most limited role in transitions of power in a democracy,” (More on this later) after laughing out loud.

But Wittes continues, with a straight face, stating that “What [Human Rights First] calls “accountability for torture” is, in my book, the criminalization of policy differences–nothing more or less.” Wow. Let that sink in for a second. He first disputes use of the word torture by HRF (ignoring Gen. Taguba’s conclusion that “"there is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes") and substitutes his own term of it, “policy differences.”

Imagine stating that in your sentencing argument, or your jury argument for that matter, “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, my client didn’t torture KSM when he simulated drowning 183 times in a month, he just had a “policy difference with U.S., International law, and the Geneva Conventions.”

What becomes crystal clear is that Wittes believes strongly in Equal Protection, as long as some people are “more equal than others.” If you’re a sheriff in Texas, the law applies, but if you’re one of the people, like Dick Cheney, who approved of “enhanced interrogation techniques” enforcing existing law is “criminaliz[ing] policy differences.”

The point here is not to attack Dick Cheney as the decision to not prosecute him, and others, would clearly have implicated people on both sides of the aisle and perhaps stretched to members of the Obama Administration, who have been praised for breaking campaign promises and continuing Bush Administration “detention” policies. In fact, even Michael Hayden, head of NSA during the Bush Administration, praised Obama’s similar policies, describing that “[y]ou've got state secrets, targeted killings, indefinite detention, renditions, the opposition to extending the right of habeas corpus to prisoners at Bagram.”

Instead, the point is that to people like Wittes, the law is for people like you and me, who would, if we were convicted, have to deal with harsh sentencing guidelines and the most incarceration-oriented criminal justice system in existence, a system that was clearly created on a bipartisan basis. What an American general calls a “war crime” isn’t anything for us to worry our pretty little heads over; it’s just a simple “policy difference.” Torture of not only human beings, but also language.

But the most disgusting part of Wittes’ argument is his praise for the Obama Administration key position, which Wittes “believe[s] correct,” not to “do violence to the two-century-old tradition in American life of incoming presidents’ not prosecuting outgoing ones.”

Notice that rhetorical trick? The word “violence,” which carries a negative connotation, isn’t used to describe waterboarding a person more than 3 times a day for a month, (or to destroy the evidence of it) or to describe the more than 100 prisoners who died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2006.

Instead it’s cleverly employed to describe what Obama would have been doing if he had fulfilled his campaign promise to investigate and prosecute people who committed war crimes during our “War on Terror.” Thus, it is not “violent” to securely bind a person’s feet, elevate them and bind him securely “to an inclined bench, approximately four feet by seven feet.[to place a cloth] over the forehead and eyes, [and then apply water] to the cloth in a controlled manner [to produce] the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'."

But to prosecute someone who performed this, or ordered it, that would be to “do violence.” Doublespeak at its finest.

With this double standard and clear doublespeak in mind, consider how Wittes would confront the “policy differences” he would have with someone like Julian Assange. Writing, in another post, about the problem in holding someone like Assange, an Australian citizen, accountable under U.S. law, issue, Wittes openly admits to a belief in hypocrisy:

If Congress can make such a demand on Assange, the U.S. would be in a bad position to object if the Congress of People’s Deputies made a similar demand on the Washington Post. I actively want more Chinese secrets revealed against the will of the Chinese government. Indeed, were Wikileaks spending more of its time undermining authoritarianism and less of its time undermining democracies, I might admire it. And I would find outrageous efforts by foreign governments to require American news outlets to keep their secrets for them. I’m not against double standards in all circumstances, so it’s possible that the right answer here is hypocrisy: Doing what we need to do and objecting when other countries do the same. But I agree with Tom that the situation would be very awkward.

“Awkward?” Seriously? I don’t think that’s how foreign governments, or people like Assange (who last week raised, as a defense against extradition, his fear of extrajudicial detention by the U.S.) would describe a law is an admitted double standard, do you? “Very sorry to disturb you, Sir, but your blatant hypocrisy in detaining me indefinitely for doing something you routinely do and condone is making me feel, well, awkward.”

Getting past the “awkwardness” Wittes acknowledges, he at least admits the problem inherent in holding Assange accountable under American law for what the press in the U.S. routinely does by disclosing classified material given to them by third parties. He writes that he is “tentatively persuaded that some jurisdictional limitation is probably appropriate” and goes on to state that he “suspect[s]” that such a limit on U.S. law would “probably get Assange off the hook.”

So, to recap, Wittes believes:

1. The Obama Administration’s decision not to investigate what U.S. General Taguba called “war crimes” on our part is “one of the more courageous things ... it has done.”
2. The Obama Administration’s disclosure of internal memos composed during the Bush Administration describing torture is “a great deal of accountability for past detention policy.”
3. There was no need for this “accountability” anyway since “‘accountability for torture’ is... the criminalization of policy differences–nothing more or less.” “
4. Obama rightfully decided that waterboarding someone 183 times in a month and destroying evidence of this was not worthy of prosecution and, if he had done so, he would have done violence to tradition.
5. Wittes is “not against double standards” and the “right answer” is possibly “hypocrisy,” even though this could be “awkward.”

All of which leads to Wittes’ belief in the best way of dealing with Julian Assange, who might object to the “awkwardness” of indefinite detention for violating U.S. law, which even Wittes admits “probably” doesn’t apply to him. Wittes writes:

[T]hat sex crimes case in Sweden is looking better and better as way of neutralizing Assange.

Got that? As if the cries to simply assassinate Assange (by numerous U.S. officials and future Presidential candidates) weren’t enough, Wittes openly acknowledges how convenient it would be for the most powerful nation on the earth, (with vast resources, available hypocrisy, immunity from war crimes prosecutions, and against whom the disclosure of internal memos brings “great... accountability”) if Julian Assange were neutralized due to a “sex crimes” prosecution.

We need a well-functioning judicial system to protect the public from people who break the law and also to protect those accused of violating it from wrongful conviction or punishment. But what should also be clear, but often isn’t, is the need to also protect people like Julian Assange from those who would use the criminal law to “neutralize” him, people like Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution.

In fact, have you ever seen a clearer example of someone who does not believe in the Equal Protection clause? Or, for that matter, the meaning of words such as “courage,” “accountability,” “torture,” “violence,” or even “awkward?”

Jefferson “consider[ed] trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” Wittes shows the importance of such a right for people like Assange (or you and me) as well as how easily, and cavalierly, the government- or the think tanks that support it, no matter which party is in power- can stray, claim immunity from, or simply disregard, the principles of its Constitution.

Wittes' response to Greenwald, however, reaches a new low, accusing Greenwald of a "simple-mindedness with respect to wrenchingly difficult questions and a very ugly eagerness to attack honorable people in government, in the press, and in public life more generally who are trying to do their jobs or to express views that differ from his."

You see, when you take issue with those who take Gen. Taguba's conclusion that "war crimes" were committed in our names seriously, you should be civil about it to avoid "awkwardness," I guess.

The man who, very civilly, mind you, calls Obama's decision not to investigate the "interrogation policy" (or what Gen. Taguba called "war crimes") of the past administration "courageous," who equates "accountability" with memo disclosure, and waterboarding with "policy differences," who isn't afraid to employ "double standards” or "hypocrisy," despite its awkwardness, you must comply with one request when you visit his blog, lest you lapse into an attack on the "honorable people," like Wittes, who hold such beliefs:

We have no purity tests here–just a preference for civility and decency.

Audiobook Recommendation #2: Faithful Place

Just finished the audiobook to Tana French’s Faithful Place, and loved it. Francis “Frank” Mackey, the narrator, is a 40-something Detective in the undercover Division of “The guards,” Dublin’s Police Force. The discovery of a suitcase, found during the demolition of an abandoned flat in “Faithful Place,” a tenement section of Dublin, where Mackey grew up, leads him back home, where he hasn’t been since leaving as a teenager some twenty-two years ago.

The book draws you into a web of family lies and secrets, most of which stretch back generations and remain unclear even to the characters- or the narrator- until they search their own histories, psyches and memories for other things the discovery of the suitcase, or the return of Frank, uncovers. I finished this book today, just as I turned into my own neighborhood and, as I write about it tonight, I’m reminded of my friend Simon, who I met in Coventry, England at the University of Warwick in the early 90’s. Because he studied film history, we talked films a lot and when I asked him what he thought about the one we just watched, he’d say, “I need to think about it for a day or two and then I’ll let you know.”

Like Simon, maybe I should wait a day before I call this a great read, but I think I’m safe in predicting that the strength of the story and the wit and snap of the dialogue will hold up after a few days, or even years. It’s a mystery, but it’s more than that too, as, at its core, it’s a noir story about loyalty to family, to profession, to quick-passing childhood and to clashes between these roles. I wouldn’t call it particularly deep reading, as it’s a fast moving mystery/detective story.

But it’s deep enough, at once both intense in terms of its depiction of alcohol-fueled rage and its effects and intriguing in terms of its ability to make you think deeply about the motivations and techniques of an experienced undercover officer who laughs at the falsely clean morality of the “murder squad.” I don’t know for sure whether, like the best stories I read, I’ll still be thinking about this one in a year. But I’d guess that I will be, and wouldn’t be surprised if, in that same year, it hasn’t been turned into a film.

Back from Break with Book Reviews

I took what I thought would be a short break from blogging, but didn’t realize it would last for years. My big plans, to write a play or a book instead of a blog, are still that, plans, so I’m back, hoping to make a habit out of this once again. I’ve done a lot of reading too, in the meantime, mostly in those hours I spend in the car every day, driving to courthouses in different counties, if you can call an audiobook reading, that is.

Because most people don’t spend nearly as much time in the car as I do, here, over the next few days, are the top five audiobooks I’ve found over the past year. Some are law related and some aren’t, but they’re all good.

Matterhorn, by Carl Marlantes: It’s described as “A novel of the Viet Nam war” and to me it was like listening in on the actual conversations and adventures of Marines, most of whom were still teenagers, around the time I was born. Marlantes, who later became a Rhodes Scholar after serving as a Marine officer in Viet Nam, has been working on this novel for 40 years. It’s his first, as he’s rewritten and reworked it since he initially put it on paper shortly after coming home from Viet Nam. Thus, it combines the authentic dialogue that only a witness with a fresh memory could record with the wisdom that comes from forty years of looking back. I enjoyed the descriptions of battle, the adventures, but also was intrigued by the soldiers’ dialogue about the changes taking place back at home, particularly race relations, in the 60’s. I was born in 1967, so it was valuable to hear what was “in the air” at that time. I’ve always sort of regretted not joining the military, and this book made me both more regretful about missing out on that opportunity as well as very thankful that I didn’t end up being commanded by some of the officers he portrays. Bronson Pinchot, of Perfect Strangers, does an amazing job reading as well.

Next, Dublin cops and their drunken families. (I haven’t actually finished this one yet, but unless the ending greatly disappoints, it’s a great book.) I have a long trip tomorrow morning and a motion to suppress in Omaha in the afternoon, so I’ll finish it up. It’s nice to be back, if there’s anybody out there...

Changes to the TLC Listserve Coming Soon?

I wrote yesterday about some of the things Jude Basile said when he spoke to TLC alumni in Dallas in November.

Another thing he promised, or rather simply noted, was that changes would be coming to the listserve. He didn't specify what those changes were, but I cringed, knowing that changes like this rarely work out the way the people who made them anticipated. The Law of Unintended Consequences soon takes effect and the attempt to curtail what is perceived as "objectionable" speech actually serves to amplify it.

But, in my experience, those with the power to change listserve rules rarely realize the effect of their actions until they enact them, and learn the hard way.

So what changes, if any, do you think TLC, Inc., will make to the listserve?

More importantly, will they work out as planned?

"Splendid People and Magnificent Warriors" No Longer Staff Members at TLC

Yesterday, I wrote about the fact that Carl Bettinger, Fredi Sison and Lynne Bratcher would not be invited back as staff members of Trial Lawyers College. This saddened me as they were three of my favorite staff members at the college in 2005.

Last October, newly named TLC President Jude Basile decided to remove the same three people from the Board of Directors of TLC. That same month, Jude stated the following about his decision and TLC's new direction:

Fellow Warriors:

First of all, and as I commence my service as President of Trial Lawyers College, I want to tell all of you how excited I am about our future. This College is responsible for such magnificent transformations among our Warrior Alumni and for countless quests for justice throughout our country and even beyond our borders. There is scarcely an important case on the American legal landscape that cannot be traced back to TLC in some manner or form. We are doing great things at Thunderhead and at our Regional Programs.

But, before we can commence our future, we must deal with our present and that is the purpose of this communication, which is submitted to the F-Warriors Board in prompt response to their request.

A. My Goal for TLC

My goal for TLC is to take steps now designed to ensure the long-term survival of Trial Lawyers College. In order to do this, my view is that the “STAR” of our College must be its educational product. Our long-term viability cannot be tied to any single personality or person. What we teach and deliver must be so innovative and ably taught that it and it alone is what attracts people to our method.

As I have reflected on what we must do and how we must move evolve, this has served as a guiding star for me.

B. Reasons Behind the Re-Structuring of the TLC “Big Board”

The present Board of Directors for the College has been in place for a very long time when compared to the life of the College. In order for me to institute a program designed to concentrate on our product and achieve TLC’s long-term survival goal, I thought it was important to shape my own governing board. In doing that, I gave my efforts in this regard many weeks of thought and reflection – especially since I was aware that change of the evolving type I needed was going to be BIG. However, I believe we are at a point in the life of this College where we can shoulder BIG changes.

So, as a first step, I considered the need to seek support and guidance from people with whom I share mutual trust and respect.

This is NOT to say I do not have the highest respect for the people who have long served on the TLC Board. On the contrary, I do. Nonetheless, I thought it was important to do what was the absolute hardest thing to do: Reconstitute the Board somewhat to bring in fresh ideas and new thought processes in support of the goals I am required to devise as an incoming President of a respected but evolving institution.
Surely, such a restructuring might bruise feelings – feelings of people I admire and respect. Such a restructuring might also lead to speculation about potential hidden agendas and negative things of that type. I can only say that I mean no injury to any other Warrior. I have no agenda but the agenda I am honestly reciting here. But, in order for me to attempt, initiate and accomplish these things, changes at TLC were needed in my opinion.

So, knowing that to be honestly true, I did not take the easier, softer way. I did what I thought was right.

Over time, my efforts—along with those of the new Board —will have to speak for themselves. If I am given a chance to succeed and the support needed to get a fresh, fair start down this road, I believe we can do grand things together.

C. The Changes to the TLC Board

After deliberate, personal and respectful discussions with the people involved, I requested and received the resignations of Katlin Larimer, Fredi Lynn Sison, Carl Bettinger and Lynne Bratcher– all splendid people and magnificent Warriors. ...

After having handled these painful changes with as much kindness as possible under admittedly difficult circumstances, I then asked three (3) Warriors to come onto The TLC Board, subject to ultimate Board approval: John Sloan, Ann Valentine (who accepted my request on the morning after your Conference Call), and James R. “J.R.” Clary, Jr. I know that a potential fourth slot was mentioned during your conference, but—after reflecting on it further—we are going to keep the new additions at 3.

The 3 new Board members (Sloan, Valentine and Clary) will join the 5 people currently serving on the Board at Gerry’s home in Santa Barbara, California on an early weekend in November. At that point, the reconstituted Board will be approved, after any discussion required. (I realize that some of this is slightly different from that which was reported last evening, but I ask all of you to please understand this is a “work in progress” and there are some changes which have occurred today. However, I truly want all of you to know what is happening as best I can accurately report it and as quickly as I could get it to you.)

An Executive Board Committee will also be submitted for approval consisting of the Officers of the Board: Gerry Spence, Chairman of the Board; Jude Basile, President; Cyndy Short, Secretary; Milton Grimes, Vice-President; and Jim Nugent, Treasurer. Thereafter, we can begin moving forward.

In addition to this restructuring of persons, we will also institute term limits for TLC Board Members so that fresh ideas and people can continue to be infused into the TLC Board. Although still evolving, I believe that term limits are an important component to the reconstitution of this Board. However, as I hope all of you can understand, we need to make certain that those limits occur with some type of orderly, staggered regularity. Thus, nothing is yet final on this score but I am committed to these limits. We just need to devise them properly and I ask for your support and patience there.

The Executive Committee will not be subject to term limits, although the members of the Executive Committee and their service on that Committee are always subject to Board approval. The F-Warrior Board President will continue to sit on the governing board and will not be subject to any term limits imposed by the Big Board.

D. Other Changes

I also feel it is important to have all of the finances and all of the contractual relationships relating to Trial Lawyers College fully evaluated. Thus, we will employ an independent auditing firm and independent counsel to accomplish these inquiries.

E. Gender and Cultural Diversity Issues

In your October 6, 2009 Conference, I know there were concerns expressed about the number of women and minorities serving on the governing board for TLC. Frankly, I understand, respect and share those concerns. We have will have two (2) women on the Board (Cyndy Short and Ann Valentine), along with Betsy Greene as F-Warrior Board President and Laurie Goodman as our Executive Director. We will have Milton Grimes as a Board Member and as part of our Executive Committee.

However, I am acutely aware that the majority of resignations from the old governing board were women – a reality deeply impacting the hearts of the F-Warriors, which means it also will be deeply felt by our Alumni.

Although there were reasons for the resignation selections made (and I simply must ask for your trust in that regard), I do not wish to see any marginalization of women or other culturally diverse people continue as a trend at TLC. Thus, I would ask for the assistance of the F-Warriors Board in suggesting appropriate and qualified Warriors, respected by the Alumni, to be nominated for Big Board service as the term limits of the current Board Members expire.

I understand there are some discussions about the formation of an Alumni-supported or FWB-Sponsored Committee in this regard which could serve this purpose AND as a support mechanism for women and minorities and for all of the diverse portions of our Warrior base. Personally, I think this is a magnificent idea and I would wholly support such an effort. Moreover, once the nominations were made, I would make certain the suggested additions were put before the Board during the appropriate election cycles for a Board vote. I would also work to ensure that the nominated parties were given fair and meaningful candidacies.

Because any nominated party or any party seeking re-election would be subject to Board vote, the suggestions made by the FWB or the Alumni would have to be non-binding, but I welcome the opportunity to work with the F-Warriors in making such a voice in the Board nominating and voting process a reality.

F. November 14, 2009 Alumni Retreat in Dallas

I am honored to be invited to attend the TLC Alumni Retreat in Dallas on the weekend of the 14th and to have the opportunity to address our Warriors. I am looking forward to that opportunity.

In addition, I understand that there may be questions about all of these developments and hopes and goals. I will submit myself to the Alumni for whatever questions are percolating out there among our folks and will do my level best to answer them directly and honestly.

G. Conclusion

I hope this statement is of some benefit to the members of the F-Warriors Board – a Board I admire, representing—as it does—the very soul of our College: The Alumni. I have done my best to be direct and responsive. I have no plan or agenda that will ever be hidden from any of you.

You have requested a statement of my intentions and actions and I have complied just as swiftly as I reasonably could. My preference is that all of you utilize this information to craft your own uniform, accurate report to the Alumni about all that has occurred. On the other hand, I impose no conditions or restrictions on the use of this statement. Consequently, all of my friends and Fellow Warriors on the F-Warriors Board may use this statement as the FWB may think best and proper.

I trust you.

Sincerely,

Jude Basile

Jude states that "there were reasons for the resignation selections made" and that he "simply must ask for our trust in that regard." Fair enough.

But, when he came to Dallas and spoke to alumni attending the F Warrior Annual retreat, he told us, in response to a concerned questioner, that Carl, Fredi and Lynne's removal from the TLC Board did not mean they would not be invited back as staff. In other words, Jude told us, in November, that "off the board" didn't mean "out as staff." People, some of whom had just met Carl, Fredi and Lynne (and Kaitlyn too) seemed relieved.

But that's not how it worked out, as Carl, Fredi and Lynne recently learned.

Three question arise:

1. When actions don't comport with promises, how long should trust continue?
2. How long will TLC alumni believe their ears when their eyes reveal broken promises?
3. Will anyone, from the TLC Board, or among the staff, ever dare to voice an honest opinion again, if it contradicts with those in power and thus risks removal and, later, exclusion?

More TLC Shakeups

I haven't blogged much lately- feel crazy busy with work- but found this comment on a past post "Seeking TLC Feedback:"

I hear that earlier this week (February 2010), the TLC Board of Directors officially fired Fredi Sison from staff. Since you are on the F Warriors Board, would you please check on this? I hope it is not true or, if it is true, I hope it is a decision that can be reconsidered.

Fredi is simply one of the best. That's why she was chosen to be on the Board of Directors of Spence's Trial Lawyers College. When Jude Basile took over as President of TLC last year, he removed Fredi, Carl Bettinger, Kaitlyn Larimer, and Lynne Bratcher from the Board.

When we gathered in Dallas in November, for the F Warrior retreat, someone asked Jude if these former Board members would return as staff members. He said they would, and went on to say that he wanted to open up the process by which staff are chosen.

So why no openness around this new development? I don't know, but I found another comment, which further intrigued me:

So, when are you or someone going to write about Fredi Sisson, Mary Pekam and Carl Bettinger being taken off staff by Jude Basile? What the hell is wrong with TLC and why are the alumni letting the new leadership get away with throwing the best teachers off the staff? The silence is deafening!

Here's your answer: Because of the silence, only a few people even know! And because no one knows the facts, the few that know about these "firings" (they're volunteers who pay their own way to TLC events!) can only speculate, like this commenter:

I have heard that Fredi Sison, Mary Peckham and Carl Bettinger are all off staff because they are friends with the former Executive Director. Can you please write about this? Who else has been taken off staff and why? If this is true, it is bogus and bullshit! What makes me the most sick is how no one speaks up, complains about or protests the very unTLC like actions of the new president and of Spence himself.

I agree that the "silence is deafening" and that someone needs to check on this so the alumni know the facts. I haven't heard anything from any other FWB members, so assume that this will be news to them too. But, in an effort to answer these questions and separate fact from speculation, I sent this email to the FWB:

"I've heard from several sources that the Board removed Fredi Sison, Carl Bettinger and Mary Peckham from TLC staff, but have heard nothing about this on the listserve or from other FWB members. I've also been asked by several people to find out more information about this. Isn't this in direct contradiction to what Jude promised in Dallas in response to a question about whether former Board members would return as staff? Isn't is also in contradiction to Jude's promise to strive for more openness about such matters?"

Will we hear more silence or are we entitled to the facts, and maybe an explanation if it turns out Fredi, Mary and Carl are no longer on staff?

$100 Flat Fee for Misdemeanors?

See any problems with an attorney who is willing to take cases for this rate? I found this World Herald article from May 12, 2005:

A court-appointed lawyer in Douglas County Court who spends 20 minutes representing someone with a traffic ticket is now paid the same as a lawyer who spends 20 hours defending a suspected murderer.

Douglas County judges have changed the pay for court-appointed attorneys from $50 an hour to a flat fee of $100 for any traffic or criminal case. The attorneys represent indigent defendants when a public defender has a conflict of interest.

The change, which took effect May 1, is expected to save the county $10,000 a year, said presiding Douglas County Judge Thomas McQuade.

Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley and some Omaha attorneys are concerned that a poor person charged with a crime could see second-rate representation as a result of the change.

Riley said the pay change causes him concern and raises some questions.

"It puts a lot of lawyers in private practice in the difficult position of deciding whether they're going to take appointments and represent the indigent," he said.

Riley said that a lot of young lawyers cut their teeth on court- appointed work and that the lower pay could discourage them from getting involved.

McQuade said yearly increases in attorneys' fees prompted the change.

Years ago, he said, the county spent between $30,000 and $35,000 to pay the attorneys. Now, he said, it's up to between $85,000 and $90,000.

"It's been kind of a creeping thing," he said. "This is just a way that we thought we could just control our budget a little bit better."

He said the change won't jeopardize poor defendants. He said 90 percent or more are represented by the Public Defender's Office.

McQuade said the judges asked some lawyers before changing the pay whether they would accept court-appointed cases at $100 a case, and many said yes.

"We got a very large list of lawyers who said, 'Absolutely, we'll do that,'" he said.

But Eric Whitner, an Omaha defense attorney who took 10 to 15 appointments per year under the old pay structure, said he'll no longer take on the cases.

Whitner, who charges $150 per hour for misdemeanor cases and $200 an hour for felonies, said the $100 rate is "an insult to me. It's an insult to my staff."

Scaling back the already insufficient pay "sends the wrong message," he said, and raises a concern that indigent defendants won't get access to experienced, knowledgeable lawyers if the Public Defender's Office can't defend them.

"They deserve adequate representation, just like anyone else," said Whitner, a member of the Nebraska Minority and Justice Task Force.

McQuade said there's "no question" that the court-appointed lawyers do more than $100 worth of work representing the defendants from the time of arrest until a case is concluded in County Court or transferred to District Court.

Under the old payment system, the "vast majority" of court- appointed lawyers made agreements with judges to charge only between $50 and $150 per case, even though they worked more than one to three hours, McQuade said.

"Obviously, they were willing to go ahead and sacrifice something just to help out," he said.

The flat fee applies only to cases in county court. In district court, attorneys are paid $65 an hour for out-of-court work and $80 an hour for in-court work. The pay is capped at $12,000 for first- degree murder and $3,500 for any other criminal charge. A judge has flexibility to pay more for an extended or complex case.

Court-appointed attorneys in Lancaster County Court are paid $50 per hour, with no limit on the number of hours, said Becky Bruckner, the court's judicial administrator.

Omaha defense attorney Mike Fabian, who has done a lot of court- appointed work, also questioned the change.

"It just causes me some concern that there is no means by which different types of more serious cases can be reviewed and adjustments made so that all of the assets are there to defend the case," he said.

McQuade said the county's first duty is to make sure indigent clients have adequate, competent representation.

"If we can get it done for less money, the same kind of work, I think it's our duty to make sure we try to do that," he said.

What do you think? Can we truly "get it done for less money" with the "same kind of work?" How many misdemeanors get tried to juries when the lawyer's fee is capped at $100? Not one that I know of in ten years.

What do you think Thomas Jefferson, who called trial by jury "the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" would say about such an arrangement?

Seeking TLC Feedback

As I've driven across the city this week, I've written many blog posts in my head, silently promising to write them down when I get home. Somehow, the brilliant idea doesn't sound so great once I find the chance to type and I postpone writing long enough to forget what I meant to say.

But when I sit down tonight, still trying to adjust to Daylight Savings Time, hoping to write something worthwhile, that sheds more light than heat, it occurs to me that, as Gerry Spence once said, there's a good reason why we were given two ears and only one mouth.

So rather than talking, I'd rather listen.

Rather than telling you what I think, I want to hear what you think about the Board Shakeup at TLC, the alumni meeting in Dallas, and whatever else is on your mind. Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep things civil while still keeping it real.

What's on your mind, that you'd like to see the F Warrior Board discuss in Dallas?

Good News!

I don't know about you, but I can use some. While a lot of news is bad, I came across a story that hasn't gotten much attention but which I found uplifting. As a prelude, one year ago tonight, Obama was elected. When he proposed to sit down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and the Police Sergeant who arrested him, James Crowley, people reacted largely according to the way they voted: some admired the gesture and some laughed at it.

But when I read this week that two men met quietly in a Cambridge bar, talking for an hour over a couple beers, out of the spotlight and barely reported in the press, I thought it was a good sign. The two men? Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and Sgt. James Crowley, minus Barack Obama. As the article described it:

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley were spotted at a pub in Cambridge Wednesday night.

The owner of "River Gods" told WBZ the two sat in a booth together and talked for about an hour.

While many of Obama's campaign promises have been broken and many of Bush's worst policies continued, the fact that what was called the "Beer Summit" led to a second round of talks, and beers, I take that as Reason for Hope.

Email from the High School

Went to a seminar this afternoon about malpractice risks for attorneys, simply for the insurance discount, bored to death and thankful for the internet access. Halfway through, I get an email from my daughter's high school:

We were alerted by the Omaha Police Dept. that a student had left his home earlier today and was probably armed. While no threats of any kind were directed toward the school or any students, we followed our established procedures to ensure the safety and security of all students. Furthermore, we also worked with the Omaha Police Department who did find the student a short time after they had alerted the school of this matter, thus bringing this incident to a close.

Knowing what I do about bureaucracies, I cynically suspected either exaggeration or minimization, but also suddenly realized what was important, why I leave the house in the morning, and that risks can appear where you never suspected them.

Is TLC a Cult?

A commenter leaves a message:

Do you think TLC is a cult?

The question reminds me of a line from the movie The Survivors when Walter Matthau's character confronts Robin Williams' "Donald Quinelle" who's joined a cult of survivalists:

Sonny Paluso: You think Wes is God, don't you.
Donald Quinelle: No, not God, Just an ordinary man. Maybe a little ahead of his time, but just an ordinary man.
Sonny Paluso: Wes is an asshole.
Donald Quinelle: Blasphemy! Oh, you'll smoke a turd in hell for that!

In other words, Gerry isn't a God, he's just an ordinary man and anyone who says differently has blasphemed our Dear Leader and must be either reprogrammed or shunned! Boil up a batch of Kool Aid, somebody's starting to sober up!

Just kidding. My honest answer is that I don't think it is. But I fear it's becoming a cult of personality, more loyal to personalities in power than to the principles that made it such an amazing experience.

I'm on the F Warrior Board. One of our rules, newly created, is that we can't divulge internal discussions. I'm not saying I agree with it or not, but it's a rule, voted in, after a particularly heated argument.

I bring it up to demonstrate why I edited the email I sent to the rest of the FWB tonight. I didn't selectively edit for my own purposes, in other words, but to comply with the rules. What I said might answer the question:

I was looking forward to Dallas but responses like [X's] that accuse the questioner of being "distrustful" make me think our meeting, so helpful last year, will likely degenerate into personal attacks and tests of loyalty (which is defined as not asking any tough questions) rather than an honest dialogue about what's best for the alumni.

It's true that change is hard, but it's also true that what organizations need is a variety of viewpoints and people with a willingness to ask tough questions and debate honestly. It's also true that our mission is independent of the TLC Board and that our Board was designed to support the alumni rather than the TLC Board.

In fact, dig out your Spring '06 Warrior where [] describes the beginnings of the F Warrior Club as "from the moment of its inception, it was designed to be comprised of the Alumni, by the Alumni and for the Alumni.. While supportive of TLC the F Warrior Club was always meant to be autonomous, answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

He goes on to say that the FWB was then created and "was never meant to govern, but only to serve the interests of the club."

Are we living up to that foundation now, assisting the President as he drafts explanations of his decision to "reorganize" the board toward obsequiousness, accusing each other of being "distrustful" when someone respectfully asks questions or points out that what she saw at Grad II differs from the official company line, undoubtedly in the name of fulfilling her role representing her regions' alumni?

And rather than accusing people who ask questions like this of having [issues] or of [spreading innuendo] perhaps we should be asking ourselves what is the best way to carry out our mission statement, the best way to "answer only to the needs of the alumni" as [T] put it several years ago.

Our interpretations of how to serve the alumni will differ, which is why we're all necessary. My fear is that our meeting will quickly become part witchhunt (for whoever forwarded [Y]'s email to [Z]) and part loyalty test where anyone who asks tough questions won't have them answered but will instead be attacked personally, accused of being distrustful for daring to speak out. My other fear is that, much like the TLC Board, we will degenerate into sycophancy toward personalities rather than carrying out TLC principles.

Not exactly what the alumni need right now, at such a trying time, in my opinion. How about instead we strive for transparency to the alumni who may be, understandably, confused about what's going on inside TLC?

Why not encourage all of us to speak openly, without fear from personal attack, much like we're taught to honor the gifts jurors share with us in voir dire?

I'm glad you're optimistic, [] but I'm not so sure, given what I've seen so far. Gerry says "love is always the winning argument" but I'm afraid we've forgotten it and that it will tear us apart in Dallas when we so desperately need to come together...

P.S. [X], Thank you for your courage in speaking out and being real. We know what happens to people who dare to exhibit these traits on the TLC Board, but we should encourage them on ours if we're truly "answering only to the needs of the Alumni."

TLC Board Shakeup

Just heard that new TLC President Jude Basile made some changes to the TLC Board of Directors, the "Big Board" as it's known. Out are Kaitlyn Larimer, Fredi Sison, Carl Bettinger, Lynne Bratcher, and Gerry's wife Imaging Spence.

As I said on our F Warrior conference call when asked my feelings about these changes:

"I think it's bullshit. Those people are my heroes"

And they are. But they're gone. And they, other than Imaging, also were the three highest vote receivers in Norm Pattis' blog survey.

I was surprised, but apparently others, at least those who voted, were not.

Why We Need Healthcare Reform

My daughter asked if her 15-year old best friend could stay the week, as one parent is going out of town and the other doesn't have room in the apartment that she shares with a friend to save money. Last Friday morning, after I agreed to this, my daughter told me:

"Dad, we need to get there early since she's got a broken toe and they don't have health insurance and they can't afford to take her to the doctor so they're just letting it heal on its own which means she needs extra time to walk to class, so can you get us there fifteen minutes early all week?"

Thickening Blue Line?

I ran a 10K this morning in downtown Omaha with thousands of other runners. I came in just over 56 minutes, which isn't fast but about killed me, especially since I haven't run more than 10 times this year.

One reason I was able to run without stopping was the people who came out to cheer us on, to yell out our pace and simply to watch. It was uplifting to be out early on a beautiful Fall morning, running in perfect weather and for a good cause, as the proceeds went to the American Lung Association. At the end of the race, my lungs were expanded yet exhausted.

The only downside to the morning came from a few of the police officers who waited along the route. I knew most of them from court and waved at them as we ran by. I even knew a few of their first names and yelled them out. Most waved back, a few even remembering my name. It was great.

But a few simply stood there behind mirrored shades, neither waving or even acknowledging my presence as we ran by. I understand this when it happens in court, how when you're with your fellow officers you don't want to acknowledge that you occasionally have conversations with a defense attorney. It always strikes me as funny, however, sort of like high school, how one group can't acknowledge that they associate with a different group when their friends are around.

The good news is that for every officer who stands there like the man with no eyes in Cool Hand Luke, there seem to be more who are willing to wave back on a Sunday morning, who seem willing to follow the law rather than becoming it.

I hope the ratio stays that way.

Real Lawyer?

Met with a 19 year old today who is confronted with a choice: plead to a charge that he’ll likely win at trial or wait for two months to take his case before a jury. The story he told me, about joining a gang as a kid when his family wasn’t there, and then finding out that only a few of this new “family” was true to him, was terribly sad. He described “taking a charge” for two felons after being pulled over in a car with a gun under the seat. Since he wasn’t a felon, taking the hit for them gave him some cool points and saved them from going to back to prison.

My wish would be to take the case to trial, but I’m not the one who has to wait it out in a jumpsuit. Still, I try to tell my clients that it’s my job not only to take care of them in the short-term, but also to make sure they’re advised to think about the consequences, in the long term, of another conviction. When I was a Public Defender and a client would ask to come in right away, to plead guilty and thus get an “out date” to visualize, I used to say, “give me a week and I’ll save you a month” or “give me a month and I’ll save you a year” in some circumstances. Put in these terms, it brought home the fact that the certainty they wished for, that drove them crazy in jail, wasn’t something to grab at teh first opportunity. Better to wait until the time was right and claim the type of certainty that not only made you feel better in the short term but also kept you from sitting in jail any longer than necessary.

But who am I to decide? While I tell people whether I think they should go to trial, I always tell them it’s their decision. How easy is it for me to say, “wait in jail for a couple months to go to trial” when I get to walk out of jail and sleep in my own bed that night?

During my first year out of law school, when I was working as a p.d. in misdemeanor court, a client called me with a compliment I’ll never forget. He said, “you’re a real lawyer.” It meant a lot, but it was also a little double edged. What I’d done for him, that made him call me with this compliment, was to assist him in pleading guilty to a charge that he would likely have won at trial. He was simply happy because he’d gotten out of jail before his trial date, which was better that he’d expected. He’d disregarded my advice to go to trial and chosen to admit to a weak charge, being unable to make bond and likely a little nervous about going to trial.

He thought I was a real lawyer not because I fought to take his case to trial, but because I arranged a deal that got him out of jail earlier than he’d expected, but which had also planted yet another charge on his record.

While I was worried about sufficiency of evidence and innocence, he was more concerned with sleeping in his own bed. I couldn’t blame him, but I didn’t feel very “real.”