Ernie The Attorney

Be impeccable with your word

I'm reading a great book right now called The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz. It's a little book with a simple message: namely, that there are four things you should focus on if you want to change your life in a powerful way.

1. Be impeccable with your word
2. Don't take anything personally  
3. Don't make assumptions
4. Always do your best  

The first Agreement is the hardest. To "be impeccable with your word" means, obviously, you should be honest and straightforward. But it's actually more than that. You should also avoid engaging in pettiness, especially gossip. The author points out that gossiping has become the main form of communication in our society. Speaking ill of people in a casual way is a form of gossip.

I mention this because today I read this blurb about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's comment about Bush as he departed the inauguration. This kind of statement is completely unnecessary, unless your point is to perpetuate pettiness.  But that seems to be a staple of most of our politicians.

Yesterday I saw a news clip of Joe Biden joking about needing notes when he was swearing and some administration officials, the point of which was to subtly criticize Chief Justice John Roberts' mishap in delivering the presidential oath. Next to Biden was President Obama, who was stone-faced—clearly not interested in joining in Biden's off-the-cuff pettiness.

I don't know if Obama has read The Four Agreements, but he seems to understand very well the principle of 'being impeccable with one's word.'  Unfortunately, many others do not understand this. Those who do, however, have a powerful edge.  One that, in Obama's case, will be very useful in meeting some major political challenges.

Help Haitian children get education.

Recently law students from several schools around the country came together to form a not for profit organization dedicated to helping pay tuition for children in Haiti. Among the founding members of this organization are several students from the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. The name of the group that they chose is Konbit Pou Edikasyon, which in Haitian creole means "Coming Together for Education". Please visit their website at www.konbitpe.org for more information.

Accepting new ways of acquiring information

Whenever people talk about the perils of using the Internet to do research I cringe. Generally, people who disdain using the Internet cite Wikipedia as a main problem. Of course, Wikipedia has some inaccurate information. But then, so does the Encyclopedia Britannica and any other source which is subject to typos, incomplete research, and human bias.

As a lawyer, I'm perfectly comfortable with conflicting information. The remedy for conflicting information is not to try to eliminate "flawed sources," but to think critically about all sources of information that you encounter. In some areas, Wikipedia is superior to traditional sources. For example, consider the definition of the word "puce."

The Visual Thesaurus describes this word as follows: 

"This low-frequency color word follows the pattern of its peers: the less frequently used a color word is, the less agreement you'll find about what color the word actually represents. All dictionaries agree that this one is a dark color, but list red, purple, or brown as its near relatives."

As you can see, we learn that the word "puce" is some kind of color, and that there is some controversy about exactly what this color is. The best definition for a color like this would be something exact. So how does Wikipedia define this word?

It begins with a "traditional" dictionary type definition: "Puce is a color that is defined as ranging from reddish-brown to purplish-brown, with the latter being the more widely-accepted definition found in reputable sources." But then, he goes on to provide a very precise definition using the RGB description that is used by computer programs to specify a particular color. Wikipedia defines puce as: R 204; G 136: B 153.

And this is what that color looks like if I enter that 'forumla'  into a computer program (and then screen capture it):

Now, that doesn't mean that this is an exact replica of the color puce. Perhaps the Wikipedia definition is not actually a precise definition. Or, even if it is, maybe your computer monitor is not properly calibrated. Or, maybe my computer monitor was not properly calibrated when I took a screenshot. There are many reasons why this could possibly not be an exact replica.

But, at least Wikipedia provides an attempt at an exact definition, using a method that lends itself to precision --- as opposed to the dictionary which simply says the color might be some variant of red, purple or brown.

In other words, the Internet and Wikipedia open the door to information that would otherwise be hard to describe in print. Of course, a dictionary could also provide a visual representation. But how many printed dictionaries are going to take the trouble to define every possible color by creating a visual representation?  Not many.  It costs too much.  

The Internet and Wikipedia, by contrast don't hardly cost nothing.  But that doesn't mean that the information provided is less valuable.  Unless you insist on denying the power of an emerging reality. Which is, of course, what many people are driven to do.

Regulation is the answer?

Ya know, maybe more regulation is not going to prevent future financial mayhem.  Regulation only works if the regulators actually look for trouble, or in the case of Bernie Madoff, don't avoid looking for it.

We can't admit we don't know if we don't know we don't know

We live in an era of awesome measurability.  We can measure almost anything with great precision, so we do. What never occurs to us is whether in some cases there is any correlation to measuring and predicting. 

Top college quarterbacks, more so than most athletes, are scrutinized in the extreme.  And yet it turns out that there is almost no correlation between the supposedly key measurements and later success in the NFL.  Malcom Gladwell calls this insidious disconnect between measurement and prediction 'the quarterback problem.' Apparently, this problem also manifests itself in trying to assess who will be a good teacher.

The sad truth is that we don't really have a good system for predicting teaching ability.  In fact, some of the best teachers seem to defy conventional approaches to teaching.  The key is to engage students and make them interested in the material.  How do you measure that kind of skill before the person goes into the classroom and starts teaching?

Instead of using a 'gatekeeping approach' that attempts to weed out 'less qualified candidates,' we should consider widening the gate, says Gladwell.  "We shouldn't be raising [teaching] standards," he suggests. "We should be lowering them, because there is no point in raising standards if standards don't track what we care about.  Teaching should be open to anyone with a pulse and a college degree—and teachers should be judged after they have started their jobs, not before."

Gladwell's argument is, of course, heresy. The educational system is encrusted with people who only know how to solve problems that are presented in the multiple choice format.  The reason we can't measure teaching skills is that great teachers are creative and creativity is hard to measure.  At least in the form of a standardized test.

But enough of this intellectual grandiosity; let's all get out our Number 2 pencils and carefully fill in the proper circles, shall we?

Presumption of innocence vs. the appearance of guilt

Here are some things not to say if you are a power-arrogating politician who may be under investigation by the feds:

"It's a fucking valuable [senate seat] you just don't give it away for nothing." [Cite at page 56]

Oh, and definitely don't keep thousands of dollars in your refrigerator. I mean you're entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and all, but these kinds of things look bad. I'm just puttin' it out there...

First-time homebuyers' advantage

Maybe it’s time to buy that first house, says the New York Times. "Rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are already close to 5.5 percent, and this week there were suggestions that the federal government might try to drive them down to 4.5 percent, a truly incredible figure to be able to lock in for three decades."

Modest proposal for the auto industry

Seth Godin opines: "Not only should Congress encourage/facilitate the organized bankruptcy of the Big Three, but it should also make it easy for them to be replaced by 500 new car companies."

Good writing isn't always what we imagine

Bryan Garner, the famed legal writing guru, asked people at the ABA Franchise meeting in Austin last month if they were willing to try something for 6 months that would dramatically improve their writing. A chorus of grudging yays echoed forth. The reluctance stemmed from the assumption that he was about to suggest some sort of daily writing regimen.

"Subscribe to The Economist," was one of his suggestions. Fortunately, I'd already completed this assignment. Before I read The Economist I'd assumed that it was a highbrow financial magazine filled with dense prose and weighty proclamations. Once again, my fast assumptions proved to be flat wrong.

The Economist is one of the most interesting magazines I've ever come across. First, all of the articles are written anonymously. And yet they all have the same tone and style—that of a well informed person who isn't afraid to make (clever) off the cuff comments. But, of course, none of the comments are 'off the cuff.' All of the language is heavily edited.

And therein lies the rub. The writing style conveys a breezy manner, but the arguments are well-thought out. Oh, and that's another difference: the writers don't shy away from taking strong positions. They make arguments.

But, aside from the arguments, it's really the style of writing that deserves careful attention. The jaunty manner is evident in the recent article about Obama's victory and transition to power entitled 'Change.gov.' Read the whole article to get a sense of this, but here are examples of sentences that I doubt you'd ever see in a mainstream U.S. publication:

"There are also plenty of fissures in Obamaworld."

And in discussing the laborious process of confirming the 7,000 administration appointees, this sentence:

"Nominees endure an absurdly long nomination process, filling in 60 pages of forms and submitting themselves to extensive FBI vetting, during which plods from the bureau inquire about their taste for intoxicants and the legal status of their nannies."

Words like 'Obamaworld' and 'plods' are too colorful for journals like Time or Newsweek, which seem to believe that credibility is created through the illusion of neutrality. The Economist shows us that it's okay to argue points and to use everyday words. Well, it shows us that only if we read it.

So does Mr. Garner suggest that we look only to foreign publications for examples of good writing? No, he also suggests that we subscribe to the New Yorker.

Detroit's woes (woe unto itself)

Had lunch yesterday with my friend Brian Oberkirch, and we talked about the shifting economic sands. Today he passed along this great article by Umair Haque called Detroit's 6 Mistakes and How Not to Make Them. What's the first big mistake?

"Shifting costs onto others, while striving to internalize benefits. Detroit chose lobbying, marketing wars, and low-cost hardball - to always and everywhere try to socialize costs and privatize benefits. Never was this truer than Detroit's lobbying against public transport throughout the 20th century. Why does public transport in the States suck? Because Detroit's lobbying machine doesn't."

I never looked at it that way. Did Detroit really lobby against public transportation? I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Markets are supposed to be efficient, but what that economic bromide really means is that markets are more efficient if you hire lobbyists.