I’ve wondered for years why 9/11 had to be such a big deal for Americans and America.  About 3000 people died as a direct result of the attacks and the rescue  efforts; reports actually vary with respect to actual numbers.  That number represents about one person killed for every 100,000 residents of the United  States.  In  Israel, a country that is plenty familiar with terrorism and its impact on daily life, a similar kill rate only requires the deaths of about 64 people.  [In nine of the 20 years spanning the ‘90s and the aughts, more than 64 Israelis lost their lives as a result of terrorist attacks, albeit not on one day.]

Lately we’ve been treated to lectures about job creators, the people who will get us out of the fix we’re in by creating the millions of jobs we need to employ the millions of people who aren’t working. Republicans claim, as necessary elements for job creation, lower taxes and the elimination of regulations that limit business activity. Right or wrong, or as Stephen Colbert poses the question, Yahweh or No Way?

No way, in a big way! No one WANTS to pay higher taxes, and no one WANTS to be told he or she cannot do this or that!!! So it’s easy to come up with arguments for lowering taxes and eliminating regulations. And yes, it’s certainly true that the

Not much, if anything, would be worse for all of us than a balanced budget amendment. Never mind how you feel about government, taxes and spending. Forget about the politics. Simply, the effing thing can’t work.

Budgets are devices that allow people to plan. In government-speak, however, a balanced budget law mandates that an entity not spend more than it collects. Fine! Anyone who lacks credit knows all about not spending more than what’s in the till. (Can you spell “Got any spare change?”) So what’s wrong with telling government it cannot spend more than it has? Lots, if what you’re doing involves more than simply expressing the notion that you oppose borrowing lots of money you don’t have!

Most

I get most of the highway driving duty in my family. I guess we’re a pretty traditional trio, and within our milieu driving long distances is “men’s work.”  We never go very far:  Round trips to Phoenix are the norm, and there’s a very occasional excursion to San Diego or Orange County. Thank goodness!

As a young driver I learned a few rules of the road. One that stuck was “stay to the right.” Drive in the right lane on the highway, move to the left lane to pass and, then, move back to the right lane. Simple and sensible! And the law, as well, as it is set forth in Title 28, Section 721, Arizona Revised Statutes.

I’m reading The Social Animal by David Brooks. (Yes, that one!) It’s sort of a work of fiction about an imaginary couple and, so far, their son. I’ve followed the relationship between Julia and Rob and have observed their son Harold from birth through, so far, his senior year in high school. Throughout, Mr. Brooks provides a ton of information about how people relate to one another and, in the process, learn and love.

So yesterday, I’m sharing with my wife how much success in life depends on the bonds we have with parents, other relatives, teachers, etc. Jane asked, if that’s so, how do we scale up when so many people don’t have these relationships in the right doses

Here’s an interesting perspective on a significant problem with our health care delivery system. In our “free market” system it’s hard to imagine the concept ever being implemented, but the notion is worth considering.
Why Medical School Should be Free

I’ve been an employer for about 30 years. “But you’re an attorney,” you say. “Yes, of course I am, but I’ve always had a secretary, and the firms with which I have been affiliated have had associates, contract attorneys, legal assistants, bookkeepers, files clerks, etc.” So, directly and indirectly, I’ve been employing people for three decades.

My practice focuses on business and real estate issues. My clients are employers, large and small, in many, many different industries.  I’ve represented my clients in times good and bad, and often talk with them about employment issues.

My point? Never, not once, have I decided to hire someone because I–or my firm–had extra money lying around. And never, not once, has a

A Little Truth is the first post of what I hope are several more, identifying falsehoods in our discourse that don’t get challenged.  I hope you enjoy these brief encounters with reality, that they make you more critical thinkers and better citizens, and that you tell your friends.

So, it’s a given that people live longer than they used to and, therefore, the United States of America must raise the retirement age for Social Security to save us from ourselves.  Right?  No, wrong, although I’m sure those people who argue for increasing the retirement age will quibble with my characterization of their main argument in support of their position.  To them I say, get your own

I’ve been quiet until now. “Mostly quiet, ” to be totally truthful. We did have a dinner party on January 8–the food was ready and the friends close, so we saw little reason to cancel–and, at about 9:30 and with a snoot full of wine in me, I answered the phone. A reporter from JTA, an international Jewish news service, was calling from Washington, wanting a referral for an article he was writing about the shooting. (Long story about why he was calling me.) I told him I’d get him Jonathan Rothschild’s number in the morning. Jonathan is my law partner, a dedicated Democrat, an active member of the Jewish community (and, most likely, the next Mayor of Tucson.) I

I met with a client not long ago and heard a story I can’t let go of. My client’s business interfaces with the federal government. One of his employees failed to comply with a notice requirement associated with a regulation. A screw-up, absolutely, and a violation of a federal regulation, you bet! That all said, the violation was insignificant and, when it was discovered, my client’s people self-reported the violation. What followed was Kafka-esque, and only ended with the payment of a very, very large fine. The fine bore no relationship to the harm caused by the violation. (X times nothing, with nothing representing the harm, will always equal nothing.) I imagine my client could have fought the assessed penalty,