Fox photographed in hen house, and damn is it an ugly scene

Check out here for a run down on some memos from Fox News chief John Moody giving orders to the troops as they fight the fair and balanced fight. The memos were released by the makers of Outfoxed a new movie (For objectivity sake, I no longer believe in documentaries that don't involve chimpanzees and long moments of silence.) about Fox News and how it bends the rules of journalism to arrive at it's Fair and Balanced state ("We confirm, you believe").

It reads like a set of stage directions splattered with the chummy rantings of a political cheerleader - the drill seargent's cadences in between browbeatings about preparation. If you read through them all, you won't find much trouble guessing who Moody is likely to vote for. Considering that most attacks by conservatives on the liberal media are based on the presumption that a media controlled by people of X party affiliation is likely to warp the news towards X-party's political perspective, I hope the right wing media critics will take note of Moody's perspective, as he is Fox's News Chief.

But this is almost over the top, like Will Farrel parodying Fox News's bias. At one point, while informing other Fox staff member's that a bomb went off at the hotel where Fox staff were staying in Baghdad and, very reasonably, asking for prayers for the Fox employee's safety, Moody chooses to do a parenthetical to stick it to the ACLU. Is somebody's mind just a tad bit of their professional focus? Colleagues in grave danger and its time to remind people the ACLU supports separation of Church and state? And from a legal stand point, if Moody thinks he's violating Title VII's protections against religious persecution in the workplace, I don't think bashing the ACLU is really a good idea. I don't think suggesting people pray "to whatever God you revere" even remotely creates a hostile environment, but mentioning a major civil rights organization and belittling them seems like a really dumb way to walk in to some trouble. Which is to say nothing about the fact that this is an employer of an actual news organization gratuitously bashing a major civil rights organization.

But there's more Kerry "is a flip-flopper", Bush's policies need to be noted as tactically smart, and of course, the French should be bashed. Read on, it's a really eye-opening collection of memos.

One thing this memo proves though. It's obvious why Outfoxed was able to get so much inside dirt on Fox. If it's this bad, sooner or later a journalist is going to put the story out, even a Fox journalist.

Read more!

Uniting, not dividing?

"You cannot be small business and pro-trial lawyer at the same time," the president said. "You have to choose. My opponent made his choice and he put him [John Edwards] on the ticket."

We have to choose, folks, and well, you know what happens to those folks who choose wrong. Could it possibly be this simple in President Bush's mind?

Of course, the irony is, most trial lawyer firms, are small businesses. Indeed, probably more than a few have taken advantage of the outrageous deduction for gigantic SUVs the President put in in his tax cuts.

So, maybe the President is really a uniter - a craven, politically callous and deceitful uniter, but a uniter nonetheless. Then again, there's the other alternative theory that the President knows next to nothing about the policies he implements.

I might add, talk of costly, socially damaging lawyers is a strange thing coming from the party of Ken Starr and John Ashcroft.

Read more!

Tort Reform and the webs they weave

I may be a lawyer, but I'm not beyond thinking there are many things wrong with our profession. Perhaps in a later post I'll hit those points. Suffice to say, there should be an ongoing debate about the American legal profession and how it serves our society. But, now that John Edwards is on the Democratic ticket, it's pretty clear we are about to be bombarded with calls against the "frivolous" lawsuits the media likes to discuss. That's unfortunate, because as the GOP tries to tag one very well-respected trial lawyer with personal attacks based on hysterical claims about abuse of the legal system, we'll miss a chance to really improve our justice system.

Why did I say hysterical? Well, here is a good rundown on many of those terrifying litigation stories you here. One thing to remember about stories about outrageous jury verdicts - juries do not have the final say in our court system, judges do, both the trial judge and later appellate panels. Outrageous verdicts can be dealt with, as in the case of the McDonald's "coffee verdict". (That verdict is not mentioned in the above link, but you can find it here, in a good story on Edwards and tort reform.)

And, often, the outrageous jury verdict is not nearly so outrageous when you learn all the facts. What strikes about the McDonald's case is not the skin graft the victim needed after being badly burned, not her time in the hospital, nor the hundreds of complaints about the boiling hot coffee McDonald's served which they had ignored before the incident. It's the fact that the plaintiff and her attorneys offered to settle for $10,000.

I have to say, as a lawyer, I'm ashamed, ashamed! I'm ashamed that whoever was representing McDonald's in that case is a member of my profession.

Read more!

Edwards

What to say?!! I guess the best way to sum my feelings up is this. During the primaries, early on, when Dean was the frontrunner and Joe Lieberman and the Republicans (is that a redundancy?) were coming down hard on Dean for his anti-war stance, I kept on thinking that Dean's strength and the democrats concerned about him were an illustration of what's great about the Democratic party - we have the anti-war and the pro-war all here, we debate and we fight, but we have people from all sides of the issues. My only concern, I wasn't sure there was a candidate who could bring all those different opinions together. Then I watched John Edwards, and while we didn't have the courage (foolish or not) to nominate the candidate that inspires us and brings us all together, we've got the second best thing. The nominee decided to nominate that candidate.

What do you say about the reach of a guy that starts of as one of the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council's darlings and ends up cutting deals with Dennis Kucinich by the Iowa caucus - all while staying more committed to his original positions than any other candidate. I call it breathtaking, and I'm glad that Kerry decided riding a Harley is for candy-asses; real men choose more sexy men for their VP runningmates.

The media establishment's belief that no non-ivy-leaguer could possibly have intelligence AND character aside, Edwards is both mentally able and possessed of a rigid conscience. He's proven himself on the issues, and in the debates. And his defending his decision on the Iraq war (which I disagreed with but respect) while continuing to assess the results realistically indicate he takes his word more seriously than most of the Senate, and, frankly, than Kerry. And Edwards' hope and optimism is not just schtick either. He's had that hope and optimism since he entered politics. It was about 6 1/2 years ago that a no-name political novice told his supporters the "train is leaving the station." He never once stopped smiling and enjoying himself during the campaign, then, and his enthusiasm is not something chosen and learned - otherwise it would easily be simulated by others. And I also think that Edwards life has been tested in a way that makes comparison's to the "Breck Girl" unseemly and insulting. This man lost his son, his best friend when the child was only 16. His life was changed forever. And while it may not have been the impetus for his political aspirations, it certainly is what put him on the train. I see it guiding him now on the campaign trail.

This is a man for whom life has been a happy challenge, followed by a tragic moment, who has turned that moment into yet another happy challenge, this one guided by faith and a sense of duty. I'm a romantic when it comes to politics, a lover of the Wellstones, the Sanfords, the Bobby Kennedys of the world. But to me, one of the most redeeming features of being in this country is believing that Edwards' combination of optimism and challenge and the progress that is forged, both personally and societally from it, is what makes America great.

His policy positions reflect someone willing to not just learn the issues, but also put forward actual realistic and often unconventional ideas. His health care plan represent an understanding that fixing health care means addressing the problems of insurance-abuse, bad-medicine, and frivolous lawsuits with the patient, and most importantly, the uninsured in mind first. While the GOP hopes to take advantage of stereotypes of trial lawyers, Edwards is worried about the problems of real people, patients in rural areas and the doctors who serve them.

One of the most interesting proposals Edwards has made, narrowing the anti-trust exemptions that esssentially allows Medical Malpractice insurers to collude on premium rates. This is a big idea. Why aren't we talking about it? So is his idea to make lawyers bring MedMal cases swear that they have an expert willing to testify that real malpractice occured. But alas, "he's just a trial lawyer" is all CNN and the other lemmings can muster.

I say let them, because the more the GOP and the media come at Edwards with the lawyer=evil argument the more we're going to see the stories of who he represented. There's a lot of things wrong with MedMal cases, and the system is broke, there's no doubt. But in a political fight, I don't think this will be close. Because whatever you think about lawyers in general, John Edwards is probably the best poster boy we lawyers could have.

Which brings me to my final observation about Edwards. I know him. Not personally, but I know him from the perspective of someone that worked to defeat him in the 1998 Democratic primary for the NC Senate seat. And I know this, that there is hardly a person who has anything bad to say about John Edwards the man and the lawyer - basically the consensus was that he was simply ethical, brilliant and hard-working.

I fought like hell to see DG Martin beat him, like so many involved in politics, I left a chunk of my soul in that campaign. I believed I was right then to do so, and because DG would have made a great Senator, I'm proud of the work I did. In short, I've got plenty of reasons to oppose John Edwards. But today, having seen Edwards, and knowing what makes the Democratic party great, I can't think of a better person to be our President than John Edwards. And though I know a great many other consideratons must have come into play, I'm glad John Kerry seems to think so, too.

Read more!

No, it makes perfect sense

From time to time, I love to talk basketball, specifically the college game, and more specifically UNC basketball. Politics are not the only place where the battle between good and "evil" may be played out. (Just as conservatism is only "evil" in the sense that good - progressivism - needs an opposite, Duke is only "evil" in the sense that UNC needs an arch rival. Unlike certain public figures, I don't need such a dichotomy to stir my coffee.)

So expect to hear about college basketball here. But why in July? Well, stories are flying now that Duke head Coach Mike Krzyzewski has been offered a job with the Los Angeles Lakers. (This made NPR's "the-one-sports-story-we're-going-to-indulge-in" spot!) And, there is a pretty strong feeling, not surprisingly among college coaches and pundits, that K would be crazy to leave. I don't think so. And I make this suggestion as someone who appreciates Coach K's talents, even though I am not nearly as impressed with them as the media seems to be and, for obvious reasons, not a fan. Larry Brown, the UNC Alum and Dean Smith protege, has shown Coach K the way.

You see, I think that after all the recent changes to the college and pro games, Coach K's talents might be better used at the NBA level. What are those talents? Instilling defensive fundamentals and creating a very devastating perimeter oriented offense, then utilizing a cleared out paint area to cut and get dribble penetration to get to the line. This in short, seems very similar to the system that Larry Brown used to beat the Lakers senseless in the Finals. The Pistons' guards could all knock down open threes, as well as Rasheed Wallace. And the big men for the Piston's were undersized and athletic, something Coach K likes a great deal. It's not hard to imagine that K could, with the right players, create the same thing in LA.

And the Lakers may be dealing with the personnel issue. It looks like the Lakers are going to make a responsible decision and dump aging Shaquille O'Neal (possibly for the younger Dirk Nowistki) and keep Kobe (at least free Kobe) as well as lose Karl Malone to retirement. This is good, because Dirk is in the style of big man Coach K likes, and Coach K hasn't been happy with two solid post players since Jay Bilas and Danny Meagher helped him into his first NCAA Finals. The Lakers wouldn't want many big people around earning big salaries to sit in the "Greg Newton/Eric Meek/Casey Sanders chair".

The Lakers next year may be smaller, less dependent on a dominant post game, and able to take advantage of K's spread offensive sets. They will need some kind of inside defensive presence (like his native Germany, Dirk has a history as an offensive threat, not as a great defender) and they may need to pick up some three-point bombers, but after that K will just need to convince them to buy into his defensive concept. And the Lakers, of all teams, have the best reason to take his message to heart.

A lot of people will cite K's record as a "teacher" and the difficulty of "teaching" pro players as the best reason why he shouldn't leave, but I don't really buy this. K is a great basketball coach, and a great teacher, but he's not a teacher like a Dean Smith. K teaches teams, Smith taught players. Smith taught teams as well, but his focus was to instill team chemistry by proving to his players that he was focused on their individual development - the team became Coach Smith, and every player would die for Coach Smith, because he was teaching with more of an individual focus. Coach K, I believe, cares more about the team result rather than player development. It's not that I don't believe he cares about his players as individuals. But his coaching more often uses language such as, "you need to do this to make us a better team", whereas Coach Smith might say "this will make you a better player." As evidence, I'd cite that Carolina's great teams were much deeper than Coach K and Coach Smith was much quicker to use his full bench than Coach K seems to be, even though his great recruiting lands some pretty great bench warmers.

Of all the complaints about NBA players, and there are many, I think the greatest problem is that NBA teams are not really teams at all. They are focused on being players first. They don't need an individual teacher as much as college players do (college players don't know the fundamentals, NBA players ignore the fundamentals). Sure they need someone to sit them down or trade them if they aren't willing to things, as Larry Brown's calls it, "the right way." But what they need more than anything is someone that takes control, focuses the team, and gets every player clear about their role. That's what I think Coach K has done very well over the course of his career.

And what's left at the college level? I don't think much. It's not that K has proven he can conquer the highest mountain, but rather, that K isn't going to enjoy another 7 years like the last 7 years. Early NBA defections have crippled his last two recruiting classes. The ACC went against both Duke and UNC's strong objections to a football oriented expansion, which dilutes the strength of the ACC basketball schedule. And at the same time, the neighborhood is decided tougher than the ACC was from 1998-2004. Carolina and Wake Forest are done transitioning through coaching changes and are on very solid ground. NC State is also back as a nationally prominent program. Maryland is the most recent NCAA title holder in the conference, and may finally be a modern version of the UCLA of the East that Lefty Driesell once envisioned. Georgia Tech is a returning Final Four team with a great coach. And even Florida State is headed in the right direction. In short, Duke's first ACC final loss in 6 years this past March was less an aberration than it was a game of Russian Roullette that ended as it always would. Duke's starting lineup next year might not be in the top four in the conference, and recruiting isn't getting any easier.

Finally, if it's really about relationships, K's got to note that his college players (especially the best ones, the ones that reportedly he dotes on the most) are also the ones least likely to be bound to their scholarship commitments. In the NBA, you sign a guy to a four-year contract, he stays for four years unless you trade him, in college, that's not the case. The other problems K might have with pro players might very well pale in comparison with this problem with his college players.

He's now lost 3 players to the NBA or unconsummated recruitments - Luol Deng and Shaun Livingston will be Chicago Bulls next year, Chris Humphries decided last summer to bail on his commitement to Duke and go to Minnesota instead. As much as K loves players like Steve Wojokowski, he's got to see that the Christian Laettners and Grant Hills are a thing of the past. And even the Jason Williams are probably distant memories. K can definitely compete in this new atmosphere, he may even benefit from it. But it's pretty clear he doesn't like it.

The NBA may be a challenge, Coach K will be a college coach in the NBA, whereas Larry Brown has been a pro coach for a very long time and is probably one of the two or three most respected NBA coaches. It is quite simply impossible to quantify how much less Coach K's NBA players would respect (and fear) him than his college players do. But it was a challenge when he took over Duke, and Duke didn't have Kobe, Luke Walton, Gary Payton and possibly Dirk Nowistki.

What happens to Duke if K does leave....Well, it's too early to consider that. Though I admit it is fun (Karma, my Duke friends, is a very dangerous thing.)

Read more!