Law Religion Culture Review

Year in Review, 2011.

2011-12-31T09:17:00.000-08:00

Books Read (in no particular order)

1. Fate, Time and Language: An Essay on Free Will (2011) by David Foster Wallace.
2. Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (2011) by Bart D. Ehrman.
3. Malled: My Unintentional Career in Retail (2011) by Caitlin Kelly.
4. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (2008) by Tim Keller.
5. Easter Everywhere: A Memoir (2008) by Darcey Steinke.
6. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2011) by Sam Harris.
7. Laker Girl (2010) by Jeannie Buss & Steve Springer.
8. Conservative Assault on the Constitution (2010) by Erwin Chemerinsky.
9. Kitchen Confidential by Anthony Bourdain.
10. Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip--Confessions of a Cynical Waiter (2009) by Steve Dublanica.
11. Crazy for the Storm: A Memoir of Survival (2010) by Norman Ollestad.
12. The Fall of the House of Zeus: The Rise and Ruin of America's Most Powerful Trial Lawyer (2010) by Curtis Wilkie.
13. Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care & Deceiving Americans (2010) by Wendell Potter.
14. The Grand Design (2010) by Stephen Hawking (& Mlodinow).
15. Griftopia (2010) by Matt Taibbi.
16. Those Guys Have All the Fun: Inside the World of ESPN (2011) by James Andrew Miller and Tom Shales.
17. On B___S___ (2005) by Harry G. Frankfurt.
18. Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (2011) by Rob Bell.
19. Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself: A Roadtrip With David Foster Wallace (2010) by David Lipsky.
20. The Pale King (2011) (CD, unabridged) by David Foster Wallace.
21. Divinity of Doubt: The God Question (2011) by Vincent Bugliosi.
22. Truth and Consequences: Life Inside the Madoff Family (2011) by Laurie Sandell.
23. The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin (2011) by Joe McGinniss.
24. Of Thee I Zing (2011) by Laura Ingraham with Raymond Arroyo.

Losses Sustained

Christopher Hitchens

Concerts Experienced

1. 311/Sublime
2. Chicago
3. Sade/John Legend
4. blink182/My Chemical Romance

Appeal of the Year

Appealed ruling of trial court refusing to compel arbitration. The trial court determined that the arbitration clause in a franchise agreement was purportedly "unconscionable." Court of appeal reversed on 3-0 vote, holding it was not "unconscionable" and published the opinion, making it precedent throughout the State of California.

Trial of the Year

Client hired law firm to represent him in a securities fraud case, claiming millions in damages. That law firm obtained an award of approximately $30,000. Thereafter, the law firm sued my client for its attorneys' fees approximating half a million dollars. We asserted that the law firm was retained pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, so their fee was about $10,000. While the law firm claimed that it "rescinded" the attorney-client fee agreement due to purported breaches of contract and thus was entitled to it hourly rates of over $550, we argued that rescission was unable under the circumstances and asserted the contingency fee controlled. The trial court agreed with us.

Book of the Year

Crazy for the Storm: A Memoir of Survival (2010) by Norman Ollestad. Beautiful tribute to his father, also named Norman, a California attorney, whose life lessons ended up saving the son's life in a tragic airplane crash that took his father's life.

Film of the Year

Drive with Ryan Gosling. Film noir, the movie does so much with so little words. A testament to fine acting and directing. With his other two movies this year: Ides of March and Crazy, Stupid, Love, no actor had a stronger triad this year.

Year in Review, 2010.

2010-12-31T17:05:00.000-08:00

Books Read (in no particular order)

1. The Case for God (2009) by Karen Armstrong (reviewed 1/10/10);

2. In-N-Out Burger: A Behind the Counter Look at the Fast-Food Chain that Breaks All the Rules by Stacy Perman (reviewed 1/17/10);

3. Patience with God: Faith for Those Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) (2009) by Frank Schaeffer (reviewed 1/24/10);

4. Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility by David M. Walker (reviewed 1/28/10);

5. Hitch-22: A Memoir (2010) by Christopher Hitchens (reviewed 12/23/10);

6. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (2010) by Michael Lewis (reviewed 10/13/10);

7. No One Would Listen (2010) by Harry Markopolos (reviewed 8/18/10);

8. War (2010) by Sebastian Junger (reviewed 7/22/10);

9. Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight (2010) by Karl Rove (reviewed 7/6/10);

10. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart (2008) by Bill Bishop (reviewed 6/13/10);

11. The Politician: An Insider's Account of John Edward's Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down (2010) by Andrew Young (reviewed 6/12/10);

12. Circle of Greed: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Lawyer Who Brought Corporate America to Its Knees (2010) by Patrick Dillon and Carl M. Cannon (reviewed 5/22/10);

13. Last Words (2009) by George Carlin with Tony Hendra (reviewed 5/19/10);

14. The Happiness Project (2009) by Gretchen Rubin (reviewed 4/21/10);

15. Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile (2008) by Rob Bell and Don Golden (reviewed 4/10/10);

16. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich (reviewed 4/9/10);

17. What the Dog Saw (2009) by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed 4/4/10);

18. Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell (reviewed 3/15/10);

19. Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing Jobs [Most] Americans Won't Do (2010) by Gabriel Thompson (reviewed 3/8/10);

20. Too Big To Fail (2009) by Andrew Ross Sorkin (reviewed February 25, 2010);

21. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (2008) by David Berlinski (reviewed 2/24/10);

22. What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza (via CD) (reviewed 2/9/10);

23. $%&#@ Finish First (2010) by Tucker Max;

24. The Blind Side by Michael Lewis;

25. Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis;

26. Can I Be Sure I'm Saved by R.C. Sproul;

27. Better by John O'Brien

Losses Sustained

Dr. Lawrence Schoenhals (grandfather)

Film of the Year

Because screenwriter Aaron Sorkin improved book (The Accidental Billionaires, reviewed here on November 1, 2009), and Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake were revelations in their roles expect The Social Network to get "friended" by various award shows.

Book of the Year

Circle of Greed: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Lawyer Who Brought Corporate America to Its Knees by Patrick Dillon and Carl M. Cannon (reviewed 5/22/10).

Appeal of the Year

Any Question? Parts I-III (see posts on November 21, December 16 and 27, 2010).

Trial of the Year

My client sought to invalidate a grant deed purporting to remove his mother's house from her trust and granting it to his sister. The effect of this deed would have been to disinherit my client, since his mother had passed away and his sister sought to evict him from that house. I was able to show that the mother did not intend to give the property to her daughter outright. In invalidating the grant deed to the sister/daughter, the court relied upon testimony and documents of the daughter's prior attorney to the effect that the daughter knew (and acted like) the property was owned by the trust, notwithstanding the new grant deed to her. I was able to overcome the attorney-client privilege, in part, because the daughter sued her attorney and attached various documents to her court-filed documents in that prior action, which I obtained and used in my case.

Any Question, Part III.

2010-12-27T15:45:00.000-08:00

Here are excerpts from my appellate reply brief. One can see from "Any Question, Part II" (see December 16, 2010 post below), the court of appeal drew from the reasonable intepretation theme and relied on the two major cases which I cited: Scharlin v. Superior Court of Orange County (1992) 9 Cal App.4th 162, and McIndoe v. Olivos (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 483. Both opinions were handed down by the same appellate court which decided my client's appeal here.

"I. INTRODUCTION

'Interpretation must be reasonable.' (Cal. Civ. Code §3542.)

The Respondent’s Brief ... represents an extended exercise in unreasonable interpretations. It unreasonably interprets (a) the subject trust instrument; (b) the proposed Petition; and (c) California decisional authority, including this District’s own opinions.

First, Respondent’s proffered view that the no contest clause applies only to the original trust (RB, p. 3) as constituted at the time of its creation would render the no contest clause as superfluous and defeat its purpose. That purpose, of course, is to discourage the beneficiaries from challenging the trustors’ plan for administration and distribution of the trust assets in accordance with provisions set forth in the trust instrument. It would be unnecessary to apply the no contest clause only to the original trust when the trustors and trustees are both still alive. They obviously would not be applying it to themselves. Their inclusion of the no contest clause only makes sense when it is applied to the subtrusts, which take effect only after a death of a trustor/trustee, as here. (AA00077-79; AA000161-163.)

Second, Respondent’s Brief misinterprets the Petition, erroneously claiming that it only seeks to remove trustees for cause. (RB, p. 5.) To the contrary, the Petition seeks to invalidate one of the trustors’ most important decisions and provisions—an article designating who will serve as successor trustee—even before the successor trustee has ever so served. (AA000114-16.)

Third, Respondent’s Brief misinterprets several cases undermining its assertions, including those of this Court, to a similarly tortured result.

Because the Respondent’s Brief’s interpretive errors infect its analysis, it leads to the wrong result. Moreover, it does nothing to controvert the arguments of the Opening Brief, namely:

· The no contest clause of the trust explicitly applies to “any of the provisions” of the trust instrument, which necessarily includes the subtrusts established by the very same trust instrument;

· The trust clause designating the appointment of a successor trustee applies to the subtrusts; and

· The Petition constitutes a contest, because, among other things, it preemptively seeks to invalidate the successor trustee provision (Article 7.02 [AA00036, AA 000174]), which has not yet taken effect.

Accordingly, Appellant ... respectfully requests that this Court reasonably interpret the trust to uphold the trustor’s intent (the Appellant here) and binding California law, and rule that [Respondent's] Petition, seeking, among other things, to invalidate the successor trustee provision, violates the trust and subtrusts’ no contest clause."

* * *

"C. Respondent [ ] Misinterprets the Governing Authority

Try as he might, [Respondent] cannot get around this Court’s holding in Scharlin v. Superior Court of Orange County (1992) 9 Cal App.4th 162 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 448]. The Scharlin Court was asked to determine if a no contest clause in an Amendment was able to modify an existing no contest clause in the general provisions of a trust as it related to an Irrevocable Decedent’s Trust (referred to as Trust B in the opinion). This Court held that because the Decedent’s Trust was irrevocable when the Amendment was executed, the Amendment’s no contest clause had no effect on the Decedent’s Trust [Trust B]. (Id. at 170-71 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d at 448].) In Scharlin, this Court evaluated the no contest clause of that trust which had strikingly similar language to the No Contest Clause in question in these proceedings. This Court held that “As to Trust B, the clause in the original trust agreement controls.” (Id. at 171 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d at 448]; emphasis supplied.)

"[Respondent's] continuing effort to point to a purported absence of language expressly incorporating the general provisions of the Trust into the subtrusts created within the Trust is unsupported by any authority. To the contrary, as was the holding in Scharlin, it is clearly implied by the provisions of the Trust that the subtrusts are to be administered pursuant to the terms of the Trust in which they were created. To say that the election option of Article 4.02 (AA000023-25) is conditional language and only in the event that the surviving Trustor opts to take the election as described in Article 4.02 will the subtrusts be subject to the provisions of the underlying Trust defies logic.

* * *

This Court in Scharlin notes [ ] citing California First Bank v. Townsend (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 922, 930 [177 Cal.Rptr. 723]: “In construing a trust instrument, the intent of the Trustor prevails and it must be ascertained from the whole of the trust instrument, not just separate parts of it.” (Scharlin, 9 Cal.App.4th at 168 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 448].) By dissecting the Trust instrument to give it his own meaning, [Respondent] is ignoring the intent of the Trustors, of which Appellant is one. (AA000018.) Respondent has always intended the general provisions of the Trust to control the subtrusts and is certain that Lloyd felt the same way. (AA000143.) [Respondent] cannot trump this [intent] by simply repeating his mantra that “no contest clauses” are to be strictly construed. (See, e.g., RB p. 7.) Even with strict construction, as noted in the Opening Brief, the no contest clause was intended to be, and was in fact, made applicable to the subtrusts. (OB, p. 12; AA000035.)

Finally, [Respondent's] breathless attempts to evade Scharlin fail especially when one considers another Fourth District case, McIndoe v. Olivos (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 483 [33 Cal.Rptr. 689].

In McIndoe, the appellate court stated: “The no contest clause was located in the ‘general provisions’ section of the trust document, which specified that all general provisions “apply to each trust established hereunder[.]” Thus, the trust document specified that the no contest clause applied to the entire trust estate, including the exempt trust and the survivor's trust. Significantly, the amendments to the survivor's trust ratified all terms and conditions of the original trust or left the original trust unchanged. Because the no contest clause of the original trust applied to all subtrusts, there was no need to add a no contest clause to the exempt trust.” (McIndoe, 132 Cal.App.4th at 488 [33 Cal.Rptr. 689, 692].)

Likewise, here, the no contest clause was contained in the general provisions section of the original trust. The original trust similarly stated that no contest clause of the Trust applies to “any provisions of the instrument” [emphasis added], which necessarily includes the subtrusts created by the same instrument. (AA000035.) Thus, as the McIndoe court observed, there was no need to add a no contest clauses in each of the subtrusts (McIndoe, 132 Cal.App.4th at 488 [33 Cal.Rptr. at 692]), as [Respondent] contrarily urges here."

Book Review: Hitch-22: A Memoir by Christopher Hitchens (2010).

2010-12-23T10:29:00.000-08:00

Despite "produc[ing] a thousand words a printable copy every day and sometimes more" (p. 350), Christopher Hitchens appears a reluctant writer of memoir.

He admits his reluctance upfront: "When I first formed the idea of writing some memoirs, I had the customary reservations about the whole conception being perhaps 'too soon'. Nothing dissolves this fusion of false modesty and natural reticence more swiftly than the blind realization that the project could become, at any moment, ruled out of the question as having been undertaken too 'late.'" (3.)

Hitchens does not entirely overcome his reticence because after reading Hitch-22: A Memoir does comes away not really knowing the man. For example, Hitchens provides almost zero explanation for his journey to atheism, or as he prefers, anti-theism. This omission surprises inasmuch as Hitchens is one of leaders of the so-called "New Atheism", following the publication of his recent bestseller, God Is Not Great and frequent debates with leading apologists including William Lane Craig. He does include a photo (immediately preceding page 309) with fellow "New Atheists", Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, but his caption is about as much as he says about the collaboration. There's a brief interlude at pages 330-331 about his public debates "once or twice every month" "with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings" (330), i.e. Hitchens' creative, yet patronizing, way of saying theists. He writes:

"How ... I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?

"Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from point out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. ... Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for respect to others... A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the courageto take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities..but there, there. Enough." (330-31.)

That is not to say that the book ignores the people and places that have influenced his life. There's a strong does of that, including chapters on his mother Yvonne who unfortunately committed suicide, and his somewhat distant father whom he called, "The Commander". However, Hitchens does not allow the book to indulge in extended self-introspection or self-analysis. This lack is especially odd when one considers Hitchens' closing sentiment: "After various past allegiances, I have come to believe that Marx was rightest of all when he recommended continual doubt and self-criticism." (422). Hitchens includes one chapter called, Something of Myself, which is exactly that--only "something".

Nevertheless, despite the reluctance to expose the world to his inner thoughts, the world is the richer to see a true man of letters whipping words into a delicacy of prose.

Any Question?, Part II.

2010-12-16T10:30:00.000-08:00

As predicted in Part I, the court of appeal issued its published decision in my client's [the appellant] favor. The appellate opinion reversed the trial court by a 3-0 vote.

The case involved two primary questions: (1) whether there was a "no contest" clause incorporated into subtrusts; and if so, (2) whether a proposed petition constituted a "contest". The court of appeal ruled in our favor on both questions. Here are the "greatest hits":

"In granting [Respondent's] safe harbor application, the trial court found neither of the two [sub]trusts [B and C] contains a “no contest” clause and, moreover, even if the clause did apply, the proposed petition does not constitute a “contest” as defined in the Probate Code. Because the trial court erred in granting the application for safe harbor, we reverse.

***

"[Appellant] argues the trial court erred in granting [Respondent] safe harbor to file the proposed petition. She asserts the trial court erred in finding that the Trust’s “no contest” clause did not apply to the subtrusts and the proposed petition did not constitute a “contest” under the terms of that clause. [Appellant's] claims have merit.

1. Whether There Was a No Contest Clause Applicable to the Subtrusts?

"[Respondent's] argument for interpreting the “no contest” clause as inapplicable to Trusts B and C is beguilingly simple. He contends that because the Trust does not explicitly state the “no contest” clause applies to the subtrusts, it must be strictly construed as applying only to the original trust. But such a construction not only ignores the trustors’ intent as revealed in “the whole of the trust,” it is also patently unreasonable.

"The trustors’ intent that the “no contest” clause applies to the subtrusts is implicit in the terms of the Trust. This document, a revocable instrument, created and funded the three subtrusts upon the first trustor’s death. (Trust, ¶ 4.02(b).) At operation, Trusts B and C were irrevocable, and a host of provisions in the original trust immediately came into play, establishing rules for the administration of the subtrusts. For example, paragraph 4.02(b) directed that each of the subtrusts “shall constitute and be held, administered and distributed by the Trustee as a separate Trust.” Paragraphs 4.04 and 4.05 established distribution rules for the assets and principal of Trusts B and C. Most importantly, for our purposes, paragraph 6.05 prohibited any beneficiary entitled to “any distributions . . . or any benefits under this trust instrument” from “contest[ing] in any court any of the provisions of this instrument[.]” Taken together, these provisions reveal the trustors’ intent that the Trust should govern the trustee’s administration of the subtrusts upon their creation and funding.

"This conclusion the “no contest” clause applies to the subtrusts is the only reasonable construction of the clause. Because the original trust was revocable, a “contest” was never a possibility during the joint life of the trustors. Only upon [one of the trustor's] death, when the remainder beneficiaries gained their irrevocable interests in Trusts B and C, did the possibility of a “contest” pose a risk to the trustors’ plan for the assets they placed in trust. Ascertaining the intent of the trustors, as we must, from “the whole of the trust instrument,” we conclude the “no contest” clause applies to Trust B and C.

"McIndoe v. Olivos (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 483 (McIndoe) bolsters our conclusion. In McIndoe, the husband and wife trustors of a revocable family trust created and funded two separate trusts, a “survivor’s trust” and an “exempt trust,” upon the death of the first spouse, a plan that differs from the [one here] only in the number of subtrusts created, two rather than three. The McIndoe family trust, also like the [original here], included a no contest clause that did not specifically state that it applied to the subtrusts. After the death of the first spouse in McIndoe, the surviving spouse repeatedly exercised her right to amend the revocable “survivor’s trust,” which held her separate property and share of the trustors’ community property. These amendments favored one sibling beneficiary over the other, and when the surviving trustor died, the disadvantaged beneficiary challenged the amendments on the ground of undue influence. The disadvantaged beneficiary sought a safe harbor determination that her proposed contest to the heavily amended survivor’s trust would not constitute a contest to the exempt trust. The court agreed, based on the terms of the original trust.

"Importantly for our purposes, the court in McIndoe affirmed that “the no contest clause in the original trust applies to challenges to the original trust, the exempt trust and the survivor’s trust,” even though the no contest clause there did not specifically state it applied to the subtrusts. (McIndoe, supra, 132 Cal.app.4th at p. 487.) The court stated, “The no contest clause was located in the ‘general provisions’ section of the trust document, which specified that all general provisions ‘apply to each trust established hereunder[.]’ . . . Because the no contest clause of the original trust applied to all subtrusts, there was no need to add a no contest clause to the exempt trust.” (Id. at p. 488.)

"Like the “no contest” clause in McIndoe, the “no contest” clause in the present case was also located in a “general provisions” section of the Trust –– Article 6, entitled “MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.” (Trust, ¶¶ 6.01-6.06.) Though Article 6 did not specify that its provisions applied to each subtrust, that intent was implied in the provisions themselves, and from the instrument as a whole, as explained above. Consequently, McIndoe supports our finding that the “no contest” clause applied to Trusts B and C. (See also Scharlin, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th 162, 170-171 [where original trust created two subtrusts, revocable survivor’s trust, and irrevocable decedent’s trust, “no contest” clause in original trust controls decedent’s trust].)"

2. Whether the Proposed Petition Constituted a "Contest"?

"[Respondent] argues his proposed petition is not a “contest” because it “does not challenge, either directly or indirectly, the validity of the Original Trust[.]” He asserts his petition “does not seek to invalidate any provision of the Original Trust . . . and, instead, seeks to ensure that the testator’s intent as expressed in the Original Trust . . . is properly carried out.” Thus, [Respondent] contends that if he obtains all the relief requested in his petition, “the separate trusts will remain unaltered, and the various trust beneficiaries will receive only what they are due under the Original Trust . . . .” His argument does not ring true.

"The proposed petition directly contravenes an express directive in the Trust: that his brother [ ] serve as successor trustee in the event of [Appellant's] “death, inability or unwillingness . . . to act as Trustee[.]” (Trust, ¶ 7.02.) This provision clearly expresses the trustors’ intent regarding who will serve as their successor trustee, yet [Respondent] tries to thwart this intent with a two-fold attack.

First, [Respondent] asserts the Trust does not “provide for a Trustee to Trusts B/C or a successor,” and that paragraph 7.02 applies only to the original trust, not to the subtrusts. (Italics omitted.) He argues paragraph 7.02 “governs only the [ ] Family Trust [A] and that none of the terms of that Trust were referred to or incorporated into Trusts B/C which were Expressly created to be held separate and a part [sic] from the [ ] Family Trust.” (Italics omitted.) In other words, [Respondent] asserts the Trust designates neither a trustee nor a successor trustee to administer the subtrusts. But this argument flatly contradicts much of Article 4 of the Trust, which details how the trustee is to hold and administer the three subtrusts. (See, e.g., ¶ 4.02 (b) [upon first trustor’s death, trustee shall divide Trust estate into three subtrusts, each of which “shall . . . be held, administered and distributed by the Trustee”].)
"[Respondent's] second attack on the successor trustee provision directly contradicts the trustors’ intent. [Respondent] argues that if paragraph 7.02 does apply to the subtrusts, and [Brother] is found to be the successor trustee, then the court should find [Brother] “unfit” to serve because he lacks the necessary education and skill to perform his duties. [Respondent] also alleges [Brother] lacks “the requisite good faith and impartiality,” as evidenced by his “openly and outrageously hostile [attitude] toward [Respondent].”

"For many, the decision of who will serve as trustee or successor trustee is a significant one. Here, [the trustors] made clear their intention that their son, [Brother], would follow one of them as successor trustee. [Respondent's] assertion the court should ignore this intent and override paragraph 7.02 because he considers [Brother] prospectively unfit is indisputably a contest of one of the provisions of the Trust. It follows that the trial court erred in granting [Respondent] safe harbor to file his proposed petition."

In Part III, I will include excerpts from my brief for the reader to see how the court of appeal closely hewed to my arguments centering on my theme that one must reasonably interpret the trust instrument, the petition and governing authority.

Any Question?, Part I.

2010-11-21T11:29:00.000-08:00

I argued in an appellate court last week.

My client was the appellant, so I went first. At the conclusion of my sub-five minute presentation, I inquired if the panel had any question.

None. At this point, I was unsure what this meant. Based on past experience, that silence could equate to a 3-0 win or a 3-0 loss.

However, seconds into my opponent's presentation the picture became clear. He managed to get a sentence out and then the barrage began.

These weren't really questions, but declarative sentences emanating from the bench.

Sometimes an appellate court's questions can be subject to interpretation, such as the question, "How would you reconcile these two cases?", could turn either way. These weren't like those. For example, my opponent fielded a query to the effect of "That interpretation is 'illogical' isn't it?"

Nice choice of words since I used that word advisedly in my brief and presentation about the opposition's interpretation. Another justice weighed in similarly: "That doesn't make any sense? Why would anyone do that?" Opponent's response: "I don't know."

When it came back to me for any rebuttal, the well-worn saw about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory came to mind. Since it appeared my work here was done, I decided to save my witty repartee for another time, and simply remarked, "I'm confident the Court has a firm grasp of the issues", and submitted the matter for decision.

Pleading the Fifth.

2010-11-04T22:51:00.000-07:00

In constitutional law class this week we were discussing the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. This includes the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Consequently, I had to tell the following story of a deposition I took a couple of years ago in Arizona.

After preparing, flying and driving to the far-flung locale, my first question was: "What is your name?" The deponent's answer was: "I plead the Fifth."

My next question: "Have you ever had your deposition taken before?" Answer: "I plead the Fifth."

"Are you going to answer each question I ask by pleading the Fifth?" You know what he said.

"I plead the Fifth!"

Street Scene.

2010-10-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

I happened upon a street evangelism scene at the beach the other day.

Having been required to do this exercise for a college class (and otherwise), I was especially curious to observe the technique. An earnest woman in her 20s was painting on butcher paper a version of what appeared to be a "Campus Crusade for Christ" (CCC) tract. The audience was comprised of a handful of middle-aged folks and a rowdy group of teenage girls, who were smoking and making rude comments. I immediately felt empathy for the speaker.

At the conclusion of the presentation, the speaker asked if people would be interested in accepting Christ and offered written materials. Except for the obstreperous smokers who stormed off mid-speech, the "audience" turned out to be plants who were holding tracts about how to receive God's forgiveness (not a CCC publication). One was pressed into my hand.

While it's easy to criticize, I want to emphasize that the motivations appeared pure. It's not easy to do what they were doing, and I'm confident they were doing this out of a genuine concern for others.

However, when I read the tract, I was struck by its works-orientation. Immediately following quotations of verses from 1 John about believing in the Son of God for eternal life (1 John 5:12-13), there were no fewer than five commands to do things (other than believing or having faith) evidently tied to receiving God's forgiveness.

Works-righteousness is our "default setting", as written about in Michael Horton's Christless Christianity (reviewed here on January 15, 2009, and also written about on November 23, 2009). We can't help ourselves, unless we grasp what the Gospel really is. Only when we do that can we truly recognize how revolutionary and counterintuitive it actually is.

Book Review: The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (2010) by Michael Lewis.

2010-10-13T08:18:00.000-07:00

Describing one of his subjects--a gentleman who foretold the credit-default swap debacle--author Michael Lewis wrote, in The Big Short, that he was one who spoke in terms of stories instead of numbers.

This description could have just as easily be ascribed to the book itself. While the book chronicles the financial world's most ignominious fall since perhaps the Great Depression, it doesn't depend on hoary financial analysis. Instead, Lewis deftly tells the story through the people that positioned themselves to profit from the insanity of certain exotic lending practices. In so doing, Lewis provides perhaps the most lucid explanation for the catastrophe to date.

As a gifted writer and storyteller, Lewis tackles just about any subject with aplomb. He is well-known for his recent The Blind Side (covering football) and Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (covering baseball) as well as his early work about Wall Street, Liar's Poker.

Observe a master at the top of his craft. Do yourself a favor and read this one.

Book Review: No One Would Listen (2010) by Harry Markopolos.

2010-08-18T17:06:00.000-07:00

What would morally outrage you more: a person robbing a bank or a security guard (who was tipped off) slumbering through it?

As one flows from nefarious intent and the other from incompetence or inertia, one would typically argue for the bank robber.

But author Harry Markopolos is not typical. Just ask him. He seems to relish being "wildly eccentric". (p. 251.)

Perhaps reflecting this eccentricity, Markopolos' book reserves most of its moral outrage for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), instead of the man it failed to stop: Bernie Madoff, despite Markopolos' repeated warnings.

Nobody Would Listen chronicles Markopolos' somewhat quixotic campaign to stop Madoff's ponzi scheme, years before it collapsed in 2008 (through no effort of the SEC). Anyone believing in federal government regulation of financial markets will have his or her faith stripped to agnosticism or atheism after reading this sad and sobering tale. That's not to say that the book doesn't have its funny moments too--the breathtaking audacity of Madoff as well as the SEC can sometimes only be read as comedic.

Despite a healthy dollop of needless lawyer-bashing (e.g, "Most lawyers couldn't recognize a Ponzi scheme if they were having dinner with Charles Ponzi." [268]), the book is a fascinating instruction manual of how not to deal with a "whistleblower" if you are a government official tasked with supervising capital markets.

Book Review: War (2010) by Sebastian Junger.

2010-07-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

My dad and I attended some basketball games at the university he taught at. One season, the school's team featured a player who was listed in excess of 7'5". He looked good on paper or walking through an airport terminal, but his performances on the court didn't live up to the promise. My dad characterized his play as "flashes of brilliance". Implied in the compliment, however, was that outside of the fleeting flashes, his play bordered on pedestrian.

Unfortunately, Sebastian Junger's War earns a similar backhanded accolade. There are undeniable moments of brilliant observation, flowing out of Junger's authentic experience periodically embedded between June 2007 and June 2008 with an Army unit in an especially dangerous part of Afghanistan. (p. xi.) For example:

"War is a lot of things and it's useless to pretend that exciting isn't one of them. It's insanely exciting. The machinery of war and the sound it makes and the urgency of its use and the consequences of almost everything about it are the most exciting things anyone engaged in war will ever know. ... War is supposed to feel bad because undeniably bad things happen in it, but for a nineteen-year-old at the working end of a .50 cal during a firefight that everyone comes out of okay, war is life multiplied by some number that no one has ever heard of." (144.)

Explaining the counterintuitive dearth of religion at the front line, Junger observed: "The platoon was the faith, a greater cause that, if you focused on it entirely, made your fears go away. It was an anesthetic that left you aware of what was happening but strangely fatalistic about the outcome. As a soldier, the thing you were most scared of was failing your brothers when they needed you, and compared to that, dying was easy. Dying was over with. Cowardice lingered forever." (210.)

Junger contrasts war from combat: "War is a big and sprawling word that brings a lot of human suffering into the conversation, but combat is a different matter. Combat is a smaller game that young men fall in love with, and any solution to the human problem of war will have to take into account the psyches of these young men. For some reason there is a profound and mysterious gratification to the reciprocal agreement to protect another person with your life, and combat is virtually the only situation in which that happens regularly." (234.)

Given these overriding themes about courage and the community of soldiers, Junger rarely gets into the politics or causes of the Afghanistan war. However, Junger drops this bracing, controversial comment (largely overlooked or ignored by the MSM) almost as an aside: "The men know Pakistan is the root of the entire war, and that is just about the only topic they get political about. They don't much care what happens in Afghanistan.... You didn't have to be in the Army to notice that Pakistan was effectively waging war against America, but the administration back home was refusing to even acknowledge it, must less take any action." (249.)

Perhaps the book's unevenness flows from the fact that Junger embarked on this project as both a book and a documentary (entitled Restrepo) (xi), unlike his earlier The Perfect Storm book that was later adapted into a movie starring George Clooney. For this reason, the book doesn't quite stand alone, as if the writer was distracted by making two disparate pieces at the same time. His division of focus unfortunately manifests as an inconsistent book, flashing its brilliance only like lightening strikes against an otherwise gray sky.

Book Review: Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight (2010) by Karl Rove.

2010-07-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

If this book were human, it would have a tripartite personality, not unlike the "United States of Tara" or "Cybil".

Karl Rove's Courage and Consequence is part personal, political, and polemical. Each chapter essentially falls into one of these "personalities". And depending on which personality turns up, one can predict how it's going to go.

The personal chapters outdistance the others. First, Rove delves into his complicated upbringing and tragedies in his personal life, including his mother's suicide. He also deals with his climb up the ladder of the College Republicans, meeting some interesting folks along the way including Lee Atwater (with a hilarious story about running out of gas), Jeff Sessions (who later became an Alabama senator), and George H. W. Bush (who holds Rove's reverence throughout).

Rove's discussion of his harrowing experience as a "subject" and then a "target" of a grand jury investigation should be required reading for anyone in law school thinking of a career in white collar criminal defense and probably everyone else considering a field in the law. He lays out the high stakes "dance" between the special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Bob Luskin, in fascinating detail--a story that I don't believe has been told before.

The political chapters provide insight into the strategies that put Bush into the White House following the 2000 and 2004 elections. Additionally, Rove ably dissects the 2006 mid-term election and what went wrong (and right) for Republicans. These chapters demonstrate a keen political mind, powered by a sharp eye of the electorate. Not as strong as the personal chapters, but these chapters more than fuel political junkies' engines.

Finally, the polemical chapters anchor the book, and not in a good way. Chapter 21 entitled, "Bush Was Right on Iraq", encapsulates the personality of these chapters where Rove vigorously defends various Bush decisions, conduct or inaction. This is where the book takes on almost a litigator's tone where Rove argues a certain position as if he were an advocate for Bush. In fact, the first part of the book's title is about Bush not Rove, "I am proud to have been part of the long journey of a man of courage and consequence who sought to provide conservative reform of great institutions in need of repair and kept America safe in its hour of peril." (520.) These chapters are tediously long, dismissive of other points of view, and selectively deal with the evidence.

Overall, I was surprised how good this book was, despite its "schizophrenic" tendencies. Recommended.

A Marital Harbinger?

2010-07-04T21:22:00.000-07:00

I attended a wedding recently aboard a yacht. The ceremony and reception took place as we cruised the gentle waters of Newport Harbor.

My seat abutted the rail, so I could look over to see the water. During the vows, I glimpsed the ocean to see a dead fish floating. Then immediately thereafter, a drunken fisherman in a little dingy motoring next to the yacht serenaded the wedding party with his boom box and vocal chords bellowing Heart's "Crazy on You".

I doubt that's how the wedding planner drew it up.

Book Review: The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart (2008) by Bill Bishop.

2010-06-13T00:30:00.000-07:00

This book is a two-fer.

Having heard the author, Bill Bishop, interviewed on the radio, I expected a book about how America sorts itself into politically like-minded clusters. That expectation was met. Bishop writes: "[T]o see how the country was sorting--a more useful calculation is ... population density. Republicans were moving into places where people lived farther apart; Democrats were clustering in places where people lived closer together." (pp. 204-05.) While this fairly sums up the political sorting process, the book bonuses readers with sorting of a different, well, sort.

For example, Chapter 7 entitled, "The Missionary and The Megachurch", lucidly explains how the Church (or at least parts of it) employs "like attracts like" methodologies to market itself. The result, according to Bishop, is homogeneous congregations or clusters. If correct, this conclusion is sobering. But Bishop does not come to it lightly or amateurishly. His conclusions are arrived at only after conducting substantial research, and demonstrating knowledge of the subculture. He even delves into the "emerging church" (in Chapter 12) as a counterbalance or response to "megachurch" or "evangelical" models. As a result, Bishop delivers a surprising indictment of the American church within a book primarily marketed as a political study.

Two-for-the-price-of-one. Now that's value.

Book Review: The Politician: An Insider's Account of John Edwards's Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down by Andrew Young.

2010-06-12T00:09:00.000-07:00

As the old saying goes, politics is a dirty business.

Evidently, so is writing about it.

I felt like I needed to take a shower after reading 2010's The Politician, and that was not because I read parts of it while on a stair climber.

Andrew Young was a close aide to John Edwards for many years and had intimate access to the one-time Senator and erstwhile Presidential candidate.

Due to this unusually close proximity, Young was privy to many unseemly and personal things. Young apparently does not feel the need to edit himself as he reveals private conversations between Edwards and himself including how Edwards dealt with his son Wade's tragic death. Even with politicians, there should be a limit to a "tell-all" book. Moreover, Young participated in unseemly things, including acquiescing to a false press release that claimed paternity for John Edward's child with Rielle Hunter. (239.)

Revealingly, Young sets the tone at the very outset in the acknowledgments. He writes: "To the Edwards and Anania families, with the exception of John and Elizabeth, thank you for many years of friendship." (p. xiii; emphasis added.)

Accordingly, Young seems bent on vengeance, but as is usually the case with revenge, it works like a boomerang. Neither comes across well.

Humility is Beauty, Part II.

2010-06-11T11:07:00.000-07:00

In my ethics class this summer, we have been discussing a "virtue-based" ethical paradigm. I shared with the students an experience I had last week with a judge practically defining the virtue of humility.

Our case had been assigned to a judge (apart from our trial judge) for a settlement conference. This judge had asked both sides for settlement conference briefs. In my brief, I had cited to a leading treatise in the subject area. At the mediation, the judge opened this book to find the citation and acknowledged its application to the case.

What the judge didn't do--at any time--was to lord it over us or even mention that he was in fact a co-author of the text.

Now that's someone who is secure enough to avoid fanfare or self-aggrandizement; the very definition of humility.

Here's part 1 (from another context): http://tiny.cc/ywg9m

Lawyer Jokes (An Occasional Series).

2010-05-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

Told this joke in class this week before discussing an actual case involving a doctor and lawyer:

"A doctor and a lawyer were talking at a party. However, their conversation was constantly interrupted by people describing their ailments and asking the doctor for free medical advice.

"After an hour of this, the exasperated doctor asked the lawyer, 'What do you do to stop people from asking you for legal advice when you're out of the office?'

"'I give it to them,' replied the lawyer, 'and then I send them a bill.'

"The doctor was shocked, but agreed to give it a try. The next day, still feeling slightly guilty, the doctor prepared the bills.

"When he went to place them in his mailbox, he found a bill from the lawyer."

(via: http://www.jokesplace.com/joke/doctor-and-lawyer.html)

Mark Your Calendar!

2010-05-27T23:06:00.000-07:00

At least this prediction was specific: May 21, 2011! And it's promised to be "100% biblical".

Book Review: Circle of Greed: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Lawyer Who Brought Corporate America to Its Knees (2010).

2010-05-22T14:24:00.000-07:00

A college roommate implored me to read Tolstoy's War and Peace.

His persuasive pitch was that the book covered every aspect of the human experience.

I would challenge him by asking, "What about [this]?" He'd reply, "It's in there." I'd try again, "What about [that]?" He'd say, "It's in there."

I've been heartily recommending Circle of Greed by Patrick Dillon and Carl M. Cannon to my law students and fellow lawyers with a similar pitch: Circle of Greed covers the entire range of experience for litigation lawyers, ably showing how cases are prepared, litigated and tried. In so doing, Pulitzer Prize winning writers Cannon and Dillon have created a masterpiece much like Tolstoy. I can't say much more than to declare this is the best book I've read this year, and I doubt it will be topped in 2010.

The book reaches its dramatic apogee in and around chapter 22 cleverly entitled, "The Hunters and the Hunted." In this duality, the book reports on class action securities lawyer William Lerach's simultaneous climb to pinnacle of his civil law niche in pursuit of Enron, while descending to the nadir of the criminal law as the target of the federal investigation that ultimately led to his felony conviction and substantial prison time.

Since Lerach cooperated with the writers, the book provides many fascinating details that an "unauthorized" book would not. While trying to be fair, the book exposes both the laudable and the lamentable. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Lerach does emerge rather well from the narrative, vindicating his decision to participate in the book.

The ultimate beneficiary, however, is the reader. Circle of Greed garners my top recommendation.

Book Review: Last Words (2009) by George Carlin with Tony Hendra.

2010-05-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

I confess I don't like the old George Carlin.

By this, I don't mean the elder version. I mean the younger one.

The older George didn't like the the younger one either.

This posthumously published book, Last Words, explains why. Carlin writes about how he found his voice later in life. He found his voice only after he dug deeply, while dispensing with artifices that characterized his earlier career filled with synthetic television show appearances, "micro-world" topics, such as toe nails and peas, and throwaway characters (leading to some self-loathing).

Carlin's later material (especially his HBO specials from about the late 1990s forward) was beyond challenging, bracing, acerbic, dark, angry and at times idiosyncratically insightful. On top of the penetrating substance, Carlin's mastery of the English language, his delivery, and presentation set the bar for later comics.

More informational than funny, Carlin's book reveals much about his Irish-Catholic upbringing in New York City (with, as he says, "no father and half a mother"), his surprising time in the Air Force, his career arc, and most intimately, his marriages (he was widowed from his first wife and married to his second for almost 10 years when he died on June 22, 2008) and personal failings and insecurities.

Recommended to Carlin fans and to satirists/comics wanting to learn from the best how it is done.

Lawyer Jokes (An Occasional Series).

2010-05-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

Another law and theology joke:

"A lawyer was sitting in her office late one night, when Satan appeared. The Devil told the lawyer: 'I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your husband's soul, your children's souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, and parents-in-law, and the souls of all your friends and law partners.'

"The lawyer thought for a moment, then asked: 'So, what's the catch?'"

(via The 'Lectric Law Library: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fun09.htm)

Lawyer Jokes (An Occasional Series).

2010-05-15T23:42:00.000-07:00

Author and attorney Scott Turow told this joke on NPR today. Because it mixes law and theology I can't resist repeating it here (with slight paraphrasing).

An engineer, a physician and an attorney were sitting on a park bench.

The engineer asserted God was an engineer because he created the physical universe with such precision and complexity.

The physician disagreed, arguing that God was a doctor because of how he created human bodies with such intricate, symbiotic functionality.

The lawyer asserted, "You're both wrong. God was a lawyer. The first thing he created was chaos and darkness."

Movie Review: You Don't Know Jack (2010).

2010-05-05T17:00:00.000-07:00

If someone were to come to you with an offer to make a movie about your life, and pitch that Al Pacino would play you and Barry Levinson would direct, would you think it was going to be a positive portrayal?

I would. So when I saw those film auteurs would be involved in the HBO film project about Dr. Jack Kevorkian, I predicted he would be essentially lionized in it.

I was right.

The film treats Dr. Kevorkian as a principled, yet eccentric fellow who is fighting for phyisician-assisted suicide, even at his peril. On top of medical and ethical issues, the film delves deeply into the legal conflicts Dr. Kevorkian found himself in, which the movie noted was no fewer than five prosecutions. In addition to trial scenes, the movie shows an appellate oral argument. As a result, lawyers will enjoy the movie much like watching the trial scenes in My Cousin Vinny.

Dr. Kevorkian did well in these legal skirmishes as long as he left the lawyering to lawyers (i.e. Geoffrey Fieger, who donated his time to the cause). On the last one, Dr. Kevorkian essentially represented himself and did eight years in prison for second degree murder. Surgeons wouldn't dream of performing surgery on themselves, and much more so, nondoctors shouldn't either. The strongest case the movie makes is one should not represent oneself in a murder prosecution. Good advice.

Strongly on Dr. Kevorkian's side, the movie unnecessarily lampoons as charicatures those who disagree (essentially on religious grounds). The film makes no pretense of presenting the other side reasonably, but resorts to reducing the opposition to sloganeering (from sneering, unsophisticated folks).

Despite the imbalance, the movie deserves credit for addressing an incendiary issue through the quirky life of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and in doing so, in the context of legal procedure.

Church and State (An Occasional Series).

2010-04-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

I snapped this photo at the Long Beach Grand Prix this past weekend. In this single shot, you have an individual exercising his First Amendment rights with a sign reading, "BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. ACTS 16:31", and police officers talking to him about it.

Book Review: The Happiness Project (2009) by Gretchen Rubin.

2010-04-21T11:15:00.000-07:00

Surprisingly, Gretchen Rubin somewhat undermines her thesis that happiness is intentional.

At the outset, she writes: "According to current research, in the determination of a person's level of happiness, genetics accounts for about 50 percent; life circumstances, such as age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, income, health, occupation, and religious affiliation, account for about 10 to 20 percent; and the remainder is a product of how a person thinks and acts." (p. 6.)

In other words, if at least 50 percent (and likely much more) is governed by circumstances beyond one's control, isn't that a little depressing? (sorry)

But, if heredity isn't destiny, then most of Rubin's book uplifts. She breaks her project into twelve parts--one for each month. Not all monthly projects are created equal, however. For example, her chapter for April on "Parenthood" stands out. She offers some helpful tips, including trying to reverse the propensity of parents to speak negatively to their children. Rubin reports that "[s]tudies show that 85 of adult messages to children are negative--'no,' 'stop,' 'don't'--so it's worth trying to keep that to a minimum. Instead of saying, 'No, not until after lunch,' I try to say, 'Yes, as soon as we've finished lunch.'" (99.)

By contrast, her chapter for August to "Contemplate the Heavens" and "eternity" from an "reverent agnostic" (195) falls flat. While Rubin hints at aspects of "spirituality" that may increase happiness, she does not enjoy the depth of background to harvest the fruit presented by this bountiful topic.

Further, the two quoted passages above (6 and 99) illustrate an annoying tendency in the book to cite "current research" or "studies" without any footnote, endnote or citation for support. As a result, the reader has no idea how credible this research is. As a former Supreme Court clerk, who left the law to write, perhaps Rubin intentionally shunned writing like a lawyer in this respect.

As an interesting side note, her father-in-law Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary) makes several appearances in the book (and receives favorable treatment).

In sum, while Rubin might receive criticism for gimmickry (which she acknowledges), the book contains some useful food-for-thought as to what influences happiness, and how one can take intentional steps (thoughts and actions) to maximize it.

Praising the Good (An Occasional Series).

2010-04-18T14:52:00.000-07:00

1. Flyleaf. From their most recent record, Memento Mori, is the bracing song, "Beautiful Bride". Playing through mainstream rock stations, its overt theology of the Church is arresting. For example, this excerpt of the lyrics (including chorus containing the phrase, "Body of Christ") removes any ambiguity and underscores Flyleaf's uncompromising audacity of message:

"[Unified] diversity
Functioning as one body
Every part encouraged by the other
No one independent of another
You're irreplaceable, indispensable
You're incredible, incredible

"Beautiful bride
Body of Christ
One flesh abiding
Strong and unifying
Fighting ends in forgiveness
Unite and fight all division
Beautiful bride"

(Songwriters: Bhattacharya, Sameer; Culpepper, James; Hartmann, Jared; Mosley, Lacey Nicole; Seals, Kirkpatrick via metrolyrics.com: http://tiny.cc/44yk0).

This bridal/body imagery comes directly from the Second Testament. (See, e.g., Revelation 21:9 and Ephesians 5:22-33; Romans 12:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-27.)

2. Dr. Douglas Groothuis/The Constructive Curmudgeon. Intermittently, I have linked to Dr. Groothuis' site, The Constructive Curmudgeon (including on April 10, 2010), which can be found here: http://tiny.cc/rc24q due especially to its original voice and profound thoughts. A Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, Dr. Groothuis provides incisive, indicting social commentary, with musings about politics, intelligent design (and other apologetics issues), and music (especially jazz). Sometimes he posts original poetry. The site's tone can sometimes seem a little "cranky", but it wouldn't befit its "curmudgeon" label otherwise.

Got Mirror?

2010-04-12T11:47:00.001-07:00

I guess one needs a mirror, rather than a map, to find the place.

Book Review: Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile (2008) by Rob Bell and Don Golden.

2010-04-10T09:01:00.000-07:00

Philosophy professor Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary critiques tendencies of many modern books:

"Many books today seem afraid to rely on pure text. They seem to be embarrassed to be what they are: books, that is, orderly collections of words formed into sentences and paragraphs.Too many books are filled with one-sentence paragraphs (usually a sign of poor style and impatience), call-outs that repeat what is in smaller print elsewhere on the page (annoying), stand-alone call-outs with little connection to the flow of the text and which I find disorienting. (When do I read them? That is their context?) We also find lists, bullet points (the bane of orderly discourse, but the balm of PowerPoint), and font variations. These books are more like children's books of old." (The Constructive Curmudgeon, April 3, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/y7s3h7o; emphasis supplied).

I wonder if Dr. Groothuis has read Rob Bell and Don Golden's Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile. As this book is loaded with one-sentence paragraphs and some colorful accoutrements, it might just ruin Dr. Groothuis' day for these reasons alone. (The authors also play games with the endnotes, as they add one [a Bible verse] to each chapter that nowhere appears in the text.) However, it would be hasty to reject it as childish for its stylistic indulgences. The book contains some thought-provoking material about the church today.

First, let me dismantle another potential stumbling block: the book's provocative title. The book does not argue that Christians need to be "saved" in the sense of obtaining reconciliation with God through justification. Rather, a clue unlocking the title's meaning is found in this one-sentence paragraph appearing late in the book: "Jesus wants to save our church from irrelevance." (p. 174.) Bell and Golden expound on their ideas about saving the church: "Jesus wants to save us from shrinking the gospel down to a transaction about the removal of sin and not about every single particle of creation being reconciled to its maker." (179.)

The book somewhat abruptly pivots from an exposition of biblical texts--largely the exodus narrative--into a call for the American church's political or social action. "[L]et's listen with fresh ears to the Bible. Because what's going on here is an ancient phenomenon known as empire [endnote omitted].

"America is an empire.

"And the Bible has a lot to say about empires.

"Most of the Bible is a history told by people living in lands occupied by conquering superpowers. It's a book written from the underside of power. It's an oppression narrative. The majority of the Bible was written by a minority people living under the rule and reign of massive, mighty empires, from the Egypt Empire to the Babylonian Empire to the Persian Empire to the Assyrian Empire to the Roman Empire.

***

"What we see in the Bible is that empires naturally accumulate wealth and resources." (121.)

Then, Bell and Golden explain the ways in which America is an empire that accumulates, which in turn leads to "consequences", including "burdens and curses". (122-23.) They call on the church to be mindful of this tendency towards accumulation, and simultaneously, to understand those who are trampled by empires who need liberation.

Notwithstanding the single-sentence paragraphs and colorful flourishes, Jesus Wants to Save Christians is challenging. It's challenging in its conclusions and its theology. In fact, I'm not sure its theology can withstand careful scrutiny in every respect, as it also occasionally indulges in excesses in its theological expositions.

So, here's an example of not judging a book by its text.

Book Review: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich.

2010-04-09T21:25:00.000-07:00

After describing a coworker's lament about wasting her employer's money by wasting time on the job, author Barbara Ehrenreich writes: "To me, this anger seems badly mis-aimed." (180.)

Pot, meet kettle.

Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed is an extended exercise in misdirected anger.

Holding a Ph.D. in biology and enjoying a career as a writer of several books, Ehrenreich took jobs as a waitress, hotel maid, house cleaner, nursing home aide, and retail clerk to expose the dispiriting working conditions endured in these travails.

Surprisingly, Ehrenreich mixes in rants about customers or clients who have nothing to do with setting these employment conditions. In a particularly shocking example during her stint as a house cleaner for a company, Ehrenreich seethes:

"[I]n a huge, gorgeous country house with hand-painted walls, I encounter a shelf full of arrogant and, under the circumstances, personally insulting neoconservative encomiums to the status quo and consider using germ warfare against the (house) owners, the weapons for which are within my apron pockets. All I would have to do is take one of the E. coli-rich rags that's been used on the toilets and use it to 'clean' the kitchen counters--a plan that entertains me for an hour or more." (109.)

Why is Ehrenreich directing her anger to the customer (besides class envy)? After all, the house owner did nothing to set any of the working conditions about which Ehrenreich complains. I'm quite confident the home owner did not set her hourly wage, set her schedule, dictate breaks (or lack thereof), or anything else about Ehrenreich's working conditions. Moreover, without the home owner contracting with Ehrenreich's employer for her services, there would be no wages flowing to Ehrenreich whatsoever. So, again, it appears the rage is misdirected.

Ehrenreich does expose, however, some appalling aspects of employment in such positions of unequal bargaining power. She describes scenarios of checks being withheld, breaks ignored, hours shaved (i.e. uncompensated) and other indignities or injustices.

Nickel and Dimed has birthed other immersion journalism books, including 2010's Working in the Shadows by Gabriel Thompson and Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard (reviewed here on March 8, 2010, and October 29, 2008, respectively). Both books expressly noted their inspiration in Ehrenreich's book. Even without the express acknowledgement, it was evident that Thompson's book bears a strong resemblance to Ehrenreich's, as if they share the same DNA. Their political perspectives, especially strong advocacy for unions, are nearly identical. However, Thompson's book mostly lets the conditions speak for themselves, while Ehrenreich colors her narrative with screeds. In the end, these diatribes, often off-topic, detract from the stories that can stand on their own without these immaterial attempts at enhancement.

Not a Law Firm.

2010-04-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

Mercifully, this photo I snapped is not of a law firm.

Book Review: What the Dog Saw (2009) by Malcolm Gladwell.

2010-04-04T08:09:00.000-07:00

It's surprising only one chapter contains the word "myth".

The chapter, "The Talent Myth--Are Smart People Overrated?" exemplifies Malcolm Gladwell's overall approach to his essays in What the Dog Saw. Just about every other one begins with a myth that Gladwell sets out to debunk.

Unlike his other three monster best-sellers: The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers (each favorably reviewed here), this book constitutes a collection of essays previously published in The New Yorker magazine.

Thus, it appears his criterion was to select essays exhibiting this myth theme. One example particularly captured my interest as a trial lawyer. Gladwell claims that prosecutors got it "wrong" when they prosecuted Enron's former CEO Jeffrey Skilling by framing the issue as a one about "truth and lies"--a commonly held belief about the Enron scandal. (p. 155.) Gladwell argues that the truth was hiding in plain sight, what he terms "an open secret". Instead, he calls it a "peril[] of too much information". (151.)

This debunking pattern removes the element of surprise. By the time I reached Gladwell's discussion of pit bull's reputation for aggressiveness, I knew how he would conclude: don't blame the breed. And there it was. (416.)

By far, as a book, What the Dog Saw represents Gladwell's weakest effort of his four. I can't help but suspect that Gladwell or his publisher sought to capitalize on his runaway success as an book author. Or perhaps that's just a myth. Maybe he intended to publish such a book all along.

Smarter Than Einstein.

2010-03-27T13:12:00.000-07:00

A student came up to me after my law school class and said, "You must be smarter than Einstein."

I thanked him for the compliment.

He then explained: "Only three people in the world understood what Einstein was talking about.

"And no one understands what you are talking about."

(Modified from Dr. Norm Geisler's speech given on September 6, 2009; i.e. farcical, but still funny.)

What Am I Supposed to Do With This?

2010-03-23T10:33:00.000-07:00

I encountered this dilemma last week at an intersection.
If I followed the instruction, I would still be standing there. There's no "button" to "push".

Book Review: Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell.

2010-03-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

Using the painting metaphor set up by pastor Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis, people will see different aspects in this book as they do when viewing a painting or artwork.

In other words, there's something for everyone here. Some will hate what they see. Some will love it. Calvinists will find some solace. Social gospel-teers will find support too. Orthodox and heterodox will both be emboldened.

It all depends on one's vantage point. Or interpretation. As Bell writes: "[T]he Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted.... It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says." (Emphasis in original.)

From my perspective, I enjoyed the different ways Bell looks at things that have become very familiar. For example, Bell observes that the first time John mentions "love" in his gospel is John 3:16 (God giving His Son), which correlates to the first time love's mentioned in Genesis (chapter 22 recording Abraham's attempted offering of his son Isaac).

Likewise, Bell's ideas about church are idiosyncratic. He eshews any kind of "church marketing" and even wants signage removed. "You can't put a sign out front, I argued; people have to want to find us. And so there were no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, and no signs. The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick." (Emphases in original.)

One should approach this book with an open mind. You might discover things that you hadn't seen before in the Bible or the Church. As I did.

Book Review: Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing the Jobs [Most] Americans Won't Do (2010) by Gabriel Thompson.

2010-03-08T13:33:00.000-08:00

Gabriel Thompson and I share something in common.

He and I both are inspired by immersion journalism. He writes: "As a teenager, I relished George Orwell's accounts of going into dangerous coal mines in The Road to Wigan Pier and washing dishes in Down and Out in Paris and London, and was likewise moved by Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. I've always been drawn to chronicles of immersion journalism; they have a unique ability to explore fascinating and sometimes brutal worlds that are usually kept out of sight." (p. xiv.)

Too, I've read and reviewed several books of immersion journalism: e.g. The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University by Kevin Roose (reviewed 6/7/09); Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back Again by Norah Vincent (reviewed 6/23/09); and Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard (reviewed 10/29/08).

The difference is Thompson actually did it.

In Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing the Jobs [Most] Americans Won't Do, Thompson worked over a period of about a year total "cutting lettuce" in Yuma, Arizona, toiling in a poultry factory in Russellville, Alabama, and delivering flowers and food in Manhattan (his hometown). And then he wrote about it.

Effectively done, immersion journalism discovers "worlds that are usually kept out of sight" by the readers as well as the immersed journalist. This book is no exception.

While he's previously written about "the lives of immigrants" (and planned to do so again here [xiv]), he had "been blindsided by the degree of rural poverty suffered by U.S. citizens" (158), whom he worked alongside during this year. This discovery explains in part the apparent change to the book's subtitle, which had to add the bracketed "[most]" to acknowledge that some Americans will, and have, done this kind of work. Through this immersion, Thompson ably pulls the curtain back on the abuses suffered by those who happen to work with their hands. Thompson exposes how labor laws--especially in the New York setting--are simply ignored, with the concomitant understanding that those abused have no (or highly limited) power or ability to complain.

Thompson made some other interesting discoveries.

For example, "Unlike an office setting--where personalities frequently clash over an email or a comment taken the wrong way--there doesn't seem to be much conflict in the fields. For one thing, we're not maneuvering for advancement: Our roles and wage of $8.37 an hour will remain the same. Equally important, we lack the extra energy need to gossip or hold grudges for long; our exhaustion ensures that there's simply no time to develop the dysfunction that plagues many work environments." (35.)

To his credit, Thompson concedes that his politics motivated this project. "Politics animates me; politics is a factor that motivated my current project." (74.) Even without this concession, Thompson's politics becomes clear as he intersperses the narrative with excursions into studies and arguments concerning employment, poverty and immigration.

Even with its strong political stance, the book's compelling underlying narrative and Thompson's likability fight alienating readers who may disagree with his politics.

Highly recommended.

Long Beach Grand Prix, 2010.

2010-03-02T11:01:00.000-08:00

The race track is being set up for the Long Beach Grand Prix this year (April 16-18).

In that honor, here's my post from last year: http://tiny.cc/v5LPI, along with a photo of my vantage point:

Book Review: Too Big To Fail (2009) by Andrew Ross Sorkin.

2010-02-25T09:00:00.000-08:00

Would you want to listen to a play-by-play of a game when you knew the final score?

Some sports purists do, as old games run on the NFL Network and ESPN Classic, to analyze closely what happened.

Likewise, Andrew Ross Sorkin's Too Big To Fail reads like a play-by-play as it goes from myriad meetings to telephone conversations and then back again as "Wall Street and Washington fought to save the financial system--and themselves." For example, Sorkin reports on proposed merger talks, but knowing that such a merger was not consummated removes any suspense.

A sports play-by-play simply reports what happened. There's little emphasis on coaches' game plans before the game or what they were strategizing during the game. A play-by-play does not explain the why or how of events leading up to the game.

Too, Sorkin does not seem interested in doing an etiology of this financial breakdown. Sorkin quotes President Bush asking, "How ... did we get here?" (p. 440), but doesn't endeavor to provide any answers. Given that some might find the book's size almost "too big to read" (at 539 pages sans acknowledgements and notes), it's surprising how little Sorkin discusses causes.

By contrast, Lawrence G. McDonald and Patrick Robinson's briefer, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers (reviewed here on November 13, 2009), managed to do so. A former Lehman Brothers vice-president, McDonald was much harder on Richard Fuld and Joe Gregory than Sorkin was. In fact, the only person that took a sustained linguistic beating in Sorkin's tome was Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (and former Congressman from Newport Beach, CA), whom is called a "lightweight", "cryogentically frozen" (304) and "almost intentionally ineffectual" (422), among other things.

Nevertheless, Sorkin does provide an extensive array of material, that obviously took a tremendous amount of time to obtain. Given that most people weren't in meetings or privy to phone conversations, the book does keep readers' interest, notwithstanding knowledge of how things turned out.

As I passed the 500-page mark, I was impressed by the lack of editing errors, especially given the paucity of time that Sorkin had to conduct all this research and then assemble it into a book in about a year. Just as I formed that impression, a spate of errors cropped up suggesting the book was rushed to press just a bit too soon. (e.g., 503, 514, 516.)

Recommended.

Book Review: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (2008) by David Berlinski.

2010-02-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
--Norm Geisler and Frank Turek (from the title of their 2004 book).

In The Devil's Delusion, David Berlinski explains why those who rely on scientific naturalism are stepping out in faith. According to Dr. Berlinski, it's a faith because science has failed to answer the most basic of inquiries: the origins of the universe and life (among other things).

Due to these limitations, Dr. Berlinski chastises those who oversell their worldviews. For example, "The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness. The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community.... It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this is so." (p. xiv; emphasis in original.)

Dr. Berlinski continues: "Daniel Dennett's assertion that natural selection has been demonstrated 'beyond all reasonable doubt' must be judged for what it is: It is the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a cousin in kind to an ecclesiastical bluff. When Steven Pinker affirm that 'natural section is the only explanation we have of how complex life can evolve,' he is very much in the inadvertent position of the apostles. Much against his will, he is bearing witness." (196; emphasis in original.)

Berlinski's approach is somewhat unique for a couple of reasons. First, he comes at the issue not as one seeking to establish theism (or even as an adherent of any religion [p. xi]), but instead to undermine this kind of faith propagated by the "scientific community." Moreover, he does so from the inside, as he has taught and written on mathematics and science, after earning a Ph.D. from Princeton.

Second, Berlinski does so with the same searing smugness that came across when he was interviewed in Ben Stein's clever movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he insulted Richard Dawkins for his intellectual limitations. In this vein, the book is full of personal attacks, which while amusing, aren't necessary to build the case (and as in law actually undercut it). For example, Berlinski writes: "I count myself among [Sam] Harris's warmest detractors. When he remarks that he has been dumbstruck by Christian...intellectual commitments, I believe the word has met the man." (p. xi; emphasis in original.)

Setting aside the personal attacks, the book's unusual approach to the material gives it currency in today's economy of debate on these issues.

Recommended to those interested in the field.

Taxi Driver Philosopher.

2010-02-23T10:50:00.000-08:00

In Irvine, California yesterday, I was stopped behind a taxi cab that had a license plate holder with the following inscriptions: "Ayn Rand Institute" on the top, and http://www.aynrand.org/ on the bottom. I took this picture of it.

Here cab drivers are philosophers. Or philosophers are cab drivers.

Causes.

2010-02-11T14:13:00.000-08:00

On a jog at the beach this morning I encountered two messages carved into the sand.

On one side, someone engraved "God Loves You".

On the other, "Pot Smokers Unite".

I guess everyone needs a cause.

Book [on CD] Review: What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza.

2010-02-09T12:09:00.000-08:00

Dinesh D'Souza probably should be paying royalties to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and even the estate of Nietzsche.

For all the quotations of their work, he probably owes them a monetary debt. More broadly, D'Souza probably also owes them a debt of gratitude for they serve as foils for his book. In fact, the companion study guide is subtitled, "Your Guide to Answering the New Atheists". D'Souza asserts he wrote this book to answer their (and others') "strongest critiques and objections" to Christianity.

As a result, the book is mistitled (likely to parallel his earlier work, What's So Great About America). It's not so much as litany of the beneficial effects of Christianity as the title would suggest, but as a polemic for the religion, responding to such questions of the origin of the universe, miracles, and the problem of evil, among other things. D'Souza, however, does eventually get to the promised utilitarian argument in his final chapter (26), "A Foretaste of Eternity: How Christianity Can Change Your Life."

Coming from his background as a writer mostly about politics, D'Souza essentially relies on others to make his case in this disparate area. In this sense, D'Souza is a popularizer of what others have done in the fields of philosophy, science, and theology as they bear on these questions. However, while not formally trained in these disciplines, he brings to the topics clear prose, and sometimes, a creative way to repackage these thoughts for a general readership.

Movie Review: The Book of Eli.

2010-02-03T18:01:00.000-08:00

In a post dated September 22, 2009, I marvelled at the audacity of a congregation who planned to plant a church in the heart of Hollywood.

Likewise, I marvel at the audacity of the filmmakers of The Book of Eli who placed the Christian Bible at the heart of a Hollywood movie.

So much does this film elevate these Scriptures, it's almost Bible-idolatry.

Witness one line from Gary Oldman's character who seeks to obtain, for nefarious purposes, the lone copy of the Bible remaining after an apocalypse: "It is a weapon." And it's "aimed right at the heart" of humanity. This gentlemen as well as the film's protagonist, Denzel Washington's Eli both value the Bible's life-changing message that it transforms their lives. Both understand its transformative powers, and they mine it for different ends.

As for Eli, his life has been dedicated for the 30 years since the apocalypse to saving these Scriptures by taking them "West". While this name means divine figure, the movie doesn't fully sculpt a Christ-figure, but in its apparently intentional ambiguity, it comes very close. For this reason, and many others, this film is full of Christian metaphor and imagery. Accordingly, it will appeal to believers who have a high tolerance for filmic violence (e.g. Passion of the Christ).

Simultaneously, with a Sixth Sense-type twist (no spoilers here), visually and aurally stunning atmospherics, and an acting gift from Mr. Washington, it operates on its own as a brilliant Hollywood movie.

Highly recommended.

Book Review: Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility (2009) by David M. Walker.

2010-01-28T21:58:00.000-08:00

Alert the media!

David M. Walker claims he has solved the the country's deficit and debt crises in Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility.

His solution: cut spending and raise taxes.

How did this prescription possibly elude everyone else?

The answer is that it hasn't. What has been elusive is leadership. One party wants to cut taxes and the other wants to increase spending (and some want both). The result is a balance sheet that isn't. Walker lays out a parade of horribles regarding the resultant national debt and unfunded obligations. (E.g., pp. 5-25.) This is not a news flash.

Too, Walker offers some political proposals, such as term limits and other anti-incumbency measures, and constitutional amendments. (pp. 193-96.) However, unless those in power and those who put them in power get serious about this mess, nothing will change. Walker, who has been a Washington-insider for many years, most recently as CEO of the Government Accountability Office from 1998 to 2008, knows this as well as anyone. I admire his apparent optimism, but this book comes across as a simplistic antidote to a poison that has probably irreparably corroded the system.

Walker himself concedes: "All of this is easy to say, but it will be tough to accomplish." (p. 192.) "[E]asy to say", yes; but far more than "tough to accomplish."

Book Review: Patience With God: Faith for Those Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) (2009) by Frank Schaeffer.

2010-01-24T12:15:00.000-08:00

"Rigid purity is the ultimate denial of paradox. And that denial is the only blasphemy there is. It's the blasphemy committed against God by all fundamentalists with every false certainty they mouth about Him." --Frank Schaeffer, Patience With God (p. 194).

This quote reveals much about the book (as well as inverts the biblical definition of blasphemy). In sum, Schaeffer contends God is "ineffable". (149.) So he's against anyone asserting anything with certainty, including "evangelicals/fundamentalists" and the "new atheists" (which he lumps in as fundamentalists of a different stripe).

He prescribes a third way, "an apophatic view". (150.) He calls it "a humble thread that runs through many religions parallel to the deadly we-know-it-all thread of the theological hubris." (150.)

For one ardently arguing we cannot know virtually anything about God, and chastising both "evangelicals/fundamentalists" and the "new atheists" for their disdain of "the other" (among other things), Patience With God inconsistently advocates a particular view about God and often vitriolically attacks "the other". Rick Warren as well as Richard Dawkins each receive sharp barbs from the author (among others), although attacks are mostly about their commercialism.

In the end, despite promising "'something' to hold on to" (xxi), the converse is the result. Employing Schaeffer's amorphous prescription is akin to grasping air or "shoveling smoke" as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously observed (about lawyers' work).

Moreover, this book's an exercise of ignoring the evidence. Schaeffer simply doesn't deal with it in arriving at his conclusions. Rather, he relies more on his experiences, content to produce another memoir. (125.) In this regard, Schaeffer recycles stories about his childhood contained in 2007's Crazy for God and provides new ones. In doing so, Schaeffer seems to working out issues he had with his parents who "forgot" him as they pursued their ministries. Nevertheless, that experience of religion, albeit painful, doesn't prove or disprove its underlying tenets.

Accordingly, in the end, the book should be understood simply as one man's memorialization of his circuitous spiritual journey. It's not a polemic that undermines the sides Schaeffer attempts to debunk or discard.

Book Review: In-N-Out Burger: A Behind-The-Counter Look at the Fast-Food Chain that Breaks All the Rules (2009) by Stacy Perman.

2010-01-17T18:05:00.000-08:00

With packages replete with Bible verses and bags proclaiming it's "NOT A FRANCHISED COMPANY, PRIVATELY OWNED AND FAMILY OPERATED", one could say In-N-Out Burger is the anti-McDonald's.

Indeed, that's a recurring theme of Stacy Perman's recent book about the iconoclastic burger chain founded in Baldwin Park, California, and still run from Southern California, as she routinely contrasts the two chains.

Despite the company's traditional reticence, Perman uncovers the history of In-Out-Burger. It's a history of triumph and tragedy--especially with the founders' family, the Synders.

Harry and Esther Snyder opened their first burger stand in 1948. Harry innovated the two-way intercom for drive-through orders, according to Perman. He also was a stickler for quality, service and cleanliness. To maintain these high standards, Harry refused to cut corners--either with wages (paying above industry norms) or ingredients (insisting on using only the middle cuts of tomatoes for example).

They had two children, Guy and Rich. Esther then saw each of these men predecease her--the later two in their forties in the most tragic of circumstances: drugs and an airplane crash, respectively.

Of particular interest to lawyers, the story also intertwines with a number of lawsuits, the most recent being a fight for control of the company played out in middle of the last decade.

Credit Perman for selecting a topic ripe for the picking (sorry). I'm not aware of anyone else writing a book about In-N-Out, despite its obvious appeal. Especially since In-N-Out is not a public company, Perman had to dig to obtain the volume of information she marshaled here. She reports conducting over one hundred interviews and reviewing thousands of legal documents. (p. 289.) She deserves praise for this.

However, Perman--an admitted fan (292)--gets carried away at times praising the food. For example, her opening chapter chronicles the near paroxysm of ecstasy of those who eat there, as if there was some kind of narcotic in it--a theme to which she randomly returns. There's no such secret ingredient of course. After all, it's just a quality burger--with a gripping story wrapped around it.

Book Review: The Case for God (2009) by Karen Armstrong.

2010-01-10T11:59:00.000-08:00

"All history becomes subjective."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

--Sir Winston Churchill

In other words, the scriveners of history shape it. Karen Armstrong's sweeping The Case For God illustrates this point. Despite the title, the book is not an apologetic but rather a history text. It explores the history of religion from Part I's "The Unknown God" (30,000 BCE to 1,500 CE) through Part II's "The Modern God" (1,500 CE through the present).

Along the way, Armstrong covers a staggering array of religious history. While Armstrong generally does this reportage in an accurate fashion as far as it goes (with some exceptions), one senses that the book is selecting, arranging and presenting this history with a point in mind. The point isn't to prove God's existence as the title suggests, but rather to lead one to Armstrong's particular experience of God through a religion that is "a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new capacities of mind and heart." (p. xiii.)

In The Case for God, Armstrong attacks the "fundamentalism" emanating from the three major monotheistic religions, but also its "parasitic" reaction: atheism, especially the "new atheism" strain of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Her critique of the "new atheists" is especially sharp: "[I]t is difficult to see how theologians could dialogue fruitfully with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, because their theology is so rudimentary."

Nevertheless, Armstrong insightfully writes that the atheist critique is useful to theists (and hence the Church). Armstrong observes: "An informed atheist critique shall be welcomed, because it can draw our attention to inadequate or idolatrous theological thinking." (323.) She continues: "An intelligent atheistic critique could help us to rinse our minds of the more facile theology that is impending our understanding of the divine." (327.)

Armstrong's book is not immune from critique itself. Armstrong bandies about the hackneyed labels, "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" without really defining what she is talking about. In fact, her label is so broad that it appears it would cover Roman Catholics who might be surprised to learn they are considered "fundamentalists". For example, Armstrong states: "Christian fundamentalists take a hard line on what they regard as moral and social decency. They campaign against the teaching of evolution in public schools, are fiercely patriotic and conduct a crusade against abortion." (294). This characterization might describe or pertain to a certain political orientation of some Christians, but it does not define what Christian fundamentalism is. Indeed, people who aren't strictly "Christian fundamentalists" could be accurately described in this passage, and conversely, people who might meet the definition of "Christian fundamentalism" (by assent to certain doctrinal fundamentals) that are not so politically inclined.

Despite some excesses, this book represents an admirable amount of research and a broad, quality history of how people have viewed God over myriad centuries. It's indubitably a feast for the mind, but also the heart.

The Year in Review, 2009.

2009-12-31T00:08:00.000-08:00

Books Read

1. Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton (reviewed 1/15/09);

2. Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed 1/19/09);

3. Fun While It Lasted: My Rise and Fall in the Land of Fame and Fortune by Bruce McNall (reviewed 1/26/09);

4. Journey of a Thousand Miles: My Story by Lang Lang with David Ritz (reviewed 2/4/09);

5. Lawyer Boy by Rick Lax (reviewed 2/11/09);

6. How to Lose Friends and Alienate People: A Memoir by Toby Young (reviewed 3/2/09);

7. A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity by Bill O'Reilly (reviewed 3/20/09);

8. Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity by John W. Loftus (reviewed 4/5/09);

9. There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese (reviewed 4/24/09);

10. 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania by Matthew Chapman (reviewed 4/30/09);

11. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (reviewed 5/13/09);

12. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul by Edward Humes (reviewed 5/21/09);

13. Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain by Michael Paterniti (reviewed 5/24/09);

14. The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University by Kevin Roose (reviewed 6/7/09);

15. Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage by Jeff Benedict (reviewed 6/8/09);

16. Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back Again by Norah Vincent (reviewed 6/23/09);

17. Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever by Walter Kirn (reviewed 6/26/09);

18. Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace by Willliam Lobdell (reviewed 7/2/09);

19. Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne (reviewed 7/10/09);

20. This is Water, Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, About Living a Compassionate Life by David Foster Wallace (reviewed on 7/25/09);

21. Was Jesus God? by Richard Swinburne (reviewed on 8/3/09);

22. The Right Stuff by Thomas Wolfe (reviewed on 8/11/09);

23. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by N.T. Wright (reviewed 8/17/09);

24. Renegade: The Making of a President by Richard Wolffe (reviewed 8/28/09);

25. Columbine by Dave Cullen (reviewed 9/14/09);

26. The Faith by Charles Colson and Harold Fickett (reviewed 10/4/09);

27. Out of Captivity: Surviving 1,967 Days in the Colombian Jungle by Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell, Tom Howes and Gary Brozek (reviewed 10/9/09);

28. The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich (reviewed 11/1/09);

29. Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman by Mary Tillman with Narda Zacchino (reviewed on 11/11/09);

30. A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers by Lawrence G. McDonald with Patrick Robinson (reviewed 11/13/09);

31. Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor by Matt Latimer (reviewed 11/18/09);

32. American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia by Joan Biskupic (reviewed 12/3/09);

33. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins (reviewed 12/23/09);

34. God? A Debate Between a Christian and Atheist by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (reviewed 12/29/09);

35. Reasonable Faith: Christian Faith and Apologetics (3d ed. 2008) by Willliam Lane Craig (good survey of Dr. Craig's five unequally persuasive, but cumulative arguments for God's existence);

36. Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman (2009) by Jon Krakauer (when a great writer, Krakauer, meets a great subject, Tillman, recording great triumphs and tragedy, it's textual magic).

Losses Sustained

John A. Radcliffe (see 9/30/09 post).

Film of the Year

In a lean year, Inglourious Basterds (sic) for the writing (by Quentin Tarantino) and acting (by Christoph Waltz)--in multiple languages--of the instantly legendary and unparalleled character, Col. Hans Landa.

Trial of the Year

Part I: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-when-we-were-going-to-get-married.html;

Part II: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-when-we-were-going-to-get-married_30.html

Appeal of the Year (tie)

"That's You"

Part I: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-you.html;

Part II: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-you-part-ii.html

"Summiting"

Part I: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/01/summiting.html

Part II: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/04/summiting-part-iii.html

Part III: http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/04/summiting-part-iii.html

Book Review: God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist.

2009-12-29T15:01:00.000-08:00

God?

There's an elegant simplicity to this question and title. It's the most threshold of queries. Worldviews necessarily turn on the answer.

William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong tackled this fundamental question in two live debates and then collected these arguments into a book. "In th[e] first debate, Craig argued for the existence of God, and then Sinnott-Armstrong criticized Craig's arguments and offered arguments to the contrary." (p. x.)

In the second debate, Sinnott-Armstrong opened by arguing against the existence of God, and then Craig criticized Sinnott-Armstrong's arguments and offered arguments to the contrary." (xi.)

In organizing the ensuing book, "Craig developed his opening remarks" from the first debate into Chapter 1 of this book, while Sinnott-Armstrong expanded his opening remarks" in the second debate into Chapter 4 of this book." (xi.)

"After exchanging those chapters, Sinnott-Armstrong polished his criticisms [in the first debate] to produce Chapter 2 of this book, and Craig elaborated his remarks [in the second debate] to create Chapter 5 of this book. Finally, after [they] exchanged Chapters 2 and 5, Craig wrote Chapter 3 in response to Sinnott-Armstrong's Chapter 2, and Sinnott-Armstrong constructed Chapter 6 as a reply to Craig's Chapter 5." (xi.)

As a result of this methodology, the participants created a product that truly represents an engaged debate in book format. I had criticized Dr. Craig's earlier effort to turn a live debate into a book (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? [reviewed on May 13, 2009]), because it was (through no fault of Dr. Craig) like Grape-Nuts--neither grape nor nuts, i.e. neither a debate nor a book. Fortunately, this effort hits both notes.

Although several arguments were advanced in the process, I want to focus on one that typically emerges when God's existence is debated--the problem of evil or suffering.

I've known Dr. Craig as a usually careful debater. Consequently, I was surprised to read his following concession: "Now we come to a really serious problem, atheism's killer argument, the problem of evil." (112.) "Killer argument"? Dr. Craig concedes too much. It's perhaps a "challenging" or atheism's "strong[est]" argument, but "killer"? As Dr. Craig then proceeds to offer arguments answering it, it appears that Dr. Craig doesn't believe it's a dispositive or even persuasive one. In any event, I found Dr. Craig's turning the "problem" into a proof to be remarkable. Dr. Craig posits: "evil paradoxically goes to prove God's existence, since without God things would not be good or evil as such....But even in the absence of any answer to the 'why' question, the present argument provides that evil does not call into question, but actually requires, God's existence. So although, superficially, evil seems to call into question God's existence, at a deeper level it actually proves God's existence, since without God, evil as such would not exist." (126.)

This book expertly captures the essence of the modern debate about God's existence. Both sides ably represent their respective positions and engage well. Recommended.

Movie Review: Avatar (Mild Spoiler Alert).

2009-12-27T06:22:00.000-08:00

Visually innovative, narratively derivative.

You've never seen anything like this. But you've heard the story before.

Even with the hype and the twelve-year hiatus from features, director James Cameron exceeds expectations in making a visually arresting filmic experience. Please see this in 3-D. You will be transported to another time and place. After all, the film is set on "Pandora" in 2154. You wouldn't expect to see the same things seen on Earth, such as a large ship or a diamond necklace.

However, the saga of the Na'vi thinly veils the story of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples (complete with attendant spirituality). Writer Cameron does creatively introduce a hitherto overlooked aspect into the narrative--a paraplegic protagonist in an action movie.

Despite some anachronisms and an overlong battle scene at the end (and generally), the movie delivers what others can't: a truly innovative visual experience.

Do I Need To?

2009-12-25T17:35:00.000-08:00

During a break in trial last week, the court reporter asked me if I had ever taken a speech class.

My immediate thought was, "Do I need to?"

Her next query explained the impetus for her question.

"Have you been a professional speaker?"

What I initially thought might have been an insult turned out to be a nice compliment. She concluded the conversation by asking me if I would be interested in representing her in a case where she was being sued for north of seven figures. She identified her current attorney--a famous trial attorney--whom I will not name. I declined but thanked her for the kind words and vote of confidence. An early Christmas gift that cost nothing.

Book Review: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009) by Richard Dawkins.

2009-12-23T15:30:00.000-08:00

Like a "fronkey", The Greatest Show on Earth represents a hybrid.

It's neither fully a science text nor a screed.

It's not a dispassionate, objective science text because it contains so much rhetoric and surprisingly few supporting notes. For example, Dawkins crows: "Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact." (p. 8.) Dawkins continues: "Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." (9.) When a lawyer overargues a case, it makes another wonder what is being omitted or obscured. Here, we might start with a definitional problem. If Dawkins means "microevolution" (changes within species), I doubt he would receive much argument from advocates of "intelligent design" or even creationism. But if he means evolution in the sense of common descent from a nondivine single source (which he seems to), the "evidence" isn't as compelling as promised.

Conversely, it's not merely a screed because it provides Dawkins' "summary of the evidence" for "evolution" (vii). Dawkins usefully illuminates how various "clocks" are used to measure time in millions of years. (Chapters 4 and 10). Dawkins additionally explains the fossil record and its interpretation. There's also discussions about genetics and plate tectonics that edify.

Especially given Dawkins' complaints about having his prior writings used against him, I found this passage from The Greatest Show on Earth puzzling. "Every fossil that might potentially be intermediate is always classified as either Homo or Australopithecus. None is ever classified as intermediate. Therefore there are no intermediates." (202.) Some form of that last sentence is likely to be extracted and used against Dawkins.

A populizer of Darwinism, Dawkins remains at the vanguard of debate as to the origin of human life. Thus, it's a good idea to read his books, regardless of one's biases.

DVD Review: Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson: Is Christianity Good for the World? (2009).

2009-12-07T22:01:00.000-08:00

In my law school class last week, we discussed the newly released DVD, Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson: Is Christianity Good for the World?

On the surface, this might appear to tangential to a legal course. Au contraire.

At the end of this DVD, Hitchens makes an insightful comment about the United States' legal system. He critiques American culture by observing that debate is "very poorly conducted" here. He cites two examples to support his argument. First, he points to Congress with its series of speeches, but no engagement. Second, he skewers television talk shows with the converse--people yelling at and past each other. I added a third: talk radio (on both sides of the political spectrum) mostly operates as an echo chamber with callers simply feeding back the views of the hosts, or telling them what geniuses they are.

Hitchens carves out one notable exception to this dearth of debate: courtrooms. He finds them founts of argument evolving with evidence, concepts and arrangement in symmetry. Agreed.

In this DVD, however, Hitchens and Wilson strive to add a new source of debate: philosophical dialogue. This DVD compiles exchanges of these participants from their 2008 book tour loosely around the question asked in their book, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" I say loosely because the discussion routinely veers beyond this singular question, but generally represents a clash between atheist and Christian worldviews.

Familiar with Hitchens through his books and other writings as well as his performance in similar debates, and generally regarding him as one of the most skilled communicators walking the planet, I frankly wondered whether Pastor Wilson would be up to this task. While others have criticized his performance, I think apart from a couple of missteps he held his own. Even Hitchens regards the two as "reasonably well matched"--high praise.

Despite some excesses, such as a Rocky-style intro, as if two pugilists were entering a ring, and some bizarre, jarring camera angles, graphics and editing, the DVD still captures the essence that makes this debate entertaining. There are real and respectful exchanges of ideas that can inspire the audience to greater understanding and engagement with important issues.

Recommended.

Book Review: American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (2009) by Joan Biskupic.

2009-12-03T12:48:00.000-08:00

Justice Antonin Scalia has objected to receiving "lifetime" achievement awards as akin to a shiny statue going to a "washed up" Hollywood actor to recognize past achievements.

This new book, American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, while seemingly a capstone of Justice Scalia's long career on the bench at the U.S. Supreme Court, instead posits that he now "might be at the apex of his influence." (p. 364.)

"Scalia had changed the terms of the debate at the [Supreme] Court, in law schools, and in professional legal analyses." (353.)

He has been called the Court's "most influential justice." (353.)

So, rather than just celebrating a career, the book looks for streams collecting into Justice Scalia's current, powerful river of influence.

Some key themes emerge: (1) his religion; (2) his politics; and (3) his jurisprudential philosophy, among other things.

Religious Influences

Justice Scalia recounted "the last lesson [he] learned at Georgetown: not to separate your religious life from your intellectual life. They are not separate." (25.) Others have observed this influence: "Scalia's longtime friend Arthur Gajarsa, who became a federal appeals judge in 1997, characterized Scalia as defined by his Catholicism. 'I think his faithful belief in the Catholic doctrine is what makes him run.'" (187.)

As I have written extensively on the intersection of law and theology, especially as it relates to the similar use of texts, I found the following observation intriguing: "SUNY-Buffalo law professor George Kanner linked Scalia's text-driven legal approach with his 'catechism' roots as the son of observant Catholics and a graduate of the Jesuit-run Xavier High School and Georgetown University." (191.)

Political Influences

American Original also recounts Justice Scalia's work in the Nixon and Ford administrations, where he linked up with Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. He argued strongly then for an expansive Executive branch power, and that view has not abated on the bench.

Jurisprudential Influences

This book spends considerable space delving into Justice Scalia's originalist judicial philosophy and traces its outworking through many controversies and opinions.

Biskupic, a Supreme Court reporter for many years, with Justice Scalia's blessing (413), has written a superb, fully-orbed portrayal of the high court's "most influential justice."

Recommended to lawyer and layperson alike, but since the book delves into the "weeds" of the law, it probably would be appreciated more by the former.

Best Exam Answer Ever.

2009-12-01T22:36:00.000-08:00

While waiting for trial to begin this week, our conversation turned to university philosophy courses. It triggered my memory of a tale about the best exam answer ever.

In one of my graduate philosophy classes, a classmate recounted that his undergraduate philosophy professor gave an exam with a single instruction. The professor placed a chair on a table in the front of the class and instructed, “Prove that this chair doesn’t exist."

One ingenious (and brave) student answered with a two-word response, “What chair?”

It’s all about the burden of proof--and brevity. As Shakespeare observed in Hamlet, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Feel Free to Steal It.

2009-11-30T20:58:00.000-08:00

Objecting to plaintiff's effort to try a case beyond the scope of her complaint, I opened my trial brief:

"To paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, parties go to trial with the pleadings they have, not ones they wish for."

Judge loved it. Feel free to steal it.

Why the Church is Tempted to Practice a Christless Christianity.

2009-11-23T23:54:00.000-08:00

Author of Christless Christianity (reviewed here on January 15, 2009), my former classmate Dr. Michael Horton (Ph.D., Oxford) was recently interviewed by Mark Galli in Christianity Today. Based on my own observations from visiting many churches, I believe Dr. Horton ably sums up so much of today's Church in his brief response to the question, "What is at the core of the temptation to practice a Christless Christianity?"

"When the emphasis becomes human-centered rather than God-centered. In more conservative contexts, you hear it as exhortation: 'These are God's commandments. The culture is slipping away from us. We have to recover it, and you play a role. Is your life matching up to what God calls us to?' Of course there is a place for that, but it seems to be the dominant emphasis.

"Then there is the therapeutic approach: 'You can be happier if you follow God's principles.' All of this is said with a smile, but it's still imperative. It's still about techniques and principles for you to follow in order to have your best life now.

"In both cases, it's law rather than gospel. I don't even know when I walk into a church that says it's Bible-believing that I'm actually going to hear an exposition of Scripture with Christ at the center, or whether I'm going to hear about how I should 'dare to be a Daniel.' The question is not whether we have imperatives in Scripture. The question is whether the imperatives are all we are getting, because people assume we already know the gospel—and we don't."

For the full interview posted November 19, 2009, click here.

Not all is lost, however. For example, a former pastor who appears chastened from his imperatives-driven approach seems to reject it as he transitions from being a full-time "pastor to the real-world". Here are some of his key observations: "[1]. I had NO clue the kind of financial, job, and family pressure most of our people were living with[.] [2.] Getting up and preaching what people should do is easy. Living it out is not. [3.] So much of what I preached, I will never preach again because the fact is it is not possible to do in the real world. [4.] I worked less than the people I pastored. Ministry was my job yet I asked our people to serve, volunteer, etc. AFTER they have worked 50-60 hour work weeks."
http://www.garylamb.org/2009/10/31/transition-from-pastor-to-real-world/

Book Review: Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor (2009) by Matt Latimer.

2009-11-18T17:25:00.000-08:00

This book won’t be a script for a remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

It could be one, however, for: Mr. Latimer Leaves Washington in Disappointment, Disillusionment and Disgust.

Latimer begins the story describing his idealism. For example, he was actually an enthusiastic supporter of Bob Dole's 1996 campaign; yes, he was the one. Among other things, Latimer went to the convention held that year in San Diego, collected autographs from various political celebrities, and otherwise demonstrated his zeal for politics.

A self-professed conservative, Latimer made his pilgrimage to his dream job in the White House by serving a conservative Congressman, a few Republican Senators, as a speechwriter for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and eventually as a speechwriter in George W. Bush's White House.

Through this varied experience, Latimer becomes more and more disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted with Washington generally, and the Republican Party, as it was conducting itself, in particular. The only ones receiving consistent praise were Secretary Rumsfeld and Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona. The others? Pretty much skewered.

Of President Bush, Latimer writes: "I thought he was a good person who meant well." (p. 179.) Faint praise indeed. Latimer concludes his book with sharper criticism: "[H]aving my eyes opened to the president's willingness to abandon core conservative principles, I realized, sadly, that I didn't care about the administration anymore. The president was not the evil person his enemies made him out to be nor was he a dummy, but he also wasn't the leader I'd thought he was. I have no doubt that he meant well, that he tried to do good..., but he simply was not the president I wanted. He wasn't a conservative in the mold of Reagan or Thatcher.... If anything he seemed to be adrift." (251.)

Along with Latimer's dispiriting conclusions, he provides many funny anecdotes (even if some are hearsay) about the folly of our so-called leaders. But, in the end, is that really humorous or pathetic?

Book Review: A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers by Lawrence G. McDonald with Patrick Robinson.

2009-11-13T08:12:00.000-08:00

This book can be synopsized: We were right; they were wrong.

The "they" are primarily former CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld, Jr., and former President Joseph M. Gregory.

The "we"? Author Lawrence G. McDonald (a former VP of Lehman), of course, and a handful of his colleagues at Lehman.

The book repeatedly belittles the intelligence of the "they" while extolling the genius of the contrarians, the "we". Regarding Fuld, he's described in one withering passage "as a slightly pathetic, out-of-touch, confused old guy who was in office past his time, struggling with a 1970s playbook in a 2008 game." (300.) Contrasting that description, McDonald writes about his "supreme team" of "Wall Street masters", who were "the best there ever had been". (279.) His team was comprised of "the big brains that lived in fear of the small ones", i.e. the "they". (279.)

McDonald even concedes a good measure of "hindsight" guides his narrative (e.g., 196), but he does record instances where the "we" not only were objecting months and years before Lehman's bankruptcy filing on September 15, 2008, but actively taking positions that seemed contrary to the "they"'s real estate-laden agenda--for example, shorting builders' and banks' stocks.

McDonald characterizes his book as a "Wall Street thriller". (342.) If there is such a genre, this book definitely qualifies. On the "Wall Street" side, McDonald does an excellent job explaining CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), CLOs (collateralized loan obligations), CMBSs (commercial mortgage-backed securities), CDSs (credit default swaps), and the circumstances (e.g. the 1999 repealing of the Glass-Steagell Act of 1933 [3]) that led to Lehman's demise as well as the near crippling of the US (and world) economy. On the "thriller" side, McDonald and Robinson do so with a fast-paced story that is laced with uncommon wit and turns-of-phrases.

For example, "I didn't think we'd need to buy wine for the Christmas party, since the mortgage guys could probably produce chateau-bottled vintages from tap water, a technique hitherto regarded as a dying art." (113.)

As an added bonus, McDonald wraps his engaging personal story about his climb to Wall Street around the financial debacle of our time. For instance, his stories about how he bravely tried to find employment on Wall Street by posing as a pizza delivery person to get to the decision-makers echo stunts one might see in a movie.

If you are interested in learning how Wall Street was brought to its knees in 2008, McDonald and Robinson's book does so in a most entertaining way. It marries a creditable explication of the financial, legal, political and personal reasons with the riveting story-telling instincts of a Spielberg.

Highly recommended.

Book Review: Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman (2008) by Mary Tillman with Narda Zacchino.

2009-11-11T16:00:00.000-08:00

Pat Tillman deserves tributes.

His selfless story about leaving the NFL, and millions of dollars, to serve his country is a rare and inspiring one.

Unfortunately, his decision resulted in his death in Afghanistan by fratricide.

Then, this tragedy was compounded by misinformation about the circumstances of his death.

Mary Tillman (Pat's mother) isn't one to be misled. Almost immediately after learning of Pat's passing, she asked numerous questions, read voluminous documents, and met with multitudinous officials. She even testified before Congress. This odyssey didn't lessen her pain; it only seemed to heighten it.

Perhaps writing this book will give Ms. Tillman the peace she seeks. It's more likely she will find it by extolling her son, than examining the government's failings.

In lauding her son (subtitled, My Tribute to Pat Tillman), the book really shines. It provides intriguing details about Pat's upbringing and life before joining the Army Rangers. He was a voracious reader, a man of unquestionable integrity, and an inspiring example of leadership, among other things. He never seemed to take the easy or conventional way through life. He made decisions according to his strong sense of morality. For example, before he turned down millions by joining the military, he demonstrated his loyalty by taking far less money to play for the Arizona Cardinals because they believed in him (by drafting him in the seventh round), while eschewing a much more lucrative free-agent contract to play with the St. Louis Rams.

In particular, I found the tributes Ms. Tillman included from Pat's memorial service to be staggering. Sports radio personality Jim Rome's stood out:

"I decided quite some time ago the first athlete I would ever tell my son about would be Pat Tillman.

"I can't wait to sit my son down and tell him how much I admired Pat, to tell him about that legendary Tillman intensity, his hunger, his desire. I can't wait to tell my son that it's not necessarily about being the fastest or the strongest or the most athletic because Pat was never any of those things. But nobody rated higher in those intangible qualities that you could develop: hunger, desire, courage, competitive spirit, integrity, honesty, selflessness, the things that make you a great athlete and a great man...

"Pat's the man we should all aspire to be, a man of honor, courage, patriotism, and loyalty. Money, material possessions, luxury cars, huge mansions--these things meant nothing to Pat. Integrity, relationships with family, friends and teammates meant everything...." (p. 157.)

I can't wait either.

Book Review: The Accidental Billionaires (2009) by Ben Mezrich.

2009-11-01T10:28:00.000-08:00

I'd hate to see what Ben Mezrich would write if he wasn't a fan.

At the end of The Accidental Billionaires about Facebook's founding, Mezrich curiously writes: "I am an enormous fan of all the characters of this book; I am in awe of their genius, and I am grateful to have been able to get a glimpse into a world of creation I'd never known before." (p. 258; emphasis added.)

Given the encompassing term "all", this would necessarily include then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who appears significantly in the book when an ethics complaint was brought to him by Harvard students in connection with (then) thefacebook's founding as a dorm-room project there.

Consider Mezrich's (a Harvard grad's) bizarre treatment of Dr. Summers. While referring to him as "pudgy" four times and as "chubby" in pages 126 to 131, Mezrich flourishes: "Summers shook his head. His jowls reverberated with the motion, like fleshy waves in a swirling epidermal storm." (130.) Mezrich resumes his theme later chronicling a Harvard graduation ceremony: "Summers was almost ready behind the lectern, his wide jowly face just inches from the microphone." (238.) I've seen Dr. Summers (now a White House economics advisor, and former Secretary of the Treasury); he's not morbidly obese, so this embarrassing, excessive personal attack must have some other agenda--one I can't ascertain.

Perhaps the "all" was not intended to refer to Dr. Summers, and can therefore be chalked up to unintentionally overinclusive or imprecise language.

Nevertheless, there's no doubt that Facebook's principal founder, Mark Zuckerberg, is a central figure in the book. It's mysterious too why Mezrich would sum up his book by claiming himself a "fan", when the preceding pages present Mr. Zuckerberg in an unflattering light (at least in part). Indeed, the book's subtitle contains the word "betrayal" and Mezrich levels the charge squarely at Mr. Zuckerberg throughout the text, and notably, in its conclusion.

Mezrich too wrote the popular, Bringing Down the House, which became the movie, 21. Having read Bringing Down the House, about MIT students who gamed Vegas casinos, I eagerly anticipated reading Mezrich's latest. This book doesn't disappoint. Mezrich's prose moves swiftly and is unladen with extraneous scenes or plotlines. From a legal perspective, this book will especially appeal to lawyers because there are not one but two legal disputes discussed in The Accidental Billionaires. A fascinating ethical scenario enfolds, which could be excellent fodder for a law school professional responsibility class.

In this decade, Mr. Zuckerberg has followed in fellow Harvard dropout Bill Gates' footsteps, whom Mezrich intriguingly records Mr. Zuckerberg watching speak at Harvard while a student. Mezrich writes that Zuckerberg became a billionaire by 25. This is the business formation story of the day. Mezrich shrewdly seizes on this important, multi-layered narrative, and he does it justice.

Recommended.

Praising the Good (An Occasional Series).

2009-10-23T21:56:00.000-07:00

1. Dr. Shelly Kagan. Yale philosophy Professor Shelley Kagan's lectures for his course on death are, astoundingly, available for free on the AcademicEarth.org website. Sittiing on a desk, often cross-legged, and speaking without notes, Dr. Kagan shows how to lecture.

2. Ben Roethlisberger. Big Ben's the NFL's best closer. Watching him lead late drives is close to a religious experience. Loved his line this season as he took the field in OT just before engineering a game-ending drive: "Get me my hat." Reminds one of Babe Ruth's calling his home-run shot.

3. Jon Krakauer. There are about three nonfiction writers whose books I will read regardless of topic. Mr. Krakauer's one. (James Stewart and Jeffrey Toobin are the others.) I've read every book Jon has authored. Just finished his work of art, Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman (2009). Staggering; it affects one's equilibrium.

Movie Review: Capitalism: A Love Story.

2009-10-16T18:37:00.000-07:00

If this movie were a newspaper article, it would be an obituary.

If a song, a funeral dirge.

It's a requiem for the American dream.

Unlike prior Michael Moore offerings (all of which I've seen), most notably Roger & Me, Moore almost entirely abandons his technique of marrying comedy with tragedy. It's all tragic here.

Gone too are any semblances of subtlety. At the end, Moore pronounces capitalism as evil and calls for its eradication. In making this moralistic judgment, this movie is Moore's most religious. He features interviews with Catholic priests--who share his view about capitalism's immorality, and splices is scenes from the film Jesus of Nazareth. The movie even ends with Woody Guthrie's song, "Jesus Christ".

Given the few people in the theater at my screening, and its tepid box-office, it appears that the American public isn't in the mood for this. That's a shame because Moore does put his finger on issues that need to be critically thought-through, and he does uncover some outright outrages. For example, ever hear of dead-peasant insurance? Unfortunately, this is not the vehicle, especially since it stacks the deck through omissions of critical data. To hear Moore tell it, the "bailouts" simply gave away money. That's not quite the case. Loans and equity positions are not equatable with gifts.

Moore has been getting darker and darker in his movies--moving in progression from Roger & Me through his last before Capitalism, Sicko. I think he might draw in more people, and actually persuade more, through a less heavy hand. Hopefully he will rediscover his genius.

Book Review: Out of Captivity: Surviving 1,967 Days in the Colombian Jungle (2009).

2009-10-09T15:56:00.001-07:00

The best parts of this book begin and end it.

The beginning chronicles how Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell and Tom Howes' plane crashed into the Colombian jungle in 2003, and then records how they were immediately captured by the FARC. Not a good day at the office.

The end tells of their rescue in 2008 through heavy doses of cunning, planning, and daring.

In the middle, the book lags somewhat, as not much happens during their 5-plus years of captivity. It was surprisingly thin on self-reflection. Marc Gonsalves comes the closest when he wrote a "personal life outline" while in captivity. (p. 113.) He decided that:

"1. [He] wanted to be a stronger spiritual leader for [his] family.
"2. [He] wanted to be stronger in the face of distraction or temptation.
"3. [He] wanted to become the best father [he] could be to [his] children.
"4. [He] wanted to become the best husband to [his] wife that [he] could.
"5. [He] wanted to become the most decent, honest, and fair person in [his] everday dealings with other people." (113.)

It's remarkable what trials can do; they can be purify and edify like no other experience. Gonsalves here proves the point.

Book Review: The Faith by Charles Colson and Harold Fickett (2008).

2009-10-04T15:50:00.000-07:00

Charles Colson writes: "When I told friends I wanted to write an accessible book that would summarize in about 240 pages the basic truths of Christianity, several though it would be impossible....” (p. 9.)

They were both wrong.

Colson summarizes the basic tenets of the faith in far fewer than 240 pages. Instead, he spends many of these pages talking about other things, including political and other implications of these tenets. Colson explains this emphasis perhaps by his thesis that "Christianity is a worldview." (28).

Unfortunately, in summarizing “the basic truths of Christianity” in well under 240 pages, the book borders on the superficial. The Faith's philosophy of religion sections, “God Is" (origins of life) and "What Went Right, What Went Wrong" (theodicy, etc.), for examples, were the weakest--they either gloss over or ignore chasms of controversy. Better to go to with William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith (3d ed.) or Richard Swinburne’s series, including Is There a God?

Nevertheless, the book is highly accessible; its readability is perhaps its best feature. Colson weaves in vignettes to bring the doctrinal material alive, for those who might not otherwise be so inclined.

If Colson's sobering diagnosis is correct--that the Church's "ignorance" of "what we believe--even what Christianity is" "is crippling us" (28), then this book represents at least a small step towards recovery. Other crucial steps, somewhat unaddressed in the book, are questioning and answering why this is the case.

Another Dead Hero.

2009-09-30T11:51:00.000-07:00

This year, I was privileged to eulogize my Uncle, John A. Radcliffe.

Here's the sum and substance of my remarks:

"This was a great man.

There are so many ways we can unpack his greatness.

For example, his admirable leadership as a wonderful family man, his integrity as an attorney (and otherwise), and his intelligence exhibited, in part, by graduating as valedictorian of his law school class at the University of Chicago, could be talked about for hours.

However, I want to highlight some of this through a story.

In part due his influence, I followed Uncle John into the legal profession. Early in my career, I spoke with an opposing attorney. She asked me if I was related to John Radcliffe. I said yes.

She then recounted how professional, honest, and gentlemanly he was. If you know anything about lawyers, such high praise--from an opponent--is highly unusual. He evidently made quite an impression on her.

He also impressed me. In that moment, I was proud to be an attorney, but more importantly, I was especially proud to be a Radcliffe."

Thank you, Uncle John.

The Body of Christ, Part II.

2009-09-22T11:31:00.000-07:00

As part of my ongoing pilgrimage through Southern California churches (in addition to my home church), I visited an innovative, large church meeting in a converted warehouse last Sunday night. (Full disclosure: I went to college with the "lead pastor".)

Several things struck me:

1. The place was populated with college-aged people, except the greeter at the door, who was probably in his 50s; it seems the "post-modern" generation is hungry for truth and community (common themes of the night);

2. Bibles were omnipresent and would be handed out to anyone requesting one;

3. Except for a revved-up "How Great Thou Art", the songs were mostly unrecognizable to a visitor and spoke largely of personal sacrifice;

4. Folksy pastor came out talking about NFL games that day, and interrupted his remarks at least twice to comment on the highlighting appearing on a woman's Bible sitting towards the front; he didn't appear to have any notes, but he led a vigorous march through OT and NT scriptures about how God builds community and then sends them out;

5. In his remarks, the "teaching pastor" forcefully developed a theme of contrasting the "out there" with the "in here", and observing that those "out there" are not looking for a reproduction of their consumer-driven existence, but a distinctive from those "in here";

6. Even for a Sunday evening service, there was no seating available for anyone showing up at the start time; the "overflow" room, full of screens and odd, mismatched chandeliers (darkened during singing), was nearly packed; and

7. In the overflow room, people were standing to worship via song and applauding those in the other room for no particular reason (since they couldn't hear).

However, the most intriguing aspect of the night was an announcement of the church's vision for the year, involving building a "church of communities" through additional campuses and church planting. The lead pastor asked, "Where would a church plant have the most influence?" "Hollywood" was the correct answer, he said. He described Hollywood as "upstream from culture", and hence, highly influential. He explained that things flow out of Hollywood into the larger culture--a metaphor that could be taken positively and negatively.

In any event, the more I thought about it, the more stunning the announcement became in its unmitigated temerity and strategic vision. Breathtaking audacity, coupled with genius.

Book Review: Columbine (2009) by Dave Cullen.

2009-09-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

Just about everything you've learned about the April 20, 1999, Columbine massacre is wrong.

At least that's the thrust of Dave Cullen's Columbine published in 2009--following 10 years of intense research and analysis.

Cullen writes: "[I]n the great media blunders during the initial coverage of the story...nearly everyone got the central factors wrong....I hope this book contributes to setting the story straight." (p. x.) Likewise, Cullen indicts the mainstream media: "Virtually all of the early news stories were infested with erroneous assumptions and comically wrong conclusions." (159.)

Cullen debunks the numerous myths surrounding this tragedy, including martyr narratives seized upon by some Christians, with compelling evidence. At its core, however, Columbine attacks the central myth of "Columbine as a pair of outcast Goths from the Trench Coat Mafia snapping and tearing through their high school hunting down jocks to settle a long-running feud. Almost none of that happened. No Goths, no outcasts, nobody snapping. No targets, no feud, and no Trench Coats Mafia. ... The lesser myths are equally unsupported: no connection with Marilyn Manson, Hitler's birthday, minorities, or Christians." (149.)

Instead, Cullen builds a case predicated on psychological profiles of the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. In this regard, Cullen relies heavily on the work of Dr. Dwayne Fuselier, an FBI agent who headed the FBI's domestic terrorism unit in Denver (and whose son went to Columbine High School at the time). Cullen contends that Harris was a psychopath, and his plan for the attack was far larger than implemented. He had plans for mass killing at the school, using bombs and napalm. Because his efforts fizzled on that day, people have misread his intentions. By contrast, Cullen describes Klebold was more suicidal than homicidal. He writes that Klebold squeezed off a mere five shots, and it's unclear whether any hit anyone other than himself. Curiously, Klebold's journal in his final week was focused on one topic: love.

Cullen's analysis of the killers' journals and "Basement Tapes" is very insightful. Cullen drills down into this compelling evidence as well as reams of other data (including 25,000 pages of documents compiled by investigators), and comes up with a persuasive case as to what this tragedy was really about.

The Body of Christ.

2009-09-05T23:47:00.000-07:00

"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body....Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it." (1 Cor. 12:12, 27; NASB).

In addition to my home church, I like to experience other gatherings, which meet at different times. By doing this, I marvel at the unity and diversity of the Body of Christ, i.e. the Church.

Last Sunday night, I attended a Reformed church that especially illustrated this unity and diversity. Here are the highlights:

1. Multiracial, multigenerational, and multisocioeconomic strata attended (including what appeared to be a couple of homeless men);

2. Like most churches, the congregants were asked to greet each other. Unlike most churches, this exchange was designed to delve beyond surface pleasantries, but to involve sharing of what God was doing positively in one's life. This level of sharing was buttressed by the statement later that 90% of the church were involved in discipleship or accountability small groups.

3. Communion was held, but not in the traditional fashion. During the lengthy second segment of worship (after the message), I noticed many people leaving. At first, I thought it rude to the worship leader, at a minimum. I then remembered seeing a slide projected at the beginning of the service, which announced that the Lord's Supper (served weekly) would be available throughout the service. I turned around and saw in muted lighting with candles a large cross with the elements placed next to it. I also saw many fellow worshippers taking communion, praying and then circling back to their seats.

4. Like most churches, the service was comprised of spiritual songs and the spoken word. Like most churches (and for good reason), one of the songs was Chris Tomlin's, "How Great Is Our God". (I think Tomlin writes the most theologically rich contemporary songs today). Unlike most churches, perhaps, the pastor was 26 and took the stage in flip-flops. Unlike most churches, perhaps, he spoke with authentic vulnerability. Further, in the middle of his talk about one of Jesus' parables, he took an excursion into what he termed the "Romans Road", which included a frank discussion about hell and salvation.

5. The pastor's interpretation of this parable (Matthew 20:1-16 [Laborers in the Vineyard]), reflecting his Reformed orientation, was fresh, however, and informed through apparent study of differing interpretations.

6. The pastor repeatedly closed his prayers with "I thank you, and I love you." He also ended the service by sincerely saying that he loved each of us, and that was the reason they were doing what they were doing.

In many ways, this experience was similar and dissimilar to other churches today in the Protestant tradition. As such, it serves as a shining example of the unity and diversity of the Body of Christ.

Book Review: Renegade: The Making of a President (2009) by Richard Wolffe.

2009-08-28T06:05:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama changed the book Richard Wolffe set out to write.

Wolffe initially wanted to answer the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" (p. 5). According to Wolffe, despite President Obama previously writing "one memoir and one highly personal political treatise" and "debat[ing] two dozen times and deliver[ing] hundreds of speeches...something remained hidden about his character, suppressed about his moods, deep-rooted about his thoughts" that needed to be revealed. (5).

Instead, Obama suggested a story about the campaign, ala Theodore White's classic campaign books. Wolffe's first reaction to this suggestion was amusing: "Teddy White. How archaic. the poor man doesn't understand the media, I thought...." (330.) Wolffe continued: "Two months after our Teddy White conversation, I finally figured out that he might be right." (331.)

As a result, Wolffe has produced a book that is simultaneously both and neither. It's not fully a expose of the campaign (despite Wolffe's considerable access to the candidate and campaign from the outset) and not fully a biography.

Wolffe mostly tries to accomplish his twin aims by examining "a drama of political biography performed on the biggest stage in the world: an outlandish, extraordinary spectacle that veered from inspiration to exasperation, from the mundane to the faintly insane." (5.) However, Wolffe doesn't rely solely on the campaign in telling his story. Instead, he draws heavily from Obama's two books, especially Dreams from My Father (reviewed here on June 4, 2008).

Wolffe never seems to get quite comfortable with his book's title to characterize his subject. "Renegade" was the Secret Service code name for Obama, and Wolffe half-heartedly tries to weave it into his story-telling. Here's an example of Wolffe's noncommittal approach to the characterization: "If Obama was a renegade, he was a cautious and calculating rebel." (25.)

Due to its insider-access, Renegade contains some revealing anecdotes about the campaign and the then-candidate. For example, it might be surprising to some to know that the Rev. Wright controversy had the campaign rattled (and how they tried to handle it). It also was revealing to learn how speeches were crafted--usually at the last minute and involving the candidate himself with his chief speechwriter Jon Favreau (not the actor/director). This emphasis on speechwriting (and delivering) spoke to Wolffe's background as a writer for Newsweek and crowded out other crucial aspects of the campaign.

For example, Wolffe largely ignored the debates (both primary and general election) and inexplicably didn't even mention the widely viewed Saddleback Presidential Forum featuring John McCain and Obama. Also, the book veered occasionally from its stated objectives to take cheap shots at Sen. McCain (especially during a meeting with President Bush about bank bailouts), Gov. Palin, Bush and even Hillary Clinton.

While the book borders on the breathless (e.g. comparing President Obama to Ghandi [135]), especially when it quotes Obama's close friends, it delivers some of "the goods" that political junkies may find satisfying.

Church and State.

2009-08-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

This week I had the privilege of appearing for the first day of oral arguments in the Fourth District, Division Three's new appellate courthouse in Santa Ana, California. A professional photographer was there to commemorate the event, snapping photos even during the proceedings. As a result, my back might make it into the history books.

Before the arguments, one of the justices came out in shirtsleeves and told counsel about the benches in the courtroom. Interestingly, the benches involved a church and state issue.

The justice explained that the benches were previously pews in a chapel on the campus of St. Louis University. In this capacity, they had icons (a cross-like figure containing Greek letters signifying Christ) on the sides. Because this was a public building, wooden pieces had to be affixed over the icons to hide the religious message underneath.

Even the court was evidently afraid of being sued.

Book Review: The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture by N.T. Wright.

2009-08-17T22:27:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton mastered triangulation or third-way politics.

N. T. Wright's The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture takes a page from Clinton's playbook.

Wright criticizes both the right and left's approaches to scripture (e.g., pp. 106-110) before positing a third-way. In his broad critique, Wright interestingly observes that all traditions elevate scripture, perhaps contrary to prevailing stereotypes. "[T]he churches which stem from the Reformation all emphasize...the central importance of the Bible. ... [A]ll officially accord scripture the central place in their faith, life and theology. This has marked out the post-Reformation churches from the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, which give a more complex and interwoven account of how scripture operates within the life of the church. But those older churches, too, have never shrunk from the insistence that scripture remains the written word of God." (p. 4.)

That just about covers all of Christendom. So, then, what accounts for the vast divergence of views about what Scripture says? As in law, it's a matter of interpretation.

Enter Wright's new-way-forward. Wright proposes a "five-act" narratival hermaneutic. (p. 121.) Wright asserts: "[T]he Bible itself offers a model for its own reading, which involves knowing where we are within the overall drama and what is appropriate within each act. The acts are creation, 'fall', Israel, Jesus, and the church; they constitute the differentiated stages in the divine drama which scripture itself offers." (p. 121.)

Then, Wright turns to how the church--living in the "fifth act"--may ensure that "the authority of scripture--i.e. God's authority exercised through scripture--can be the dynamic force within God's people." He proposes five: reading scripture that is (a) totally contextual, (b) liturgically grounded, (c) privately studied, (d) refreshed by appropriate scholarship, and (e) taught by the church's accredited leaders." (p. 127.) Here, Wright reveals his Anglican predilections, but these five are not all indispensable to get to scripture's meaning, and Wright does not even so argue.

The book's North American title, The Last Word, is ambitious (to put it charitably). It's unlikely that Wright's "third-way" will end the "Bible Wars". Moreover, Wright inconsistently (with the title) advocates for continuing dialogue about Scripture. And he provides a very useful script to elevate the dialogue from the superficial sloganeering that has historically permeated the debate.

Book Review: The Right Stuff by Thomas Wolfe.

2009-08-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

In light of the hoopla surrounding the 40th anniversary of the "moon walk", I decided to read about the US space program. Thomas Wolfe's acclaimed The Right Stuff seemed a good place to go.

Since the book was published 30 years ago, and was made into a 1983 movie, it has somewhat permeated the public consciousness. Accordingly, I will keep this review brief. The book actually begins well before the "moon walk" phase of the space program. It deals primarily with the Mercury missions which involved Earth orbits--not moon landings.

Three aspects of the book bear mention even today. First, the book does a good job capturing the political environment from which the space program emerged. Near hysteria about Soviet domination of space had more to do with US space exploration than a scientific curiosity about the "final frontier." It's quite amazing what can be achieved through fear. Second, Wolfe creatively posits astronauts as types of biblical single-combat warriors (e.g. David and Goliath). I had not heard this analogy made before in this context, and I thought it insightful, especially given the time's climate. Third, I wonder if the country has the political will to take such risks any more.

The Right Stuff is a folksy, yet informative, foray into the genesis of the US space program (and even before). Further, it offers insights salient to today.

Goals.

2009-08-09T07:03:00.000-07:00

Note: Please understand this post is made in the spirit of commemoration--not congratulation.

"In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose."
"The most depraved type of human being ... (is) the man without a purpose."
--Ayn Rand

Goals are good. Their absence isn't.

This morning I accomplished a goal. I now weigh less than I did when I played high school basketball.

People have asked me how I did it. Broadly, I created and implemented a holistic approach with spiritual, intellectual, and physical dimensions. However, it really can't be transferred to another. It has to come from within, starting with a goal.

Book Review: Was Jesus God? (2008) by Richard Swinburne.

2009-08-03T22:29:00.000-07:00

Former University of Oxford professor Richard Swinburne answers his own question: "probably".

Swinburne isn't hedging his bets or laying odds for Vegas. He's revealing his philosophical methodology. Was Jesus God? represents Swinburne's extensive use of Bayes' Theorem, although he never mentions it by name.

Swinburne starts with his conclusion from his "prequel", Is There a God? (reviewed here on July 10, 2009) that God probably exists (p. 1), which he briefly revisits in Chapter 1. From there, he concludes that it's probable that God is a Trinity (Chapter 2); that God would become a human to identify with humanity's suffering and to atone for their sin (Chapters 3 and 4); that He would give us teaching for living (Chapters 5 and 11); and He would found a church to propagate it (Chapter 10), among other things.

In particular, Swinburne's defense of Trinitarian doctrine (as enunciated in the Nicene Creed) is something to behold. Swinburne writes: "The love of the Father for the Son must include a wish to cooperate with the Son in further total sharing with an equal, and hence the need for a third member of the Trinity...the Holy Spirit, whom they will love and and by whom they will be loved. A universe in which there was only sharing and not cooperation in further sharing would have been a deficient universe; it would have lacked a certain kind of goodness. The Father and the Son would have been less than perfectly good unless they sought to spread their mutual love of cooperating in further sharing with an equal." (p. 29.)

Swinburne draws the line at three. "So the perfect goodness of the Father would be satisfied by his bridging about only two further divine persons. He does not have to bring about a fourth divine person in order to fulfil his divine nature. But then any fourth divine person would not exist necessarily, even in the sense of metaphysical necessity. His existence would not be a necessary consequence of the existence of an ontologically necessary being and hence he would not be divine. So there cannot be a a fourth divine person. There must be and can only be three divine persons." (p. 33.)

In so defending the Trinitarian formulation, using Bayes' Theorem, Swinburne somewhat undercuts his prior use of Ockham's razor for God's existence (i.e. the simplest explanation holds). (See my July 10, 2009, post about Swinburne's Is There a God?). No matter how one articulates it, the Trinitarian doctrine is not a model of simplicity. Swinburne seems to concede this apparent inconsistency (calling the Trinity "a very sophisticated" concept [p. 38]), but he labors to reconcile it by claiming that the Trinity is actually a simple construct because it "depends on two very simple moral intuitions: that perfect love requires total sharing with an equal and requires cooperating in spreading that love further, so that anyone you love has someone else to love and be loved by." (p. 38.) Here we see fissures erupting where Swinburne's two primary philosophical methodologies abut each other; they simply don't meld seemlessly in this context.

In any event, this book represents an elegant extrapolation from Swinburne's premise that God "probably exists". He traces probabilities from God's existence through the primary tenets of Christian doctrine, and in so doing produces an innovative approach for Christian philosophy of religion worthy of study and discussion.

Book Review: This is Water, Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, About Living a Compassionate Life (2009) by David Foster Wallace.

2009-07-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

This isn't water.

This is genius. It's genius in its profound simplicity (or simple profundity).

Writer David Foster Wallace gave only one commencement address. He spoke to the graduating class of Kenyon College in 2005. Since he hung himself in 2008, there regrettably won't be any more. However, it's hard to fathom how he could have improved on this one.

Wallace begins with a story about two young fish swimming one way who encounter an older fish swimming the other direction when the older fish asked the younger, "How's the water?" (p. 3.) A little later, one of the younger fish asks the other, "What['s] water?" (p. 4).

Wallace uses this story to illustrate how one can live unaware of "the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities" and these "are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about." (p. 8.)

Wallace posits that education does (or should) teach one how to think, but in a different sense than most understand this "single most pervasive cliche in the commencement speech genre." (p. 12.)

"The liberal arts mantra of 'teaching one how to think' is really supposed to mean: to be just a little less arrogant, to have some 'critical awareness' about myself and my certainties....because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded." (p. 33.)

As his core example, Wallace cites the human default setting of self-centeredness. (pp. 36-41.) He suggests that "'[l]earning how to think' really means learning how exercise some control over how and what you think." (p. 53.) Wallace explains that this control comes from choice. (p. 54.) Those who can't or won't exercise this control are doomed, Wallace argues. (p. 55.) Rather shockingly given what happened later, Wallace transitions directly to speaking about those who commit suicide. (pp. 58-59.)

Wallace states that the real value of a liberal arts education is to keep from going through life "unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone, day in and day out." (p. 60.) Wallace submits that in consciously broadening one's horizons and thinking about others, one can develop the compassion and empathy necessarily to living a well-adjusted life. One can also decide what to worship. (p. 98.) Wallace observes: "In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everbody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship." (pp. 98-101).

In so doing, Wallace gets at something far more fundamental than mere head knowledge. He's getting at real learning. In this sense, Wallace's analogy about water really is apt. It's the substance necessary to avoid dehydration and its final result, death. Whether you are in school, out of school, or about to enter school, this book contains a valuable lesson about life to "hydrate" any learning experience. Highly recommended.

Not Every Treasure.

2009-07-20T22:57:00.000-07:00

This weekend in Newport Beach, California, I saw a license plate holder, piously playing on Matthew 6:20, which read: "Driver Carries No Cash...Treasures Laid Up in Heaven" on a late-model four-door Mercedes-Benz.

Book Review: Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne.

2009-07-10T23:02:00.000-07:00

Since Is There A God? kept appearing as source material in the recent philosophical literature I've been reading (some reviewed here), I thought it about time I went to the source.

Too, I wanted to read it as a prelude to Richard Swinburne's follow-up, Was Jesus God? (2008) (which I'm reading now).

Formerly the Nolloth Professor of Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, Swinburne's "big idea" in Is There A God? is applying "Ockham's razor" (p. 31) to argue that theism is more reasonable than atheism to explain our existence (or the earth's or the universe's) because it's the simplest explanation. "The thesis of this book is that theism provides by far the simplest explanation of all phenomena. Materialism is not...a simple hypothesis, and there is a range of phenomena which it is most unlikely ever able to explain. Humanism is an even less simple hypothesis than materialism." (p. 41.)

Theism's persuasively simple, according to Swinburne. "Theism claims that every other object which exists is caused to exist and kept in existence by just one substance, God. And it claims that ever property which every substance has is due to God causing or permitting it to exist. It is a hallmark of a simple explanation to postulate few causes. There could be in this respect be no simpler explanation that one which postulated only one cause." (p. 43.)

In addition to offering affirmative evidence of God's existence, Swinburne attempts to answer objections. First, in dealing with evolution, he more than acknowledges it; he essentially appropriates it. Swinburne writes: "And, as we now know, humans and animals did come into existence through the gradual process of evolution from a primitive soup of matter which formed as earth cooled down some 4,000 million years ago. In that process natural selection played a central role. Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) taught us the outlines of the story, and biologists have been filling in the details ever since. The clear simple modern presentation in Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker (1986) is deservedly popular." (p. 58; emphasis supplied.) I doubt Dawkins thought he would be cited approvingly in a book arguing for theism.

Swinburne continues: "So, in summary, the Darwinian explanation of why there are the complex animal and human bodies there are today is that once upon a time there were certain chemicals on earth, and, given the laws of evolution..., it was probable that complex organisms would emerge. This explanation of the existence of complex organisms is surely a correct explanation, but it is not an ultimate explanation of that fact." (p. 60; emphasis supplied.) Thus, Swinburne incorporates Darwinism, and then simply adds a step of regress to place God at the beginning of the process. Here, Swinburne partially undermines his simplicity argument, since he's adding steps (and complexity) into the creation process. Swinburne likewise paints himself into a corner for his later book with respect to the Trinity (but that will have to wait for the review of Was Jesus God?).

Second, Swinburne deals with the "problem of evil" (also known as the problem of suffering or the problem of pain) in Chapter 6, entitled "Why God Allows Evil". To his credit, Swinburne does not posit the ubiquitous "free-will defense" and leave it at that. He attempts to grapple with "natural evil" (i.e. events that cannot be explained by human choices, called "moral evil") such as natural disasters. Some may not find his explanations satisfactory, but Swinburne does provide a lucid theodicy for both types of evils.

The book curiously ends with dissatisfaction--from the author. Swinburne laments: "I reach the end of this book with some dissatisfaction. I am well aware of objections other than the ones which I have discussed which can be made to almost every sentence which I have written... I am also aware of counter-objections which can be advanced to turn against every objection to my views, and also of the need for qualifications and amplification of most of the assertions in this book. Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever." (p. 140.)

This apologetic tone seems unnecessary and defensive. Either Swinburne could have expanded the book to deal with more objections (it was only 139 pages before this epilogue) or have stated its limited scope or purpose at the outset. Nevertheless, I can see why Swinburne's book has been cited because it represents a straightforward and thought-provoking assertion and defense of theism. Recommended for those interested in this genre.

State Court Solomonic Sagacity, Part IV.

2009-07-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

A tentative ruling in a case not mine:

"ARGUMENT REQUIRED on this motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction.

"‘The time has come'
To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.’ (Lewis Carroll)
And of how it is that Defendant can argue that Orange County is not the proper jurisdiction for this case when this same defendant argued in Maryland that Orange County was the proper jurisdiction and was able to convince the Maryland court to dismiss without prejudice because Orange County was the proper jurisdiction!"

Book Review: Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace (2009).

2009-07-02T23:29:00.000-07:00

Be careful what you pray for, you just might get it.

That's an ironic (if inadvertent) lesson of William Lobdell's Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace.

Lobdell prayed for over four years to get the religion beat at the Los Angeles Times.

He got the job. And lost his faith.

As a broader memoir, Lobdell begins well before his experience as a religion reporter and records how he became a professing Christian. Even though the "losing" aspect has been more celebrated, his "finding" of faith is just as rich.

Lobdell describes his conversion and growth into his Christianity with numerous Southern California references. For example, he talks about how his "best friend" (radio personality and author) Hugh Hewitt strongly encouraged him to investigate Christianity, and more particularly, to attend a men's retreat in the San Bernardino Mountains, where Lobdell had his "mountaintop conversion." He also chronicles his attendance at local churches, including Mariners Church in Irvine.

"By 1999, it had been seven years since my mountaintop conversion. I felt a growing muscularity to my Christianity. I was learning more and more about the Bible. I wanted to plunge deeper into belief, history and custom. I didn't need as much self-help as I had earlier; my life had long ago gotten out of intensive care and had stabilized. I started to feel claustrophobic at Mariners Church. The seeker-friendly services--which had drawn me so effortlessly back to Christianity--now seemed simplistic. I wanted to strip away the happy songs, the upbeat, black and white messages and the cappuccino machine. I wanted something more authentic, more raw, even. I was grateful of my time at Mariners, but I felt I had graduated. We stopped going as a family one day and slipped away. Nobody noticed. That was the blessing and curse of belonging to a mega-church. No one knows you've arrived and no one realizes when you've gone." (p. 54.)

Lobdell then attended St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach. "With his booming baritone voice and sharp mind, [pastor] John [Huffman, Ph.D.] gave thought-provoking sermons with academic overtones for churchgoers who wanted to believe with both heart and mind." (p. 55.) Lobdell was more than a casual attender. "We started attending services in 1999 and put our three (soon to be four) boys in their youth programs, which they loved. We keep our tradition of attending church on Saturday evenings and stayed afterward for pizza and salad with friends. St. Andrew's also had a great Bible study on Wednesday evenings, along with a parallel children's program. Saturday and Wednesday evenings served as the tent poles of our family life." (p. 55.)

Thereafter, Lobdell began the process of converting to Catholicism. He attended "Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults classes." (p. 140.) Simultaneously, his work at the Times required him to investigate the Catholic sex abuse scandal which had a locus in Southern California. This tension wore on Lobdell. "Though I continued to work other religion stories, my editors wanted my primary focus to be the Catholic sex scandal. I began to live a dual life. By day, I investigated the local dioceses, dug up documents in courthouses, talked with a seemingly endless string of victims and interviewed bishops, their aides, attorneys and priests. In my off-hours, I put in my final months of training to become a Catholic."

Lobdell began to connect man's religious institutions with God. For example, Lobdell questions, "If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God? At the time, I thought the answer was obviously negative. But now I think I was wrong." (p. 136.) As these questions mounted, Lobdell asked Dr. Huffman if he would he would help. "I took John to dinner and told him about my crisis of faith. I asked him if I could email him some tough questions about Christianity. He agreed without hesitation. ...My questions were basic, verging on the cliched, but I desperately wanted some solid answers I could grasp so I could climb back up into my faith. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God get credit for answered prayers but no blame for unanswered ones? Why do we believe in the miraculous healing power of God when He's never been able to regenerate a limb or heal a severed spinal chord [sic]?" (p. 236.) Lobdell then reproduces their exchange (at least in part). (pp. 236-243.)

Lobdell's response to Dr. Huffman's gracious answers: "From a Christian perspective, his answers were nearly perfect. He was giving me the best Christianity had to offer, but I just didn't believe it anymore. I replied to John that though I appreciated his response, it was frustrating because I had seen too many innocent people live out lives full of tragedy and pain." (p. 240.)

It should be remembered this book is a memoir. It is not a philosophical or theological treatise (and doesn't indicate Lobdell delved into any with depth). As a result, it doesn't deal with great sophistication with the "problem of evil" or theodicy. Indeed, if Lobdell's reasons for leaving Christianity were his problems with certain religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, or Benny Hinn, then he might be justified in distancing himself from them. However, he doesn't effectively bridge these complaints or concerns to an outright rejection of Christianity or even theism. Lobdell admits that his questions "verged on the cliched." (p. 236.) I think he's right, along with his conclusions. Nevertheless, Losing My Religion is a quick and engaging read that believers and nonbelievers could find beneficial.

Book Review: Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever (2009) by Walter Kirn.

2009-06-26T10:34:00.000-07:00

Knowledge isn't power, according to Walter Kirn's memoir, Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever.

It's a "reckoning...a way to assess your location, your true position, not a strategy for improving your position." This was a lesson he received from his "surrogate father"--a retired admiral when he was about four. However, Kirn "lost [his] bearings. [He] veered off course. [He] went away to school." Kirn's disorientation reached its zenith during his time at Princeton.

To Kirn, formal education devolved into a game of mimicry, trickery, and fakery.

"With virtually no stored literary material about which to harbor critical assumptions, I relied on my gift for mimicking authority figures and playing back to them their own ideas as though they were conclusions I'd reached myself.... To me, imitation and education were different words for the same thing, anyway. What was learning but a form of borrowing? And what was intelligence but borrowing slyly?"

Kirn learned how to deconstruct without knowing how to construct anything. "We skipped straight from ignorance to revisionism, deconstructing a body of literary knowledge that we'd never constructed in the first place."

Kirn learned other artifices. "I couldn't quote anyone, reliably. I'd honed other skills: for flattering those in power without appearing to, for rating artistic reputations according to academic fashions, for matching my intonations and vocabulary to the backgrounds of my listeners, for placing certain words in smirking quotation marks and rolling my eyes when someone spoke too earnestly about some 'classic' or 'masterpiece,' for veering left when the conventional wisdom went right and then doubling back if it looked like it was changing. Flexibility, irony, self-consciousness, contrarianism. They'd gotten me through Princeton....I'd found out a lot since I'd aced the SATs, about the system, about myself, and about the new class that the system had created, which I was now part of, for better or worse. The class that runs things."

Through this "elite" educational process what Kirn really learned was cynicism and its ultimate end: nihilism. It nearly broke him. He curiously clawed back by learning (on his own) obscure words and their definitions. And thinking back to the advice he received from his mentor as a child. It's odd that the book took about a quarter century to write or be published. It contains references to being at Princeton when Lennon was shot (1980), and yet it was published this year. Nevertheless, its message translates to today.

Book Review: Self-Made Man: One Woman's Journey into Manhood and Back Again by Norah Vincent.

2009-06-23T23:05:00.000-07:00

"Before I can walk in another person's shoes, I must first remove my own."
--Brian Tracy

The men's movement has an unlikely champion.

A lesbian feminist: Norah Vincent.

However, she had to walk in men's loafers (and clothes, glasses and beard disguise) for about 18 months (p. 15) to arrive at this destination. Moreover, the process landed her a psych ward. (p. 268.) As a psychiatrist told her: "'[H]aving done what you did, I would have thought you crazy if you didn't have a breakdown." (p. 271.)

Vincent infiltrated six different contexts as a "man" and wrote about them in Self-Made Man. Apart from an introduction and epilogue, the book is organized according to each of these experiences: "Friendship" (about playing on a men's bowling team); "Sex" (about visiting strip clubs); "Love" (about dating women as a "man"); "Life" (about staying at a Catholic monastery); "Work" (about selling coupon books in a testosterone-fueled company); and "Self" (about participating in a men's group, including a "retreat").

Vincent writes: "But, of course, getting inside men's heads and out of my own was what this project was all about. Part of the project was writing a book like this is to learn something about the infiltrated group and then ideally to put that knowledge to good use. Inevitably then I have to ask myself whether or not my experience as Ned [Norah's male alter-ego] has changed the way I see and interact with men." (p. 283.)

She concludes: "Unexpectedly, the answer is both yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I have an inescapable empathy for men that could not help but come from living among them. I know in some sense how it feels to be on their end of things and to receive some of the blows and prejudices the world inflicts on them." (p. 283.) In this vein, Vincent reluctantly concludes: "Manhood is a leaden mythology riding on the shoulders of every man." (p. 271.)

Through this unusual process, Vincent reports some poignant observations about men that probably could only have been the product of such a study--a woman living as a man, mostly among men. In addition to insights about the male gender, the book also provides understanding about women especially in their expectations for men. (See, e.g., Chapter 4, "Love".)

As drawbacks, Vincent contradicts herself intermittently (such as whether or not she was just being herself in a male disguise) and traffics in some stale gender stereotypes.

Nevertheless, this book adds some fresh (and surprising) content to the "conversation" about gender.

"Are You Ok, Counsel?"

2009-06-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

As I approached counsel's table today, I observed a large wad of toilet paper dangling from my worthy opponent's mouth.

The judge noticed too.

Judge: "Are you ok, counsel?"

Counsel: "Yes, Your Honor. I cut my lip on the way into the courthouse, and it's been bleeding for the past hour."

Judge: "If there's anything we can do, please let us know."

Counsel: "Well, your bailiff gave me a band-aid which has helped. I guess the joke of the day is that an unhappy client did this to me."

Judge: "That's been known to happen in this courthouse."

Stayed.

2009-06-18T10:53:00.001-07:00

In California, one of the lesser known and used tools in the defense counsel's toolbox is a motion for undertaking (i.e. bond) and stay.

This statute provides: "When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney's fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding." (C.C.P. Section 1030(a).)

The standard for obtaining a bond is relatively low: “The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. ... The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney's fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.” (C.C.P. Section 1030(b); emphasis supplied.)

Further, if the motion is timed adeptly, it can stay a plaintiff's action. "If the defendant's motion for an order requiring an undertaking is filed not later than 30 days after service of summons on the defendant, further proceedings may be stayed in the discretion of the court .... The hearing on the application for the stay shall be held not later than 60 days after service of the summons." (C.C.P. Section 1030(e); emphasis supplied.)

In one of my current cases, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against my clients wherein it admitted that it was incorporated in an east coast state. At the outset, I filed the motion for bond and undertaking within these deadlines--within 30 days of service--and set the hearing to occur within 60 days of service.

The court found that I had met the requirements for the bond and ordered the plaintiff to file the bond and stayed the case unless and until it did so. I served notice of the ruling and a copy of the court's order on opposing counsel.

At the next hearing, a comical exchange ensued between plaintiff's counsel and the judge.

The judge asked if the ordered bond had been filed.

Counsel responded: "We are in the process of filing the bond."

Judge: "So it hasn't been filed yet. When is it going to be filed?"

Counsel: "Soon."

Judge: "This case is stayed. Nothing can be done on your case, counsel."

Counsel: "We didn't think the case had been stayed."

Judge: "What do you mean you didn't think the case had been stayed? I stayed it!"

Counsel: "We were confused."

At that point, the court dismissed us with the admonition that plaintiff's case was dead in the water. And it remains so.

Sabotage.

2009-06-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

At movies, I saw a guy sabotage his nice gesture of getting food for his date by delivering it with, "Here you go, fatty."

Unconscionable.

Book Review: Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage (2009).

2009-06-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart observed, "'[P]roperty does not have rights, only people do.'" (p. 254 [attorney Scott Bullock quoting Potter Stewart].)

In other words, with eminent domain, it's about people, not property.

Jeff Benedict's Little Pink House especially reveals and revels in the human drama surrounding the Kelo v. City of New London Supreme Court case, involving the taking of Susette Kelo's (and others') property for a development benefiting Pfizer, Inc.

While I was generally familiar with the case, and even heard Justice Antonin Scalia speak about it shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision (see August 30 and September 2, 2005, posts), Benedict's hard investigatory work and clear prose explicated the remarkable milieu in which this case arose, uncovering many intriguing aspects the MSM doubtlessly missed. The twists and turns were far too dramatic to be fiction. Among other things, Benedict explains what happened after the High Court's opinion to these folks and their properties and the unexpected tragedies befalling some of the property owners' apart from the takings.

In addition to expertly capturing the human drama, Benedict ably grasped the legalities. In fact, he did such an excellent job describing, in layperson terms, the legal maneuvers that I strongly suspected he had some legal training. However, nothing on the book's jacket revealed that he was a lawyer--instead, it mentioned his authorship of seven books and numerous published articles as well as his position teaching writing at Southern Virginia University.

I found the answer buried in the acknowledgements when Benedict mentioned in passing that someone offered him his first commercial-publishing contract when he was a first-year law student. (p. 381.) Bingo.

Highly recommended to lawyer and layperson alike.

Book Review: The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (2009).

2009-06-07T12:01:00.000-07:00

Undercover journalism, conducted out in the open.

That's my brief, oxymoronic description of Kevin Roose's The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (March, 2009)--a product of his semester as a student at Liberty University.

Taking a leave of absence from his studies at Brown University, Roose decided to spend Spring semester, 2007 at Liberty and then write about it.

While hiding his writing agenda, Roose didn't hide his identity. He matriculated as Kevin Roose, from Brown, and a Christian (p. 12), albeit from a nominally Quaker background (pp. 6-7). "If anyone ever asked, I'd say that I was a Christian (strictly true)" (p. 12), "although I wasn't an evangelical Christian" (p. 12). Interestingly, "Liberty application [didn't] require a mandatory statement of faith" (p. 12) like many other conservative Christian colleges such as Biola University.

Roose explains his approach: "I did want to see what Christian college was like, with as little prejudgment as possible....If I went to Liberty, it would be to learn with an open mind, not to mock Liberty students or the evangelical world in toto." (p. 11.)

Roose was largely successful in this two-fold endeavor. By throwing himself into the experience he learned what a Christian college was like, and largely did so without mocking Liberty "or the evangelical world in toto."

Roose actively participated in Liberty life perhaps much more than his fellow students. For example, he sang in the Thomas Road Baptist Church (connected to Liberty) choir (singing in front of millions on tv); conducted "cold turkey evangelism" at Daytona Beach during Spring Break; interviewed Rev. Jerry Falwell (Liberty's chancellor at the time) and wrote about it in the school newspaper (which turned out to be Rev. Falwell's last print interview before dying at the end of that semester); participated in a men's accountability group; played intramural sports, among other activities.

Some of his observations were not so profound and some were. For example, Roose acts like it's a revelation that it's easier to wake up on a Sunday morning without a hangover. (pp. 56-57.) On a more serious note, Roose poignantly summarizes his learning at Liberty: "By experiencing [Liberty people's] warmth, [their] vigorous generosity of spirit, and [their] deep complexity, I was ultimately convinced--not that [Liberty people] were right, necessarily, but I had been wrong." (p. 319; emphasis added.)

This multi-faceted learning process forms the bulk of the book. Given this "deep complexity", Roose mercifully (mostly) leaves behind the simplistic stereotypes of "evangelical Christians" (a hackneyed term poorly defined in the book and elsewhere). As an Ivy League student, he discovers that Liberty's studies are quite rigorous on the whole, and even admits some struggles to achieve high grades in the courses. "I worked twice as hard at Liberty as I ever did at Brown." (p. 106.)

This book does better than Hanna Rosin's similar, but more detached and political God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission to Save America--a reporter's book about Patrick Henry College reviewed here on December 13, 2007. (Roose mentions reading Rosin's related New Yorker article while writing his book. (p. 241).)

Unlike Rosin, Roose investigated while a student at the subject school. Perhaps as a result, Roose's book is much more empathetic and nuanced. For this reason, The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University (a lame title especially since Liberty doesn't tout itself as the nation's "Holiest University") receives a much higher recommendation. Look for more from Roose--as of the publication he was a Brown senior. This book portends well for his writing career.

"Please State Your Name for the Record".

2009-05-27T22:09:00.000-07:00

During trial this week, immediately after the clerk instructed the Petitioner (the other side) to state his name for the record, I heard deep breaths and loud sighs emanating from the witness stand. I looked up to see the witness's eyelids fluttering.

The witness was finally able to compose and identify himself.

Since the case involved Petitioner's allegation that a will was obtained through my client's "undue influence", his attorney (a former judge) asked him some foundational questions about his knowledge about the subject will.

In response, the Petitioner steadfastly denied any knowledge about the will. Visibly flustered by his numerous, fruitless attempts to get his client on track with his testimony, my worthy opponent finally asked, "Don't you remember the conversation we just had in the courthouse hallway about 15 minutes ago?" "Don't you remember what we talked about?" For a split-second, I thought about asserting the attorney-client privilege, but refrained since it was his client.

The court wasted no time in resolving the case. After each side rested, and made its closing arguments, the judge immediately ruled from the bench in favor of my client and awarded her attorneys' fees.

Book Review: Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain by Michael Paterniti.

2009-05-24T14:52:00.000-07:00

On a recent flight, I flipped through an airline magazine and found an article about road-trip books.

While road-trips and air travel represent different experiences, they both tap into the same wanderlust spirit.

Among the five or so books featured in the 2009 piece, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain (2000) by Michael Paterniti piqued my interest. It was presented as a memoir about a road trip wherein Paterniti transported via car Einstein’s brain across the United States. For obvious reasons, many questions surfaced. Why was Einstein's brain not with the body? Why was it being transported? Why did Paterniti's traveling companion have the brain?

I also wondered how the cargo--the defunct brain--could drive the traveling story, occurring decades later.

I found my answers with Driving Mr. Albert, and discovered much more. The book was part biography, part travelogue, part autobiography, part philosophical ruminations, and part cultural commentary.

The author, Paterniti, also expresses surprise at how it turned out. "To be honest I thought the road trip would be a caper. That's what I imagined. And I thought the old doctor [Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, who performed Einstein's 1955 autopsy and had the brain] would be entertaining. And yet desire is a tricky thing. It can transform a quick outing to the store for milk into a lifelong, shoeless quest through the Himalayas in search of enlightenment. It can put you on the road to Canterbury without your realizing it at first. And some version of that happened." (p. vii.)

Operating as a biography, the book delved into the lives of Einstein as well as Harvey, both of whom led colorful lives. Einstein has been quoted by both atheists and theists to support their views and Paterniti couldn't resist either, but he captures something for everyone in a single quote: "'Science without religion is lame...religion without science is blind.'" (p. 126.)

As a travelogue, the book covers stops ranging from the mundane to the bizarre. For examples, a tour of a Truman museum as well as a strange encounter with novelist William S. Burroughs spice the text. From chance exchanges with fellow travellers to a tour of a concrete "Garden of Eden" Paterniti does not disappoint in capturing the wildly unpredictable nature of road-tripping.

Working as an autobiography (with his philosophical ruminations), Paterniti records how the multifaceted experience stretched, challenged and strengthened him. An example of his thoughts and exquisite writing: "And the land--the way American keeps coming and coming in rich, if now fallow fields, stretching to the horizon, the way the awesome power of this endlessness is the key to some deep sense of freedom--begins to reimpose an ancient language of wind and silence. It's all so strangely beautiful and at the same time raises the ghost of some kind of melancholy, a thought that, though we belong to this country as much as this country belongs to us, we only move through its rooms as momentary visitors, projected our ideas on its walls, that the best we can do is live a good life, perhaps add a couple of replicas of ourselves, but then must hand it over, however temporarily again, to another generation..." (p. 60.)

Highly recommended.

Book Review: Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul.

2009-05-21T21:44:00.001-07:00

Unlike Matthew Chapman's 40 Days and 40 Nights (reviewed here on April 30, 2009), Edward Humes' 2007 book, Monkey Girl would resemble a mural depicting the sprawling case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, spanning around an arena.

By contrast, Chapman's would resemble a self-portrait--on an 8x10 glossy (due to Chapman's omnipresent bias and scant legal analysis).

A Pulitzer Prize recipient, Humes paints a much broader picture about the federal lawsuit seeking to halt an Intelligent Design ("ID") policy in a Pennsylvania school district, which was tried for six weeks in 2005. In fact, Humes spents about 200 pages setting the stage for the legal drama. Once he arrives at the lawsuit, he expertly delves into it. He provides some interesting tidbits, including the decision-making concerning whether or not to bring a temporary restraining order, how about half of the school district's experts were lost from testifying (e.g. one of ID's most prominent spokespersons, mathematician Dr. William Dembski), the ID policy and legal issues at play, crucial cross-examinations, and the trial judge's reasoning in his 139-page ruling.

Fully grasping the tension between science and law in Kitzmiller, Humes insightfully writes: "It is often said, with good cause, that a trial is a poor place to have a reasonable, informative debate about science, because the goal of a trial and the goal of science are so often at odds. Science, at least as it has been practiced for the last century or two, begins by assembling facts--the data--and then seeks an overarching theory to unify and explain those facts.... In the law, however, the process works in exactly the opposite direction. Each side of a legal dispute starts with a theory: 'The accused is guilty' versus 'My client is not guilty' (or 'Intelligent design is religion' versus 'No, it's science'). Once the opponents have settled on their mutually exclusive theories of the case, each side lines up the facts that support its own preferred version of reality. And each side studiously ignores, minimizes or attempts to disprove the facts that the belie its own theory of the case. One consequence of this time-honored approach is that, as a general rule, the courts don't do science very well." (p. 257; emphasis in original).

Humes mostly submerges his bias so the reader can derive a generally balanced understanding of the case and its backdrop. Humes however abandons any pretence of objectivity in his "Epilogue" (pp. 339-51) with some surprisingly charged rhetoric including an odd, lengthy and personal attack on Ann Coulter, who had nothing to do with the case, whom he curiously evicerated earlier (with no support). "[Dembski] has allied himself with the extremist right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, known for her vehement hate speech and her well-documented history of writing books riddled with factual errors." (p. 236.)

Humes pays a nice tribute to his editor, thanking her for her "excellent editing." (p. viii.) I'm not sure then who is responsible for this, but, without even trying, I found at least four glaring editing errors in this book published by an imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers. First, Humes inaccurately identifies Bill O'Reilly, who commented on the case, twice as a "Cable News Network" or "CNN" pundit. (pp. 211 and 224.) For example, "Within days after the lawsuit was filed, Bill O'Reilly, CNN's most popular and highest-paid pundit, dedicated a segment to the controversy in Dover." (p. 224.) This might be surprising to CNN, since O'Reilly is a FOX News fixture, and was at the time of Kitzmiller's filing, trial and decision.

Second, Humes erroneously refers to the author of The God Delusion (reviewed here July 13, 2008), as "Robert Dawkins". (p. 237.) Humes seems to know this is inaccurate, as he also refers to Dr. Dawkins as "Richard Dawkins" later in the same book. (p. 286.)

Third, a chapter begins, "Seven the [sic] of the nine board members faced challenges in the election...." (p. 248.) No further comment is necessary.

Accordingly, the adage about throwing stones from a glass house seems apropos.

In any event, Humes has written the definitive text to date about this important case, a modern-day Scopes trial, which as Humes astutely observes, is actually Scopes in reverse. Kitzmiller sought a ban of any teaching, explanation or challenge concerning the origin of life or the origin of species other than Darwinistic evolution from the Dover schools. Evolutionary purity is now the order of the day.

Praising the Good (An Occasional Series).

2009-05-20T22:44:00.000-07:00

Regardless of one's philosophical or theological views, one has to be impressed with Dr. William Lane Craig's accomplishments. Whether it's the multiple doctorates, the voluminous writings, or the formidable debates (see, e.g., my immediately preceding post), Dr. Craig has achieved much. And he hasn't done it alone. He lauds his wife, Jan:

"And it was at Wheaton that my vision began to focus on presenting the gospel in the context of giving an intellectual defense of the faith, to appeal not only to the heart but also to the head, as well. And so I determined that I would go on to seminary for further training.

"But, my senior year, in chapel, we heard a speaker who challenged us, before going on to further education, to take a couple of years out, and to wring out the sponge, so to speak, that had been soaking up all that knowledge, and to work with university students while we were still about the same age.

"And so I joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ for 2 years, and was assigned to Northern Illinois University. And that was where I met my wife Jan. She was a graduate of the University of North Dakota where she had come to faith in Christ. And she had a similar vision for her life of evangelism and discipleship.

"And as we worked at NIU together, she with gals and I with the guys, leading students to Christ and discipling them to walk with the Lord, we fell in love. And we decided that we would be more effective if we joined forces and became a team.

"And it was also at that time [while working on his first master's degree] that I began to see what an invaluable asset the Lord had given me in Jan. I remember I came home from classes one day, and found her at the kitchen table with all the catalogs and schedules and papers spread out in front of her and she said, '[L]ook! I’ve figured out how you can get two Masters degrees at the same time that it would normally take to get one! All you have to do is take overloads every semester, go to all full-time summer school and do all these other things, and you can do two MAs in the time it takes to do one!'

"And I thought, whoa! Are you sure you really want to make the commitment it takes to do this kind of thing? And she said, 'Yeah! Go for it!' And it was then I began to see that God had given me a very special woman who was my supporter – my cheerleader – and who really believed in me. And as long as she believed in me, that gave me the confidence to dream bigger dreams, and to take on challenges that I had never thought of before.

"As graduation from Trinity neared, Jan and I were sitting one evening at the supper table in our little campus apartment, talking about what to do after graduation. Neither of us had any clear leading or inclination of what we should do next.

"So Jan said to me, 'Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?' I replied, 'If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to England and do a doctorate under John Hick.'

“'Who’s he?' she asked.

“'Oh, he’s this famous British philosopher who’s written extensively on arguments for the existence of God,' I explained. 'If I could study with him, I could develop a cosmological argument for God’s existence.'

"But it hardly seemed a realistic idea.

"The next evening at supper Jan handed me a slip of paper with John Hick’s address on it. 'I went to the library today and found out that he’s at the University of Birmingham in England,' she said. 'Why don’t you write him a letter and ask him if you can do a doctoral thesis under him on the cosmological argument?'

"What a woman! So I did, and to our amazement and delight Professor Hick wrote back saying he’d be very pleased to supervise my doctoral work on that subject. So it was an open door!

"As Jan and I neared the completion of my doctoral studies in Birmingham, our future path was again unclear to us. I had sent out a number of applications for teaching positions in philosophy at American universities but had received no bites. We didn’t know what to do.
I remember it like yesterday. We were sitting at the supper table in our little house outside Birmingham, and Jan suddenly said to me, 'Well, if money were no object, what would you really like to do next?'

"I laughed because I remembered how the Lord had used her question to guide us in the past. I had no trouble answering the question. 'If money were no object, what I’d really like to do is go to Germany and study under Wolfhart Pannenberg.'

“'Who’s he?'

“'Oh, he’s this famous German theologian who’s defended the resurrection of Christ historically,' I explained. 'If I could study with him, I could develop a historical apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus.'

"Our conversation drifted to other subjects, but Jan later told me that my remark had just lit a fire under her. The next day while I was at the university, she slipped away to the library and began to research grants-in-aid for study at German universities. Most of the leads proved to be defunct or otherwise inapplicable to our situation. But there were two grants she found that were possibilities. You can imagine how surprised I was when she sprung them on me!

"I am so thankful to be married to a woman who is tremendously resourceful, tremendously talented and energetic, who could have pursued an independent career in any number of areas, but instead, she has chose to wed her aspirations to mine, and to make it her goal to make me the most effective person I can be, for Christ. And she has been like my right arm in ministry over these many years. And it is a tremendous privilege to be a team with a person like that.
And you young men, I would encourage you, if you marry, to find a gal who shares your vision, not some independent vision, but who is interested in aligning herself with you, and pursuing together a common vision and goal that will draw you [together], so that you will avoid the growing separateness that so often creeps into marriages."

via: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/is-it-ok-for-christians-to-marry-non-christians/

Book Review: Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan.

2009-05-13T15:40:00.000-07:00

Grape-Nuts isn't either.

Like the cereal that doesn't literally live up to its name, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (moderated by William F. Buckley, Jr., edited by Paul Copan) is neither a debate nor a book in a literal sense.

Not A Debate

It isn't really a debate because while Dr. Craig seems anxious to engage in verbal combat, Dr. Crossan isn't. Dr. Craig employs traditional debating tactics, such as setting up contentions with support, and then chides Dr. Crossan for not rebutting them (called "drops" in debate parlance). Dr. Craig laments after the debate, "Fully expecting these points to be vigorously disputed by Dr. Crossan, I came to the debate prepared to defend each of them; but Dr. Crossan, to my surprise, failed to contest a single piece of evidence which I adduced in support of the four main facts." (p. 163.) Dr. Craig continues: "Again, I came to the debate fully expecting a lively exchange concerning these presuppositions, but my preparation proved superfluous, as Dr. Crossan made almost no effort to defend his presuppositions." (p. 167.)

As Dr. Craig is essentially correct in his criticism (and Dr. Crossan even seems to concede that he was more interested in a dialogue [see, p. 71; pp. 154-55]), this curious one-sided scenario approximated a boxing match where only one participant made any effort to punch or even defend.

Further, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? isn't a mere transcription of a debate. For example, Dr. Craig's "Opening Address" contained 25 footnotes. I doubt the audience at Moody Memorial Church in Chicago heard them (mostly citations).

Finally, the "debate" between Drs. Crossan and Craig is sandwiched between an introduction by the editor, Paul Copan, and various essays by New Testament scholars, including Ben Witherington III and Marcus Borg, which foment some intriguing exchanges and some zingers. For example, Crossan embarrasses Witherington who surprisingly misquotes Crossan as saying, "Easter never happened. Easter always happens." (p. 141.) To the contrary, Crossan actually said, "Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens." (p. 121; p. 153.)

Not a Book

It's not really a book because it is based, in part, on an audio recording of the exchange at Moody Memorial. "The book version of the debate between John Dominic Crossan and Willliam Lane Craig is based on the audio version available from Pearl Publishing Company...." (p. 4.)

In other words, the book does, at least partially, try to hew to what was said at the debate. It contains moderator Buckley's "Introduction to the Debate" (p. 24); the "Opening Addresses" (p. 25-39); rebuttals (pp. 40- 47); a "Dialogue" (pp. 48-67); and then "Closing Statements", including one from the moderator (pp. 68-73.) Moreover, as noted previously, the text contains essays from four scholars who did not participate in the earlier "debate", which makes it more like a compilation than a unified book. Nevertheless, these essays often used the "debate" as a springboard to thoughtful interactions.

I'll close with some remarks about Dr. Craig's approach. While he doesn't have formal legal training (but does hold two earned doctorates), Dr. Craig argues in a very lawyerly fashion. In his opening statement, he made "two main contentions": (I) "The real Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his radical personal claims to divinity"; and (II) If Contention I is false--that is, if Jesus did not rise--then Christianity is a fairy tale which no rational person should believe." (p. 25.)

In turn, he supported these contentions with "four facts" (and those with evidences or reasonings): (1) "After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb" (p. 26); (2) "On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers" (p. 27); (3) "On multiple occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead" (p. 28); and (4) "The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to." (p. 28).

Evidenced by this occasion (and others), Dr. Craig has established himself as a formidable debater. There's no doubt he outdistanced Dr. Crossan on points here. Interestingly, Dr. Craig is so skilled in this type of forum that a recent piece has been written (by a lawyer, no less), on how to debate him: http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/advice-for-debating-william-lane-craig/.

Given his mode of argumentation, and an ostensible objective to persuade outsiders (see, e.g., pp. 178-79), Dr. Craig surprises when says in his concluding essay (after the debate) that he is not "an evidentialist, if by that term is meant someone who holds that Christian faith is based on evidence." (p. 171.) Dr. Craig writes in this vein, "I see faith in Christ as what epistemologists called a properly basic belief which is grounded in the witness of God's Holy Spirit." (p. 171.)

Book Review: 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania (2007).

2009-04-30T22:58:00.000-07:00

"[B]ut he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes".
--Frank Sinatra, "High Hopes"

I had high hopes for 2007's 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania by Matthew Chapman.

The book purported to cover a collision of origin-of-life issues (such as Intelligent Design v. Darwinism), religion and law in a modern-day Scopes trial—a case called Kitzmiller v. Dover, which was tried before a Pennsylvania federal district court judge for six weeks in 2005.

Unfortunately, the hopes were never realized for two primary reasons.

First, the bias permeating the text was oppressive, distracting and eventually comical. The author, Matthew Chapman, admits his bias upfront as the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin. (p. 3.) However, even that admission didn’t prepare me for the abject prejudices that followed. For example, like he customarily does for people he agrees with, he portrays the lawyers representing the plaintiffs (those challenging an Intelligent Design policy in a Pennsylvania school district) as geniuses at their craft, phenomenal family people, and (for the most part) like GQ models. “Katzkee, a tall handsome man, soft spoken, and civilized, was the scholar in the crowd, an expert on constitutional law, and the lawyer who would contribute the constitutional arguments in the final document briefing the judge on the plaintiffs’ case. He also looked as if he had just stepped out of the pages of GQ.” (p. 53; emphasis supplied.)

By contrast, when describing the intellectual father of the Intelligent Design movement, Phillip Johnson, Chapman refers to him dismissively as “a retired law professor from San Francisco.” (p. 142.) Chapman fails to mention that Johnson clerked at the US Supreme Court, authored one of the most influential criminal law casebooks, and was a tenured professor at UC Berkeley’s law school (Boalt Hall). Likewise, Chapman sneers: “If the plaintiffs’ legal team was a well-oiled collegial machine, the defense was a dysfunctional family with a frequently absent father.” (p. 54.) How’s that for objective reporting?

Second, because Chapman was ill-equipped to report the legal issues (he states he has no legal training, as “a high school dropout” [p. 84]), he never properly frames the legal questions before the court. Chapman writes: “Kitzmiller v. Dover had two distinct legal themes. One was the story of neighbors in conflict in Dover, the other the clash of opposing scientific and philosophical views on the origin and development of life.” (p. 38.) Similarly, he fails to provide adequate references to the record, instead furnishing snippets too narrow and too isolated to give the reader full understanding of the trial. As a result, this book stands far from a work of legal reportage as I hoped.

It’s a shame.

Book Review: There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007).

2009-04-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

One of my property law professors once complained about legal writers who circle around a point for many prefatory revolutions before making it, like dogs encircling a resting place before laying down. Thus, he would have loved the writing in Antony Flew's (with Roy Abraham Varghese) There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Surprisingly concise at 158 pages (sans appendices), There is a God gets right to the heart of the matter. It explains the philosophic basis for Flew's changing his mind about God's existence. At its core, Flew now finds the design argument persusive, although he recasts it a bit.

"Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God's existence is the so-called argument from design. According to this argument, the design that is apparent in nature suggests the existence of a cosmic Designer. I have often stressed that this is actually an argument to design from order, as such arguments proceed from the perceived order in nature to show evidence of design, and thus, a Designer. Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God." (p. 95; emphasis in original.)

Notably, Flew characterizes his arrival at this conclusion as "a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith." (p. 93.) He stresses that his "discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, wihout any reference to supernatural phenomena." (p. 93.)

In roughly the first half of There is a God, entitled "My Denial of the Divine", Flew provides his athestic background primarly as an academic and author, and in the second half, entitled "My Discovery of the Divine", he explains how he came to believe that God exists.

Christians, for example, should not be so quick to adopt Flew as one of their own, however. Flew stresses that he makes no claim to "any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous." (p. 93.) On the other hand, Flex repeats an intriguing line: "As I have said more than once, no other religion [besides Christianity] enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (p. 157; see also pp. 185-86.) Flew continues: "I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true." (p. 185.)

In this vein, Flew includes an excellent appendix from New Testament scholar N.T. Wright that succinctly addresses these core questions, "How Do We Know that Jesus Existed?"; "What Grounds Are There for Claiming from the Texts, That Jesus Is God Incarnate?"; and "What Evidence Is There for the Resurrection of Christ?" (pp. 187-213.) Flew responds: "I am very impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time....It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful." (p. 213.)

Accordingly, it's a compelling combination to find two building blocks of the Christian religion in a single, lean volume. Flew outlines the architecture for the existence of God, and Wright sketches it for Christianity. Thus, one doesn't have to go round-and-round with redundancies or irrelevancies--like following a dog encircling his mat--to get to the heart of these crucial inquiries.

Adventure Review: Long Beach Grand Prix.

2009-04-20T22:36:00.000-07:00

"Goose knuckles."

That's how one young man described the phenomenon appearing on his hand as the IndyCars screamed by us this past weekend at the Long Beach Grand Prix.

Like hockey, this is another sporting event that doesn't really translate to television. It has to be experienced in the flesh to be believed. The overpowering sounds of open-wheel racing evoke visceral responses unlike anything else.

In addition to the race, the promoters really know how to put on a first-rate show. For example, one race was inaugurated with what appeared to be an immense military cargo jet buzzing the crowd about a couple of hundred feet up while turning its wings perpendicularly to the ground, which immediately followed sky divers with one unfurling a huge US flag. Complementing the contests, the organizers had commandeered a vast swath of Long Beach (including the Convention Center) with myriad other exhibitions, entertainment and experiences.

This is a world-class event, not to be missed, if you are in Southern California for the 36th installment of the Long Beach Grand Prix next April.

Summiting, Part III.

2009-04-14T23:28:00.000-07:00

At oral argument, my certified-appellate-specialist counterpart responded to a justice's question by evidently abandoning his first of two primary arguments.

Seizing on this curious concession, I pinned him on this point and then advanced to his second contention.

The next day, I received a copy of a letter he sent to the justices. In the missive, he attempted to retract his concession imploring the court to consider his first claimed error. To gain the court's benevolence, he asserted that he wasn't prepared for the question and his remark was ill-considered and hasty.

Incredibly, about 14 days later, I received a second letter he later sent to the justices. In the second correspondence, he attempted to “clarify” his first letter, again saying that he wanted the court to rule in his client's favor on his first argument.

Three bites at the proverbial apple. That was a first.

Summiting, Part II.

2009-04-08T21:10:00.000-07:00

In Summiting (Part I), I provided excerpts from my Respondent's brief:
http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2009/01/summiting.html

In this brief, I adopted an alpine climbing theme and started with a Nelson Mandela quote: “After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.”

To switch things up at oral argument (since it's a good idea not to repeat one's brief), I quoted Randy Pausch, the late Carnegie-Mellon professor, who alighted the world with his "Last Lecture" viral video and book.

As Dr. Pausch said, "If there is an elephant in the room, introduce it." I then posited that the trial court's statement of decision, spanning 28 pages--replete with evidentiary citations and credibility determinations--was the proverbial "elephant in the room" in this case. Appellant could not get around the myriad exhibits and testimony relied upon in the document, as much as he wished to ignore it.

In its opinion today (affirming in favor of my client 3-0), the appellate court adopted my arguments that (1) Appellant had waived his insufficiency of the evidence argument by not citing all of the evidence favoring the decision (or even acknowledging its existence in the statement of decision); and (2) even if Appellant hadn't waived the argument, the evidence cited in the statement of decision more than amply supported the judgment.

At oral argument, Appellant's counsel (a certified appellate specialist) in part tried to undermine the trial court's determination by claiming that the trial court got a fact wrong. When it was my turn, I corrected this allegation by noting that the trial court nowhere made such a finding or relied on said "fact", but rather based its ruling for that issue on seven (7) other evidences, which I cited from the statement of decision--the "elephant in the room". You could have heard a pin drop when that evisceration was complete. Not surprisingly, these seven evidences were quoted in the opinion--with enumeration.

Book Review: Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (2008).

2009-04-05T15:57:00.000-07:00

John W. Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist: a Former Preacher Rejects Christianity doesn't really blaze new ground, but it does cover a lot of it.

In fact, this comprehensiveness is a key distinctive that separates it from the work of the "New Atheist" trio, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris (the "Trio"). The other two distinctives are its author's credentials and candor.

Comprehensiveness

Why I Became an Atheist is a serious, comprehensive critique of Christianity (especially conservative Protestantism [see, e.g., p. 12]). Loftus writes, "In it I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity." (p. 12.) Exhibiting its expansive scope, it includes chapters or lengthy discussions on “the problem of evil” (theodicy), philosophical arguments about the existence of God, the origin of life, textual criticism, prayer, the historicity of the biblical record, prophesy, the existence of hell, and living as an atheist, among many other topics.

I’ve read works from today’s big four religion critics: the Trio, plus Bart D. Ehrman—whom I’ve heard amusingly referred to collectively as the “Four Horsemen”. Loftus' book explores topics found in their works, which emphasize certain critiques of religion.

For example, Ehrman recently published a book on theodicy, God’s Problem, and Dawkins largely advocates for an evolutionary rather than theistic explanation for the origin of life in numerous books, such as The God Delusion. Ehrman also has authored books closely examining the New Testament record, such as Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, covering material far beyond anything in Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris'. Uniquely, Loftus provides a taste of all these critiques in his over 400-page, densely-packed tome. In other words, if one were look for a recent survey text for atheistic argumentation, this book would more than suffice. Then, if one wanted to drill down into areas of the other author's expertise, then one could follow up with the respective expert, say Ehrman on New Testament critical scholarship or Dawkins on Darwinism.

I have read that Loftus posits that his "Outsider Test for Faith" (Chapter 4) constitutes an innovation, but I found it just another challenge to employ critical thinking, which a serious Christian should do in any event, and perhaps a recasting of the burden of proof--placing it on the believer.

Credentials

Unlike the Trio, Loftus holds credentials from within the evangelical academic community. He obtained M.A. and M.Div. degrees from Lincoln Christian Seminary in Lincoln, Illinois. (p. 13.) Thereafter, he received a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School ("TEDS") under the mentoring of Dr. William Lane Craig (p. 13), now a professor at Biola University. Additionally, Loftus "spent a year and a half in a Ph.D. program at Marquette University with a double major in theology and ethics... and taught classes for several Christian colleges...." (p. 13.)

However, this Dr. Craig connection leads to a critique. The book seems largely personalized to refute Dr. Craig--his former mentor, even though Loftus denies it at the outset. (p. 14.) Loftus curiously includes incidents occurring in class with Dr. Craig (his former professor) and personal interactions with him. A picture with Dr. Craig at Loftus' graduation from TEDS is even reproduced. (p. 14.) Moreover, large swaths of text are disproportionately dedicated to setting forth Dr. Craig's apologetic argumentations, only to endeavor to knock them down. While I recognize that Dr. Craig is a leading Christian apologist, he is far from the only one now or before. For example, Loftus does not similarly attack prominent evangelical apologist Dr. Norman L. Geisler's arguments with the same frequency or ferocity as directed to Dr. Craig's. This omission is underscored by Loftus' observation that Dr. Geisler has produced "more than sixty apologetics books, including The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics." (p. 11.)

Loftus interestingly points out that Dr. Geisler "is recommending this book of mine to his students." (p. 11.) Loftus also quotes Dr. Geisler's review of Why I Became An Atheist, which review I endorse: "[I]t 'is an honest and open account of how a Christian became an atheist. Seldom are unbelievers so candid and open. Second, every Christian--let alone Christian apologists--can learn some valuable lessons from it on how to treat wayward believers. Third, it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face.'" (p. 11.)

Candor

As Dr. Geisler observed, this book is remarkably "candid and open" (p. 11). To Loftus' credit, and perhaps discredit, he provides the impetus for his "de-conversion." (Chapter 1). Contrasting his de-conversion from one based solely upon a rejection of the evidence itself, Loftus candidly admits "there were three major circumstances that happened in [his] life that changed his thinking." (p. 24.) At its locus was a moral failure followed by mistreatment by the church. (pp. 24-30.)

He tries to answer anticipated critiques by writing, "While the things I have just written [about his personal experiences] might explain to some degree why my thinking has changed, I want to stress the fact that my thinking has indeed changed. You cannot explain away my present thinking by pointing to these experiences I've had in my life." (pp. 31-32.) Despite Loftus' protestations, I couldn't help but conclude that much of Loftus' book that follows Chapter 1's personal story constitutes post-hoc rationalizations for his rejection of Christianity. Nevertheless, I do concur with Loftus that his arguments must be dealt with on their merits--regardless of how Loftus got there. (p. 32.)

"That's When We Were Going to Get Married", Part II.

2009-03-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

One avenue I pursued at trial was to show that the purported will or trust amendment was not merely “transcribed” from the decedent’s dictation (as the Respondent claimed), but was actually drafted by the Respondent. (Generally, California law invalidates testamentary documents benefiting such drafters).

One my clients served as a university professor, with a Ph.D. in linguistics, in addition to being familiar with his father’s speech and writing patters over several decades. After laying this foundation (and introducing exemplars of his father’s communications), I asked him if the language contained in the subject handwritten note (which Respondent admitted was her own handwriting) could have been his father’s. Focusing on the numerous grammatical, spelling and word choice errors, he opined it could not be the product of his father’s speech or writing. For example, the note used “dismiss” and “dismissal” in place of “death” in two places. Because the other side had not served a demand for exchange of expert witness information, and this witness (the son) had been on the witness list from the beginning, my opponent could only watch as this damaging testimony came in without rebuttal.

In the ruling, the trial court found the decedent “did not dictate” the disputed document “based on the” fact that “the language … contain[ed] spelling and grammar errors in addition to the use of incorrect words” which the court found in contrast to how the decedent communicated.

Nice bonus to have a client who can offer salient expert testimony.

"That's When We Were Going to Get Married", Part I.

2009-03-27T09:37:00.001-07:00

On my cross-examination of the Respondent, she blurted out, "That's when we were going to get married in Las Vegas."

And that's when I knew we were going to win this trial.

By way of background, the Respondent was a caregiver to a gentleman north of 90 years of age. At the very end of his life, while in the endstages of lung cancer (and suffering from hypoxia), he had allegedly signed two documents which she posited changed his will or trust to give her one-third of his considerable estate.

When we subpoenaed this gentleman's bank records we uncovered that he had signed numerous checks to the caregiver towards the end of his life, which she cashed. These checks included one for $20,000 and one for $1,350 (apart from her wages). In her deposition, she gave an explanation for the $20,000 and claimed that she couldn't remember what the $1,350 one was for.

At trial, she changed her story about the $20,000, and then I impeached her with her deposition testimony and earlier interrogatory responses.

Regarding the $1,350 check, I showed it to her on the stand and expected to get the same response that she allegedly didn't know its purpose.

Instead, I got a gift.

As noted above, she said that it was for their hotel expenses in Las Vegas to get married. Given that the case involved issues of undue influence, I pursued the matter. I had remembered from earlier discovery responses (under oath) that she was married, so I asked her, "You were married at the time, right?"

She said she hadn't been with a man for years.

I replied, "That's not my question; you were married when you went to Las Vegas with this 91-year-old man thinking that he was going to marry you, correct?"

She hedged: "I was separated."

I persisted: "Again, that's not my question; you were not divorced at the time you went to Las Vegas with this 91-year old man thinking he was going to marry a woman he could not legally marry, true?"

She finally conceded that he was not legally divorced and hence still legally married.

My trial instincts impelled me to inquire just a bit further about the Vegas trip (even though I didn't know the precise answer to the next question, because I quickly calculated the risk was minimal to my side to ask). After she said they travelled by bus to Vegas and stayed only a weekend, I asked where they stayed in Las Vegas, thinking the only accomodations that could reasonably explain this huge charge would be the Venetian, Bellagio or the like. She incredibly testified: "the Super 8". So, $1,350 was the alleged charge to stay at the "Super 8" in Las Vegas for a couple of nights. Obviously implausible. I wondered, but didn't ask, if the charge also included bullet-proof vests for them.

We received the ruling this week. Relying heavily on the complete evisceration of her credibility at trial via the cross-examination, the Court declared the purported will/trust amendments to be invalid, and ordered the money the caregiver "wrongfully" took from the decedent returned
--multiplied by a factor of two pursuant to California Probate Code Section 859--and then ordered that my clients (the gentleman's two children) receive their attorneys' fees from the Respondent.

Part II will involve how I turned one client into an expert witness on linguistics in the trial.

Book Review: A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity by Bill O'Reilly.

2009-03-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

Bill O’Reilly’s “simple and straightforward.”

Just ask him. That’s how he characterizes himself in his 2008 book, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. (p. 59.) I’ll resolve the mystery at the outset: the title comes from how his exasperated teacher described him in elementary school. (p. 3.)

I prefer O’Reilly’s self-description to the teacher’s because it frames the thoughts that follow. While the book mostly operates as a memoir, it is interrupted with large sections containing O’Reilly’s “simple and straightforward” views of the world on such topics as politics (chapter 1 and passim), evil (chapter 4), and religion (chapter 5).

For example, I found O’Reilly’s understanding of Christianity (he’s Roman Catholic) to be rather startling: “There’s a reason the cross is the symbol of Christianity. It is a powerful statement: that a good man suffered for me, that a just God was looking out for me, and if I lived a good life, I would be rewarded after death.” (pp. 74-75; emphasis added.) Likewise, “The endgame, of course, is to earn God’s reward in the afterlife by rejecting evil. And in Catholicism and other Christian religions, the actions of Jesus demonstrate how to do that.” (p. 88.)

On one’s legacy: “[Y]our legacy will be defined by two simple [there’s that word again] questions: “How many wrongs did you right, and how many people did you help when they needed it?” (p. 51.)

In the midst of this quasi-memoir, an entire chapter (“Mysteries of the Universe”) is oddly dedicated to O’Reilly’s random musings about mostly antiquated cultural relics, which I could only conclude constituted filler material to stretch the manuscript to an acceptable length for a hardcover book. In this chapter, O’Reilly ponders such “mysteries” as “Captain Kangaroo”, the 1965 song “Hang On Sloopy” by the McCoys, Vice President from the Nixon Administration Spiro Agnew, the “Mummy” from the 1932 movie starring Boris Karloff, 1960s character “Tiny Tim”, long since cancelled tv shows "The Beverly Hillbillies", "Green Acres" and "Gilligan’s Island", and the 1970 film Love Story, among other irrelevancies (pp. 217-21).

When the book reads as a memoir it improves. It contains many intriguing aspects to O’Reilly’s background. For instance, he taught high school for two years in Miami. He played football in college. He organized adventure trips with his friends. He includes stories about his climb through the ranks of television news, with the constant being O’Reilly’s determination in the face of extreme resistance. He seems to live fearlessly. He sees his purpose as almost messianic. "I can wield the pen and speak my mind without fear. These gifts were given to me, I believe, by a higher power." (p. 111.) Similarly, “When people ask me what drives my fierce work ethic, why I work so hard when I don’t have to anymore, I simply tell them that I’m still on a quest to make sure others get treated fairly.” (p. 238.)

Leaving the memoir track again, the book contains "self-help" tips that fit neatly within his own characterization of being "simple" such as grooming (p. 249), eating healthily (pp. 245-48), helping others (p. 239), thinking first (p. 243), and practicing (p. 243) are important.

If you are able to parse through the lesser portions, you can mine some funny vignettes (and some understanding) about this cultural force.