Over the last year and a half, the purpose of the blog has shifted, and so I think it’s time to update. What started out as a place to write about the practice of law for a young lawyer recently past the bar exam has shifted to a more general set of posts about politics, books, restaurants, and, occasionally still, the law, not to mention other random items that catch my attention (including Spongebob, no less). With that in mind, I’m shifting to a blog that’s geared a little more to the general and less to the specifics (indeed, some might say I’ve already been there for a while…).

Please up date your readers, your address books, and your bookmarks–all ten of you–to my new address, PubliusOnline.com.

I look forward to seeing you there!

The first in Edmund Morris’ three part biography of the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt lived a life full to the brim. Born sickly, he had overcome physical ailments and “built courage by ‘sheer dint of practicing fearlessness.’” Indeed, his life reads in a crescendo that leaves other men wanting:

• Published author at 18, of “The Naval War of 1812,” a classic that would go on to find a place in the textbooks for both US and British naval academies.
• Married at 22, father and widower at 25, husband again at 28.
• Acclaimed historian and New York Assemblyman at 25.
• North Dakota ranchman at 26
• Candidate for New York City Mayor at 27
• Civil Service Commissioner of the United States at 30
• Police Commissioner of New York City at 36
• Assistant Secretary of the Navy at 38 (and author of the plan that defeated the Spanish in Manila under Admiral Dewey)
• Colonel of the First U.S. Cavalry, the “Rough Riders”  and a war hero at 39 (yes, he left a near cabinet level position to ride in the cavalry)
• Governor of New York two weeks short of his 40th birthday
• Vice President at 42…

And that’s just in the first book. Making his living as a working writer, Roosevelt read over 20,000 books and writing fifteen of his own, not to mention speaking French and German, developing and maintaining relationships with numerous leaders in fields scientific, intellectual, and philosophical. His mind was a steel trap and his life steam engine, gaining speed and momentum.

He was a man who was a lifelong learner, knew no bounds to his interests or abilities, and never stopped trying to reach further. Although born to priviledge, Theodore took nothing for granted, and he took every advantage he could to work, read, exercise, challenge himself, and expand his reach. It’s an example that inspires me, and it’s one we could all use.

In a day where people talk a lot and actually do less, Roosevelt reminds us of the power of action, of doing, and that it is those who do that make a difference.

If you’re looking for a readable biography of one of our most colorful presidents, before he was president, pick up Edmund Morris’ “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.”

Related articles

• Tonight’s books, courtesy of the Salt Lake County Library (lawafterthebar.wordpress.com)

Situated just north of fourth south on Main Street in Salt Lake City, Maxwell’s is an obvious stop for the downtown crowd. Occupying the corner of the building, Maxwell’s is lots of polished wood, a central bar, large televisions, and high stools. It’s an attractive place, and, in retrospect, the food was pretty good, too.

Just don’t come in a hurry.

We hit Maxwell’s for lunch, and when the waitress offered, within a minute of our arrival, we jumped at the lunch special–our choice of one of four types of salads and one of four types of sandwiches. For just $5.

Nice deal, eh?

It is. If you can get your food in less than 45 minutes, which we did not. To boot, as we waited, we watched our waitress approach and try to hand us our check…before we had been served our food.

Awkward moment, to say the least.

On to the food. I order a Caesar salad and a chicken parmigiano sandwich. The sandwich was a tender piece of chicken parmigiano with a marinara sauce on sliced Italian bread toasted in butter. It was tasty, and not too large, either.

The Caesar salad was a good side, drenched in dressing, and added a god green to the menu.

Final analysis? Good food, less than average service. I’ll go back at least once more to try their pizza, though. I’ve heard great things.

Service: 5/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Food: 15/20
Parking: 5/10
Eat-ability Quotient (an average of scores):  6.4/10

You can worry about the calories later.

In the meantime, get off the beaten path and head over to Chunga’s and enjoy that good Mexican food.

Over in Rose Park on 900 West, Chunga’s doesn’t look like much. More than meets the eye, though, and it’s worth checking out. The menu is simple, but looks written for a mixed clientage of native Spanish speakers and local gringos. I ordered my standard enchiladas with rice and beans.

While we waited, we were treated to restaurant style chips and salsa, the kind that you can’t stop eating. At most Mexican restaurants, the chips are long gone, along with my appetite, before the food arrives. Today, though, my order arrived before I could down more than  three or for chips.

And how were the enchiladas? Let me put it this way: not only did I finish them, but I also finished the rice and black beans that came with, as well as the pre-meal chips. It wasn’t quite Red Iguana, but Chunga’s certainly proved itself worthy of a drive away from the usual haunts in Downtown.

Last point: if it’s warm enough, don’t miss the chance to sit outside. There’s a lot more room outside in the patio area on the north of the building than there is inside. Might as well take advantage of it.

Service: 9/10
Atmosphere: 6/10 (none, really. )
Food: 18/20
Parking: 6.5/10
Eat-ability Quotient (an average of scores):  7.9/10

[XKCD]

(No, we don’t have pictures to prove it, and by “it” I mean that she is a stripper, or a lawyer, either, for that matter…and just like that, 99% of the readers who found this blog while Googling “stripper lawyers” have stopped reading.)

Is the economy that bad? Or is First Coast News trying to roll out the stripper-with-a-heart-of-gold story to bump their ratings?

I’m going to guess the latter. But in any case, you decide. Here’s “Carla,” explaining her dire straights:

“Did I ever think I’d be taking my top off for rent money? No. I was in my mid-30s and had never danced before,” said Carla, who asked that we use her stage name and withhold her identity and some personal details. “As a little girl, I never thought to myself, ‘I just want to grow up and be a stripper,’ or, ‘All I ever wanted to do in life is climb in the lap of sweaty stranger and take my top off.’

“But, with our economy the way it is, especially in smaller cities … you strip or you starve,” she said.

Strip or starve…strip or starve… Well, when you put it that way, it’s obvious!

On the other hand, some people have jobs and have money—otherwise, who is paying to watch you shake it?

Apparently, strip clubs are a recession-proof business.

Even in the middle of a recession, when money is tight for pretty much everyone, managers at Déjà Vu say they are still seeing more than 1,000 customers a week.

“I would say we are doing very well considering what’s been going on with the downfall of other companies,” [Déjà Vu manager] Martinez said.

But I digress. Back to “Carla” and First Coast News:

As her prospects grew dim, she went back to school to earn a master’s degree, hoping to bolster her credentials. But her financial aid came in lower than expected, her credit was battered and she struggled to find part-time work in her new town to keep her afloat.

Can you feel your empathy levels rising? Because First Coast News is piling it on pretty thick.

Everything is happening to her, beyond her control.  She is the victim of less financial aid than she planned,  low credit (due to late payments or no payments to creditors…the only reason credit drops), and not finding a job in a “new” town (which, as she notes in the story, is a “small” town). But none of that is her fault. It’s the economy, it’s the credit agency, it’s the lack of jobs, it’s government, it’s everyone but her!

She was at rock bottom.

“I went around to see if could get a job as cocktail waitress, but there was not a single retail or waitress job.  No one was hiring, except for the topless places,” she said.  “It was an act of desperation.”

She started out serving drinks as a waitress, but moved quickly to dancing “because that’s where the money is, and that’s what I needed.”

Uh, huh. Can you see the gun to her head?

Pardon me if I’m a tad less than sympathetic here. The details of Carla’s practice, her pre-recession spending habits,  and how she put herself in a place where she couldn’t afford her lifestyle are obscured by the pasties limited facts provided.

Even with what is given, I can’t figure out why Carla resorted to a career she finds so objectionable. As an “act of desperation,” I expect dumpster diving, joining the Army, moving to a bigger city, or even declaring bankruptcy so you can start all over.  Between practicing law and working retail there are a lot of employment options, even in this economy.  At least, she could have left the small town for a bigger market. Whether you stay in law or try your luck elsewhere, well, that’s up to you. But to go to something you find as distasteful you find stripping?

“Sometimes it sucks, it’s degrading and I hate it, but it is necessary right now and I’m glad I have the option of doing it,” Carla said.  “My parents and a few friends know and they were horrified at first. But now they are proud of me for sucking it up and doing what I have to do.”

Turning to stripping as an act of desperation? Sounds more like a lack of imagination or effort.

If nothing else, maybe this will end up being a cautionary tale to upcoming law students preparing to take on enough debt to finance a small home. Be careful how much debt you take on, because some day you might end up in an “act of desperation,” and you never know what that might be.

I’m just sayin’: do we really need one more lawyer stripper in this world?

For that matter, do we really need one more sensational story from the news?This isn’t journalism, First Coast News–its salacious tabloid trash.

Despite Carla’s admonition (last paragraph) to never look down on someone in the “industry,” as she calls, it, I’m more embarrassed that someone as educated as her can’t find a better way to make a buck than taking it off.

[VIA]

You can imagine how well that was going to go over.  Partisans from both sides were prepared, I’m sure, to lay blame for the federal government’s fiscal problems at their opponents feet.

“It was Bush’s fault!”

“Was not. It’s Obama’s fault!”

“Nuh, uh!”

And so one. Fortunately, there was an adult in the room, and he was, contrary to oft-repeated and oft delusional grandeur of parental responsibility, not President Obama.

In fact, it wasn’t even a politician, per se. As NPR tells it

Doug Elmendorf, the man who runs the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), immediately dispensed with the question of blame and laid out the options for the supercommittee.

“Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path will require significant changes in spending policies, significant changes in tax policies, or both,” Elmendorf said.

That’s a bitter pill, no matter what party you belong to. Elmendorf laid out the work before the committee. You have three issues before it, he said (and I’m quoting NPR, here):

1. How much money the government is going to save;
2. How quickly it is going to do it; and
3. What mix of spending reductions (GOP choice) or tax increases (Democrat choice) it is going to use.

And partisan meat ain’t gonna cut it, alone. When Republican Senator John Kyl of Arizona suggested it could be recouped by stopping Medicare fraud or selling public lands, Elmendorf shut it down.

Neither of those would make up a very large part of the $1.2 trillion that the supercommittee is tasked with saving. (But he’d be glad to discuss those ideas, he said…just not on their own).

His idea, then? Raise spending or cut taxes now, and then later, raise taxes or cut spending. But lock it in now, with legislation in order to prevent future Congresses from waffling when the pressure is off.

Interesting idea, if something of a pipe dream. Check out the story from NPR.

Related articles

• Sen. Portman: Supercommittee Is in ‘Right Frame Of Mind’ (blogs.wsj.com)
• Doug Elmendorf: More Fiscal Expansion Now (delong.typepad.com)

That said, he didn’t sound too articulate, either.

And that’s all I’ll say about that.

Now on to the rest of the pack. Left to right:

1. Huntsman: For a guy who started his campaign calling for civility, he sure has come a long ways. I wonder if it has anything to do with his lead consultant, one John Weaver.

2. Cain: Tonight was his best debate, yet, but I don’t think it will move him much. He still brings a breath of fresh air to the campaign, though, and I like that.

3. Bachmann: She’s an insurgent by nature, and she does best on the attack, which she did, taking on Perry on his 2007 executive order by-passing the Texas legislature to inoculate 12-year old girls against human papillomavirus. She’d make a better VP than a President.

4. Romney: After a sharp back and forth on Perry’s social security comments comparing it to a Ponzi scheme, Romney found a chance to lay out his seven point plan to rebuild the economy. He’ll stay in second place, but he took a few blows. He’s no Tea Party darling.

5. Perry: See above.

6. Paul: With Blitzer in control, Paul was noticeably less vocal than usual. And while he may understand motives for anti-Americanism abroad, he struck the wrong cord with his audience when Rick Santorum took him to task.

7. Gingrich: If a debate could be won, then the trophy would go to Gingrich. Deftly dodging Blitzer’s bait, he took Obama to task, focused on the economy, and slipped in critiques of czars and subsidies to GE. Kudos to Newt.

8. Santorum: Good showing tonight, even if I wish he’d go home. Strong at points, petulant at others.

I’ve been told that debates were not a good indication of who would be a good president. That may be, but they sure show a lot about who shouldn’t sit in that seat.

If nothing else, they are great political theater.

Until then, here’s your factoid(s) for the day: Spongebob Squarepants is not your friend. Or your children’s’ either, for that matter.

As if anyone is surprised:

Spongebob is hazardous to your children’s health.

[R}esearchers had three groups of four-year-olds watch Spongebob Squarepants and some boring, educational cartoon on PBS, Caillou, in nine-minute increments, while one group spent the time drawing with no television on. Afterward, tests were conducted on the kids' executive function, or the ability to remain focused. Guess what! The kids who watched Spongebob Squarepants scored "significantly worse" than the ones who watched Caillou. And the group that spent the entire nine minutes drawing instead did even better. In other words, television really is horrible.

Shocker.  Looking closer, the we should perhaps be careful due to the small sample size (sixty), but still, it's relevant. We've long known that exposure to television could increase propensity for ADD in children, but in such short time increments of 9 minutes?

To those parents out there looking to use the television to calm and baby-sit excitable children, perhaps you ought to look into getting a dog or some crayons, instead. Find the study here. 

Also, why your fingers wrinkle in the rain:

It's not because of water absorption. It's to give you better grip.

In the study, an evolutionary neurobiologist and his co-authors examined 28 fingers wrinkled by water. They found that they all had the same pattern of unconnected channels diverging away from one another as they got more distant from the fingertips.

The wrinkles allow water to drain away as fingertips are pressed to wet surfaces, creating more contact and a better grip.

That's evolution at work, you know? Read more here.

[Gawker] [Brain, Behavior, and Evolution]

Related articles

• SpongeBob in hot water from study of 4-year-olds (ctv.ca)

Ain’t that the truth.

With Republicans vying for his job, the economy persistently sluggish, and unemployment relatively unchanged since the Bush Administration, President Obama took to the podium to make “the big speech” before a special Joint Session of Congress to lay out his job plan.

This is not his first job plan. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find a month where the news has not talked about an Obama job plan.

• In November of 2008 (“After more than two weeks of virtual silence on the economy, President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team burst on the scene with new ambition and urgency Sunday, demanding swift passage by Congress of a massive two-year spending and tax-cutting recovery program.”)
• In January of 2009 (“President-elect Obama countered critics with an analysis Saturday by his economic team showing a program of tax cuts and spending like he’s proposed would create as many as 4.1 million jobs, far more than the 3 million he has insisted are needed to lift the country from recession.“)
• In March of 2009, after its passage (“President Obama on Friday touted the benefits of his economic recovery plan [...] the recently passed $787 billion stimulus package.”)
• In July of 2009, after the plan failed to stop unemployment from climbing to 9.5% (“Obama, a Democrat, is trying to restore economic growth to the US but his $787-billion economic stimulus plan [...] failed to stop the unemployment rate from rising to 9.5 percent.”)
• In December of 2009 (“President Barack Obama says his administration needs to “get America back to work” as quickly as it can, and he‘s putting together a list of proposals aimed at doing just that.”)
• In February of 2010 (“President Obama hit the road again Tuesday to promote the new job-creation program he described as his No. 1 priority, [...]“)
• September of 2010, just one year ago (“U.S. President Barack Obama will announce on Monday a six-year infrastructure revamp plan with an initial investment of $50 billion to jump-start job creation, a White House official said.”)
• In February of 2011 (“The Obama administration outlined an “innovation strategy” for US job growth Friday, [...]“)
• In May of 2011 (“Obama, GOP unveil competing plans for job growth.”)

That’s a lot of talk, but not a lot of change. But don’t lose hope. The President has another plan for you. 

I’ll give him this: Obama’s got a lotta plans. But he isn’t making much headway. Unless, of course, you have managed to convince yourself that he actually staved off a worse disaster.  Maybe, but even President Obama sells his plans not as fingers in the dike, but as reversals.

Anyway, in America we don’t believe in treading water–we believe in winning. Why else would we keep score? 14 million people can’t be wrong–the plans just aren’t working.

So what is he proposing, this time?

Where we agree

First, there are a couple things he said that I liked…assuming he means them:

Economic Growth is  Driven by Business

Those of us here tonight can’t solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers.

Great! But why have all of your plans up to now been focused more on funding the public sector, increasing the debt that must be paid by taxes from individuals and the private sector, and not just decreasing the cost of doing business for “businesses and workers,” as per your speech? Why wait until the 11th hour to come to Jesus?

Infrastructure Helps Business and Employs Construction Workers

Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world.

This is inexcusable. Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?

I like upgrading our roads. But what’s new about this from promised infrastructure fixes over the last three years? What happened to the spending you’ve been talking about since 2009?

OK, so, maybe I agree, but I’m a little distrustful of his sincerity. And that the money is actually going to get the economy going again. Employing workers to build roads and bridges will get cash into the economy, but it alone won’t employ 14 million people, most of who are not construction workers.

Where  He’s Wrong

On the other hand, there are several places that I just flat out think the President is wrong.

Federal Money to Rebuild Schools

And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now.

The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country.

I’m all about education (even if, as a high school drop-out, I’m not a huge fan of public ed), but I don’t agree that this has anything to do with getting the economy going or creating jobs. Yes, every kid should go to a good school, but no, that has nothing to do with the economy, or with the federal government. That’s the states’ job, and the only thing it does is redistribute money from state A to state B.

So, Mr. President, rather than increase our taxes (or the deficit, but it’s the same thing, in the long term), just let us keep our money in our states, and we’ll fix the schools ourselves.

Federal Money to Hire Teachers

Again, with the education thing.

Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they’re adding teachers in places like South Korea, we’re laying them off in droves. It’s unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong.

My problem with this is the horribly faulty logic and the blatant pandering to the education unions.  As economist Arnold Kling explains “it assumes that state and local governments need more money in order to keep teachers. They do not. They could reduce compensation and maintain hiring or even increase it.”

In other words, states aren’t firing teachers. Teachers are leaving for better paying jobs, or the states are paying teachers too much (and that’s an entirely different conversation than this one, which is, if you forgot–THE ECONOMY).

A reduction in the number of teachers only indicates that you need more money if the reduction comes from teachers quitting their jobs. If you are laying off teachers, that shows that you are making a choice to keep their compensation too high rather than have more on staff.

Get it? States aren’t firing teachers to make cuts–they are paying them more than they should. They could pay less, and employ more, but (again, enter the unions), that’s not going to happen.

Remember, I’m not saying that what teachers are paid is fair or enough. I’m saying that there’s no correlation, in spite of what President Obama is trying to trick you into believing–that states have fired teachers because of budget crunches.

If you aren’t a teacher, you must be an oil executive

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare.

Actually, it sounds a lot like class warfare. The 14 million people out there that are unemployed are, for the most part, not former teachers. In fact, education, up until 2010, was the industry that actually increased in employment.

Enter the graphic:

And that was just as of the middle of 2010!

Who are the big losers, then? You wouldn’t know it to listen to the President’s speech, but among the unemployed you can find former professionals and business service providers , construction workers (housing industry, not bridge building, though arguably, they could cross over, I assume), durable goods (like the auto industry) and retail (where shop).

Conclusion: Fail. Just like all the other plans.

I’d like to see the economy rise in the next year, because everyone would win. But what President Obama does get is that he doesn’t get it. Like one candidate said in the Reagan Library Republican Debate Wednesday night, “the President is a nice guy, but he doesn’t have a clue.” And, as another said, “its time to get out from behind the teleprompter.”

Yes, he can speech-ify, but speeches don’t amount to results, as we’ve seen for the last three years. I hope the Congress can find the morsels within the plan that will help, pass them, and move us forward.

On the whole, though, I’m not sanguine. As one Twitter level pundit put it, the speech was not expected to offer anything new. And it didn’t fail to deliver on that point.

[Read the full text here.]

Related articles

• The National Young Republican Response to President Obama’s Speech Before a Joint Session (utahyr.com)
• No One Fears President Obama (theroot.com)