? October 2007 | Main | December 2007 ?
November 30, 2007
The real NatWest Three deal
I gave up hope long ago that the mainstream media would ever provide particularly accurate reports regarding the Enron-related criminal prosecutions. However, the mainstream media news reports on the plea bargain hearing earlier this week in the Enron-related NatWest Three case (see NY Times, WSJ, Chronicle) are particularly devoid of any meaningful perspective of what really happened in the case (a copy of one of the plea agreements, which is the same as the other two, is here). The real story of the plea bargain can easily be distilled from the pleadings that are on file in the case. It's a substantially more nuanced story than what you are hearing from the mainstream media.
The prosecution in the NatWest Three case alleged that the three bankers defrauded NatWest, their former employer, by conspiring with former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow and his sidekick, Michael Kopper, to underpay NatWest for its interest in an entity named Swap Sub, which was an affiliate of one of Enron's special purpose entities (LJM1) that Fastow and Kopper ran.
Swap Sub was involved in one of LJM1's primary transactions, which was to hedge Enron's valuable but highly volatile interest in a technology company called Rhythms NetConnections, Inc ("Rhythms"). The NatWest Three were responsible for overseeing the banking relationship between Enron and NatWest, including NatWest's interest in Swap Sub. Another investor in Swap Sub was Credit Suisse First Boston ("CSFB"), which owned the same percentage interest in Swap Sub as NatWest.
In early 2000, Fastow and Kopper offered to buy NatWest's interest in Swap Sub for $1 million. NatWest evaluated its interest in Swap Sub in response to the offer and concluded that its interest was worth zero. At the time, NatWest was in the process of being taken over by Royal Bank of Scotland and, thus, was amenable to disposing of the Swap Sub interest. So, NatWest agreed to accept Fastow's $1 million offer, Fastow and Kopper created an entity called Southampton specifically to buy NatWest’s interest in Swap Sub, and the deal closed on March 17, 2000.
After NatWest had agreed to accept Fastow's offer to buy the bank's Swap Sub interest, Fastow offered to sell a portion of that interest to the three bankers personally for $250,000 upon Southampton's completion of the purchase of the interest from NatWest. The NatWest Three still worked for NatWest at the time of Fastow's offer, but they were all contemplating leaving the bank because of the impending takeover by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Inasmuch as acceptance of Fastow's offer while they were still working for NatWest might run afoul of the bank's conflict of interest rules, the NatWest Three took an option to acquire the Swap Sub interest rather than buy it outright.
Subsequently, one of the bankers (David Bermingham) resigned from NatWest, exercised the option in late April, 2000 and paid Southampton $250,000 for the interest. At the time that Southampton bought NatWest's interest in Swap Sub, the NatWest Three did not disclose to NatWest that they had bought the option to acquire a portion of that interest through Southampton. That non-disclosure ultimately became an important fact in the plea bargain of the NatWest Three.
Shortly after Fastow offered to buy NatWest's interest in Swap Sub for $1 million, Fastow and Kopper -- unbeknownst to NatWest or the NatWest Three -- offered CSFB $10 million for its interest in Swap Sub. CSFB, like Natwest, also evaluated its interest in Swap Sub at the time of the offer and concluded -- as did NatWest -- that the interest had zero value.
Inasmuch as Fastow and Kopper didn't have $10 million to buy CSFB's Swap Sub interest, they reached an agreement with Enron on March 22, 2000 to unwind the Enron-LJM1 hedge transaction on the Rhythms stock, the result of which was that Enron would buy a large chunk of Enron stock from Swap Sub for $30 million. Inasmuch as the unwind transaction would not close until the end of April, Fastow borrowed $10 million from Enron on March 22nd to pay CSFB for its Swap Sub interest. Neither NatWest nor the NatWest Three knew anything about these developments.
Subsequently, in late April, 2000, Fastow arranged with former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey to close the unwind transaction between LJM1 and Enron on the Rhythms stock. The transaction has since been subject of a substantial amount of scrutiny in the various investigations and litigation relating to Enron and it appears reasonably probable that Enron should not have paid a dime (much less $30 million) to LJM1 for agreeing to unwind the hedge. The best explanation that I have heard is that Fastow and Kopper pulled a fast one on Causey, who received nothing from the unwind transaction.
After receiving the $30 million in connection with the unwind transaction, Fastow used $10 million to repay the loan from Enron that he had used to pay CSFB for its interest in Swap Sub and paid the NatWest Three $7.3 million for their interest in Swap Sub. Fastow spread the balance of the money around to some of his underlings, including Enron treasurer Ben Glisan, who received about $1 million. Glisan's failure to disclose his receipt of that $1 million eventually led to his termination in early November, 2001 as Enron's treasurer. It also formed the basis of the criminal case against him.
Interestingly, the first time that the NatWest Three had any indication that the $7.3 million that they had received for their interest in Swap Sub may have resulted from a Fastow fraud on Enron was when they heard that Glisan had been fired in early November, 2001 over his failure to disclose his receipt of $1 million from Southampton. As a result, the NatWest Three immediately and voluntarily reported everything to the UK Financial Services Authority (the UK equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission) -- their involvement in the sale of NatWest's interest in Swap Sub to Southampton, their purchase of the option from Fastow to acquire a portion of that Swap Sub interest, their non-disclosure to NatWest of the option at the time, their exercise of the option and purchase of the Swap Sub interest from Southampton, and their eventual receipt of $7.3 million for that interest.
The UK authorities passed along that information to the SEC and, the next thing you know, the NatWest Three had become the subjects of a criminal complaint filed on June 27, 2002 in Houston (that really encourages voluntary disclosure of information, now doesn't it?). No US investigator ever contacted the NatWest Three to get their side of the story before filing the criminal complaint against them. UK criminal authorities never pursued any charges against the them.
The Enron Task Force originally alleged that the NatWest Three knew at the time they took the option to acquire a portion of NatWest's interest in the Swap Sub that Fastow and Kopper were going to unwind the hedge on the Rhythms stock. Thus, the Task Force asserted that the NatWest Three knew that the unwind transaction would make NatWest's interest in Swap Sub worth far more than either the zero value that NatWest placed on it at the time or the $1 million that Southampton eventually paid NatWest for it. In that connection, the Task Force contended that the $10 million that Fastow arranged to pay CSFB for its interest in Swap Sub and the $7.3 million that the NatWest Three eventually received for their interest in Swap Sub was conclusive proof that the bankers had defrauded NatWest of the true value of its interest in Swap Sub.
Alas, the government's theory of the case appears largely to have fallen apart over the past year and a half. NatWest and CSFB's zero valuations of their respective interests in Swap Sub at the time Fastow offered to buy them proved to be valid and accurate. Given those valuations, the $250,000 that the NatWest Three agreed to pay at the same time to buy a portion of NatWest's Swap Sub interest was clearly a speculative bet that placed the three bankers at considerable risk of loss of their entire investment.
Similarly, it also turns out that Fastow had a good reason to pay CSFB more for its interest in Sub Swab (i.e., $10 million rather than the $1 million paid to NatWest). At the time, CSFB was providing a myriad of other financial services on Enron-related deals for Fastow. Thus, buying the Swap Sub interest for $10 million was a convenient vehicle for Fastow to curry favor with CSFB. It did not mean that CSFB's Swap Sub interest was worth anything close to $10 million.
Finally, considerable evidence emerged during the case that confirmed that the NatWest Three knew nothing about Fastow and Kopper's plan to unwind the Rhythms hedge with Enron when they bought a portion of NatWest's former interest in Swap Sub. Importantly, that lack of knowledge is consistent with the story that the NatWest Three told to UK Financial Services Authority in November, 2001 immediately after learning of Fastow's possible fraud on Enron as a result of Glisan's resignation.
So, after years of litigation, the NatWest Three pled guilty to a single count of wire fraud. The basis of the guilty plea is that the three bankers failed to disclose to NatWest the option that they had taken from Fastow to purchase a portion of NatWest's interest in Swap Sub at the time that NatWest sold that interest to Southampton. Importantly, the basis of the plea deal is not that the NatWest Three knew and didn't tell NatWest that the value of the bank's Swap Sub interest was going to skyrocket soon after Southampton bought it as a result of Fastow completing the unwind transaction with Enron.
Subject to court approval, the plea bargain provides that the defendants will serve 37 months in prison, that they will pay restitution of $7.3 million to the Royal Bank of Scotland (NatWest's successor) and that the prosecution will support the defendants' request that they be allowed to serve their prison sentence in the UK. Under UK rules pertaining to prison sentences of white collar criminals, it is expected that the three former bankers would be released from their UK prisons after serving approximately half of their sentence.
As noted earlier here and as the Financial Times' Martin Wolf observes here, this plea deal appears to be the product of the draconian trial penalty that the three bankers faced if they availed themselves of their right to a trial and lost. Under those circumstances, the defendants were facing possible sentences of 35 years each, although the sentences would likely have been considerably less than that. Nevertheless, the sentences after a trial probably would have been greater than 37 months and, had the NatWest Three defended themselves at trial and lost, the prosecution almost certainly would never have agreed to support a request to serve their prison sentences in the UK.
Thus, on one hand, the defendants could risk a trial in a virulent anti-Enron environment (see also here) that could result in a long prison sentence that would have to be served in the US prison system thousands of miles away from their families. Or, on the other hand, they could enter into a plea deal that gives them the hope of being able to serve a considerable amount of a definite sentence in the UK prison system near their families.
Given those choices, my sense is that the NatWest Three's choice was a rational and reasonable decision. It's simply not a choice that they should have been forced to make.
Posted by Tom at 11:00 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Say what, John Edwards?
Following on the previous post, have you heard about demagogue John Edwards' latest proposal?
A two-year ban on advertising for prescription drugs.
Paul Jacob suggests a common sense ban of another sort.
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The key issue in the 2008 Presidential race
As usual, the Onion identifies the issue with precision:
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Shell's cell phone policy
The Chronicle's Mary Flood reports Shell Oil Co. general counsel has directed attorneys at law firms who do work for his company not to drive and talk on their cell phones while doing Shell business.
I wonder if this means that Shell will also direct its outside counsel not to talk to people riding with them in their car while doing Shell business?
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 29, 2007
The return of Coach Slocum on a Mobile
New Texas A&M football coach Mike Sherman was an assistant coach in the A&M program under R.C. Slocum, the folksy former head coach who was somewhat unceremoniously dumped when the A&M reached to hire Dennis Franchione five years ago. As one Aggie friend put it to me earlier in the week: "So, we endured Coach Fran for five years just to turnaround and hire one of R.C.'s former assistants? Why didn't we just do that in the first place?"
At any rate, Slocum had been exiled from the Aggie football program during the Franchione regime. Incredibly, Sherman's press conference earlier this week in which he accepted the A&M job was the first time that Slocum -- who still works for A&M in its alumni relations department -- had been in the new A&M Bright Football Complex. He apparently had never been invited before!
Nevertheless, Slocum is experiencing a rebirth in the A&M football program with the hiring of his former assistant Sherman. And one of the fringe benefits of that new level of involvement is the reappearance of the weekly segment that used to run on John Granato and Lance Zierlein's local morning radio show during Slocum's tenure at A&M, "Coach Slocum on a Mobile."
"Coach Slocum on a Mobile" is comprised of an impersonator doing an incredibly precise imitation of Coach Slocum's folksy East Texas twang as he provides often hilarious answers to questions tossed to him by Granato and Zierlein. Yesterday morning, Granato and Zierlein's new KGOW 1560 AM morning drivetime show carried its first segment of "Coach Slocum on a Mobile," which included the following gems:
On A&M's new offense under Coach Sherman:
"Well, we're bringing back the 'Gulf Coast Offense' with QB Randy McCown."
On A&M's 38-30 win over Texas this past weekend:
"Did you see (former A&M RB) Jamaar Toombs run over (former UT DB) Michael Griffin this past Friday? It was great!"
On the insecurity of big-time college coaching positions:
"You know, I've always said if you can go 7-5 and have the opportunity to go to Shreveport, maybe Houston, for a bowl game, you ought to keep your job."
The old "Coach Slocum on a Mobile" segments during Coach Slocum's head coaching days at A&M were classics, which included such pearls of wisdom as "1/2 of the teams in America lose every week and so I don't think there's any shame in losing," that the tight end position in the Gulf Coast Offense is a "supertackle," that "Baylor is the Notre Dame of the South," and -- channeling former UT coach Darrell Royal's observation about passing -- "Three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of 'em ain't good."
If you want a taste of pure Texas football culture, then tune in to a few segments of "Coach Slocum on a Mobile." You won't be disappointed.
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The real issue behind the Ashby high-rise
Don't miss this Christof Spieler post in which he identifies the real issue that needs to be addressed in regard to the controversial Ashby high-rise condominium project -- the issue of the project's scale in relation to the rest of the neighborhood. Thus, enacting a "hurry-up" city ordinance addressing a not-as-important issue (i.e., alleged traffic congestion) is a prescription for making poor public policy. Solid analysis. (H/T Charles Kuffner).
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
That's what you call a plug
I thought what occurred to the football after the punt in the video below only happened to my golf shots on soggy courses. I guess that's what you get from re-sodding a football field immediately before a several-inch deluge:
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 28, 2007
Todd Graham's Inferno
Rice University gave Todd Graham his first opportunity to be a head coach of a college football program. As noted earlier here, Graham in his first year on South Main led the Owls to their first bowl game since the early 1960's, was named Conference USA Coach of the Year, renegotiated his contract, and then announced a couple of weeks after the bowl game that he was leaving to replace his former boss as head coach at the University of Tulsa. By virtually all accounts, Graham handled the job change about as badly as possible.
Well, as predicted in my post at the time of Graham's job change, it was just a matter of time before Rice's notorious Marching Owl Band ("the MOB) would have an opportunity to comment on Coach Graham's antics, and that opportunity presented itself this past Saturday during halftime of the Rice-Tulsa game at Rice Stadium. The MOB performed a halftime show entitled "Todd Graham's Inferno," which concluded with the following comment over the stadium public address system:
You know, that reminds me of a joke: A priest, a nun, and a rabbi walk into a bar. Now, I forgot how the rest of it went, but I think in the end "Todd Graham is a douchebag."Ladies and gentlemen, the two-thousand seven Marching Owl Band. Please send all complaints to: your mom at mob dot rice dot E-D-U.
Childish for sure, but nothing out of the ordinary for the MOB. And it was certainly not even as clever as the MOB's theme for their halftime show during Rice's bowl game against Troy last year -- "Troy Loses. Read Homer"
So, how did the University of Tulsa respond? By doing precisely what the MOB probably wanted -- fueled the inferno by filing a complaint against the MOB with the C-USA commissioner:
The University of Tulsa has sent a formal complaint to Conference USA regarding Rice's halftime show during the Golden Hurricane-Owls football game on Saturday.The performance by the Rice marching band was titled "Todd Graham's Inferno" and depicted a search for the former Owls coach through different circles of Hell, based on Dante's "Divine Comedy."
After taking numerous jabs at Graham, the show ended by calling the Tulsa coach a "d-----bag" over the public address system.
"We filed a formal complaint with the conference and that's where it stands now," TU athletic director Bubba Cunningham said.[. . .]
When asked what he wanted the complaint to accomplish, Cunningham said, "We need to provide an environment where a student-athlete can participate and fans can enjoy college athletics in a very positive way."
Sportsmanship has been a point of emphasis in C-USA, the Tulsa athletic director said.
"When we don't meet those standards, we need to look at ourselves as a league and find how we can make that experience better," he said.
Yeah, that was real sportsmanship displayed by Cunningham and Tulsa last year when they lured Graham away from Rice right in the middle of recruiting season.
At any rate, all of this provides the opportunity to pass along again the following anecdote about football coaches that legendary Houston sportswriter Mickey Herskowitz tells:
In the mid 1960's, the Los Angeles Rams had hired George Allen off of the coaching staff of George Halas in Chicago.Halas was furious that the Rams failed to ask for his permission and threatened to take Allen to court. At a league meeting after the issue was resolved, Halas used the occasion to vent his anger at his former defensive coach.
"George Allen," Halas raged, "is a man with no conscience. He is dishonest, deceptive, ruthless, consumed with his own ambition."
At that point, Vince Lombardi leaned over to the owner of the Rams and whispered: "Sounds to me like you've got yourself a helluva football coach."
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Hedging the trial penalty
Although some have questioned his business ethics, no one has ever questioned that legendary Houston oilman Oscar Wyatt is good at hedging risk. After Wyatt was sentenced yesterday to a year in prison as a result of his plea deal (previous posts here), my sense is that Wyatt hedged the trial penalty risk (i.e., a life sentence) in an reasonably effective manner.
Meanwhile, in another plea deal, a tenured economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania faces a likely prison sentence of 4 ½ to seven years for bludgeoning his wife to death. The professor says he "just lost it." What must Jamie Olis think about that as he finishes serving what will almost certainly be a longer sentence than the professor will serve?
And what about Chalana McFarland, a first-time offender who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme. Ellen Podgor is following that case Or former Enron executive Jeff Skilling, who continues to serve a 24-year sentence for simply availing himself of a forum in which to defend himself against charges that are far more nebulous than murder or mortgage fraud?
Finally, tomorrow afternoon in Houston federal court, the NatWest Three, three former bankers from the U.K. who have been forced to live in Houston apart from their families in the U.K. for the past year and a half, will likely enter into a plea deal in order to hedge the considerable risk of a lengthy prison sentence if they were to defend themselves in a U.S. court from Enron-related charges that U.K. authorities concluded were too weak to merit a prosecution there (see previous posts here and here).
Is the draconian trial penalty in the American criminal justice system really generating the type of results that a truly civil society wants?
Update: The real NatWest Three deal.
Posted by Tom at 12:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The NY Times on the DeBakey-Cooley rapprochement
Following on this earlier post about Todd Ackerman's fine piece on the rapprochement between longtime Texas Medical Center rivals, Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Denton Cooley, this New York Times article examines the history of the feud and the recent reconciliation.
The article passes along the following famous anecdote from the investigation into Dr. Cooley's use of an artificial heart back in the early 1960's without proper authorization:
Dr. Cooley recalled that a lawyer had once asked him during a trial if he considered himself the best heart surgeon in the world.“Yes,” he replied.
“Don’t you think that’s being rather immodest?” the lawyer asked.
“Perhaps,” Dr. Cooley responded. “But remember I’m under oath.”
Read the entire article.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 27, 2007
The Sherman hiring
Well, Texas A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne's "nationwide search" for a new head coach to replace Dennis Franchione took a couple of days and extended all of about 100 miles southeast of College Station as A&M hired Houston Texans assistant head coach Mike Sherman as its new head coach yesterday. The deal is for seven years at $1.8 million per year. Ryan over at TAMaBINPO has a nice overview of Sherman's coaching career.
Although some in the Aggie nation were disappointed that A&M didn't hire a "big-name" coach de jour, my sense is that hiring Sherman is a reasonably good move. A&M is currently in the latter stages of a somewhat divisive search for a new president, so the A&M Board of Regents doesn't need more faculty flak from another flank. Moreover, A&M overpaid badly to hire Franchione, so the buyout of Coach Fran's contract is going to be expensive, even by A&M standards. Under these circumstances, eschewing a high-priced, big-name coach is certainly understandable.
Within the coaching profession, Sherman has an excellent reputation as a hand's-on coach, which frankly Franchione did not have when A&M hired him. The only negative comment that I've heard about Sherman is that he was not a particularly good evaluator of talent as Green Bay's general manager from 2001-04. That trait has certainly reared its head during his stint with the Texans -- Sherman was among those who blessed the questionable decision to pick up an expensive option to keep former Texans QB David Carr around for another year and he lobbied hard for the Texans to overpay old and injured RB Ahman Green. Those two decisions are costing the Texans big-time in terms of salary cap space.
Nevertheless, Sherman will have plenty of assistance in picking talent for A&M's football program and he inherits one of the richest bases for recruiting good football players in the U.S. The initial problem that Sherman faces in the recruiting wars is that three Big 12 South programs -- Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech -- have been clearly superior to the Aggies' program for a prolonged period now, although the reasons for each program's superiority are different. UT and OU have had better overall talent than A&M, while Tech has simply outcoached A&M while deploying comparable talent.
At this point, the OU and Texas programs are two of the select few big-time college football programs that are recruiting almost entirely high school prospects who project to have the potential to develop into players capable of playing in the National Football League. A&M does not yet have that luxury in recruiting players into its program, so Sherman will be dealing with a talent deficit to programs like OU and UT for at least the first 2-3 years of his tenure at A&M. With the exception of A&M's last two victories over UT, Franchione's A&M teams did not generally compete well against teams that had superior talent. How Sherman's teams deal with that talent deficit during his initial A&M seasons will largely determine whether Sherman succeeds or fails in Aggieland.
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reviewing the Kindle
This John P. Falcone/Webware article does a good job of providing a preliminary evaluation of the new Amazon Kindle reading device:
The Bottom Line: With its built-in wireless capabilities and PC-free operation, Amazon's Kindle is a promising evolution of the electronic book (and newspaper, and magazine)--but overpriced content could be its Achilles' heel.
The six-minute Amazon video on the Kindle is here.
Update: The WSJ's technology reviewer, Walter Mossberg, is not particularly impressed after using the Kindle for a few days, while the Chronicle's excellent technology columnist, Dwight Silverman, is a bit more optimistic, but not yet sold.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
How the Shark was hooked
This earlier post noted that former PGA Tour member Greg Norman had duck hooked his divorce and was probably going to have to pay for dearly for doing so. After a cooling off period, Norman and his former wife settled matters quietly. Or so they thought.
Now, it appears that the Shark is calling a rules violation (H/T Stu Mulligan) on his ex-wife over her public disclosure of the details of Norman's affair with former tennis star, Chris Evert. As you might expect, tails are wagging among the Palm Beach society crowd:
Golf legend Greg Norman has a message for his ex-wife: You won't get any more of my money!Norman's legal eagles have filed a lawsuit against the sport's former first lady, Laura Andrassy, alleging that she has already breached their two-month-old divorce settlement.
The filing asks a Martin County judge to award damages. Several sources close to the case - who asked to remain anonymous because no one familiar with it is legally allowed to talk about it - said those damages could include Norman's keeping a large part of the settlement he still owes her. [. . .]
So, why's the fair-haired golfer ticked off?
According to Norman's filing, it's because Andrassy squawked to the press about her broken marriage, former tennis champ Chris Evert, Norman's new love, and how Evert "stole" the Australian from her.
In an interview for papers in Oz and another with Page Two in late September, Andrassy described in detail how Evert befriended her while visiting the Normans' home on Jupiter Island, then moved in for the "kill." Andrassy said she suspects Evert, then married to former Olympic skier Andy Mill, first hooked up with her hubby last year when the two couples were on a fishing trip.
Fine and dandy! But the problem, according to Norman's filing, is there's supposed to be a confidentiality agreement between him and Laura - and she breached it.
"The confidentiality agreement is really not that specific, and besides, I didn't talk about Greg. I talked about myself and Chris, and I have no agreement with her," Andrassy said by telephone as she drove through California's Napa Valley on Tuesday. [. . .]
Norman's new high-octane attorney, Jeff Fisher, did not comment. Said Norman's White Shark Enterprises CFO Jack Schneider: "At least we abide by our agreement."
Evert "hooked up" with Norman on a fishing trip and then moved in for the "kill"? Stay tuned for the next episode of the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 26, 2007
2007 Weekly local football review
(Jay Janner/Austin American photo; previous weekly reviews here)
Texas Aggies 38 Texas Longhorns 30
For the second straight year, the Aggies (7-5/4-4) upset the Longhorns (9-3/5-3), this time as a resignation present for Aggie head coach Dennis Franchione. I trust that dirty look that Franchione gave to A&M athletic director Bill Byrne at the post-game press conference when he announced his resignation is an indication of how buy-out negotiations have gone. A&M officials have scheduled a news conference for 11 a.m. today to introduce Texans offensive coordinator Mike Sherman as the Aggies' new head football coach while hoping that Aggie fans didn't notice the Texans' offensive gameplan in yesterday's game (see below).At any rate, the Aggies dominated this game as the porous Longhorns defense made A&M QB Stephen McGee look like Joe Montana, and that's really hard to do. But the irony of the victory is that the Ags gameplan was precisely what A&M fans thought they were getting when A&M hired Franchione five years ago -- diverse offensive production, forcing turnovers, creating big plays, exciting trick plays and consistent wins over top tier teams of the Big 12. Unfortunately, this second straight win over the Longhorns came way too late for Coach Fran.
Meanwhile, almost as interesting as the Aggies' coaching search is the quandry that faces Longhorn coach Mack Brown. With the defeat, the Horns have now lost to Texas A&M and Oklahoma in the same season for the first time since 1993. The Horns have also lost two straight games to unranked and underachieving Aggie teams and have squandered BCS bowl berths in two consecutive seasons. And that's even after the Horns played one of the their easiest schedules in recent history.
However, most troubling for the Horns is a defense -- and even more precisely, a pass defense -- that has plummeted over the past year far below UT standards. As noted above, the Horns defense made McGee, who is a mediocre college QB, look like an NFL prospect while throwing for 362 yards. And that was not particularly unusual, either. Against a weak schedule, the Horns defense gave up an average of 533 yards in its final three games, gave up 28 points or more in half of their games as well as 35 points per game over their last four. My sense is that Coach Brown will be taking a hard look at whether staff changes are in order this off-season.
The Aggies and Longhorns now await bowl assignments, although it appears likely that the Aggies will meet Michigan or Penn State in San Antonio's Alamo Bowl. The Longhorns are probably ticketed for yet another appearance in the Holiday Bowl, which was their typical destination before the now fading-in-memory 2005 National Championship.
I'm not making this up. After the Texans' (5-6) recent two game winning "streak," the Texans' cheerleaders in the local mainstream media were actually mentioning the word "playoff" in their media pieces. Then, the Texans in this game proceed to score one TD in the first 57 minutes against the NFL's worst defense, convert only two third-downs all game, and commit three turnovers, giving the team 29 on the season, four more than last season's 6-10 team. Message to local mainstream media -- the words "playoffs" and "Ron Dayne, starting running back" are incompatible. It would also be nice if the Texans defense didn't make the Browns' (7-4) RB Jamal Lewis look like he had just become five years younger. The Texans travel to Nashville next Sunday to face Vince Young and the fading Titans (6-5) before returning home for three of their last four games of the season.
The feisty Owls (3-9/3-5) made a game of it, but ultimately simply did not have the horses to stop Tulsa (9-3/6-2) and win the Todd Graham Revenge Bowl. It would have been a nice victory for the Owls and the Houston Cougars, who would have won the C-USA West Division for the second straight year if Tulsa lost. But Rice returns its offensive nucleus of QB Chase Clement, WR Jaret Dillard and HB James Casey, so next season's Owls will still be able to score some points. Now, if they could just find someone to tackle . . .
Houston Cougars 59 Texas Southern 6
Remind me again -- why was this game scheduled? It seemed absolutely appropriate that the game ended up being played in a mush pit caused by a cold, driving rainstorm. The Cougars (8-4/6-2) have accepted a Texas Bowl berth at Reliant Stadium on December 28th against probably a Big 12 team, either Oklahoma State (6-6/4-4) or Colorado (6-6/4-4). If the Big 12 qualifies two teams for BCS bowls, then the Coogs will play an at-large opponent such as TCU (7-5/4-4).
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Arena wasteland
Anne Linehan over at blogHouston.net has been having fun (as has Tory Gattis) watching Houston city officials try to rationalize how the city is not really going to have to cough up any money to subsidize a portion of the Houston Dynamo's proposed new downtown stadium. Anne's coverage of this issue is particularly timely given this recent San Antonio Express-News article that reports that the San Antonio Spurs are seeking another $164 million from the local government for the ATT Arena that is only five years old!
To make matters worse, San Antonio -- which has its share of infrastructure problems -- has not enjoyed any of the economic growth around the ATT Arena that was predicted by promoters of the arena when it was approved back in 1999:
When Bexar County asked voters in 1999 to approve a $175 million arena for the San Antonio Spurs, officials promised it would spark "economic development opportunities" for the neglected East Side.Today, few businesses have opened their doors near the arena — even as the Spurs ask for more tax dollars to upgrade the 5-year-old AT&T Center.
A new tattoo parlor on Houston Street appears to be the latest investment in the neighborhood. It opened in a stretch of boarded-up buildings in early 2006, said David Leon, the shop's ornately tattooed owner.
Business is good, Leon said. But no customers stop by after a Spurs game.
"I think they're too scared to even stop, because of how bad the label of the East Side is," Leon said.
Despite a lot of talk and studies, the neighborhood around Leon's shop hasn't changed much since Nov. 2, 1999, when voters overwhelmingly agreed to subsidize the arena with a venue tax on hotel rooms and car rentals.
The team wants to tap into the venue tax again, a move that will be up to voters. The Spurs started with a wish list of $164 million in improvements for the AT&T Center. The county told the team to whittle their proposal to $75 million.
But so far, the arena has failed to accomplish everything voters were once promised by the county. Sluggish growth near the AT&T Center has troubled those who argued against the location.
"It's been disappointing to me that there hasn't been more development in that area," said former Mayor Howard Peak, who tried unsuccessfully to have the arena built downtown. [. . .]
From the Spurs' perspective, spokesman Leo Gomez said the NBA team is proud of its neighbors. But he emphasized the Spurs never promised a new arena would bring them an economic boom.
"We know better than that," Gomez said. "It hasn't worked in any other community in the country. And it's not going to happen here."
Gomez said the real question for voters is simple: Should the AT&T Center continue to be a top-notch facility for San Antonio? If so, he said, it needs more tax dollars to keep it that way.
Within view of the arena last week, a woman stood across from Leon's tattoo parlor, hawking purses to passing motorists. . .
As noted earlier here, the notion that professional sports stadiums promote economic development is a myth. Maybe there is a good reason to provide public financing for a downtown soccer stadium in Houston. But building it to spur economic development is not one of them.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
A Texas Medical Center giant
This Alexis Grant/Chronicle Q&A column interviews one of the truly outstanding physicians who has made the Texas Medical Center one of the most extraordinary medical centers in the world -- Dr. Ralph Feigin of Texas Children's Hospital. Take a moment to review Dr. Feigin's remarkable biography and the interview, and then take a moment to appreciate this man's tremendous contribution to pediatric medicine in Houston over the past 30 years. It's a legacy that will not soon be matched.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 25, 2007
The Rockets crash
After a quick 6-1 start, the Houston Rockets have fallen flat on their collective faces, losing six straight games before beating Denver at home last night. Inasmuch as the fawning local mainstream media fails to provide any meaningful analysis of what ails the Rockets, the blogosphere steps into the vacuum as this Dave Berri post analyzes the problem precisely -- Tracy McGrady, Yao Ming and Chuck Hayes are playing reasonably well, but the rest of the Rockets' production is among the worst in the NBA. As Berri points out, why on earth did the Rockets acquire two washed-up guards -- Mike James and Steve Francis -- who absorb minutes at the two-guard position that forces McGrady to play small forward, which forces Shane Battier to play power forward where he is far less effective than at the small forward position. Yes, peer effects in basketball make a big difference.
By the way, just how long are the Rockets going to wait before either acquiring or developing at least an NBA-average point guard? For the record, it's been over a decade since the Rockets have won a playoff series.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 24, 2007
Hayes Carll's show in The Woodlands
One of the highlights of the Kirkendall family's Thanksgiving holiday was a family outing one evening that my older son Andy and his friend Jon Charbonnet arranged to enjoy a show by Hayes Carll, the emerging Texas singer-songwriter who grew up in The Woodlands.
The location of the show was Dosey Doe's, a delightful coffeehouse/restaurant/bar that has become the go-to club venue over the past year in The Woodlands and Houston's north side for performing artists. The show we attended was recorded as a segment in KVST-FM 99.7's series, "Real Life, Real Music," which airs from 6:00-7:00 p.m. on Sunday evening.
When Carll burst on the national scene with his 2002 album Flowers and Liquor, some critics assumed that it was just a matter of time until he became another local Texas singer who made "good" in the mainstream Nashville country music scene. But Carll followed up his first album with the 2005 Little Rock, which cemented his reputation for remaining steadfast to his Texas-rooted songwriting in the same vein as such legends as Townes Van Zandt, Guy Clark, Steve Earle, Ray Wylie Hubbard, Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett.
Carll put on a wonderful show for my family and the other local folks, intermingling his soulful and heartfelt music with humorous and self-effacing memories of growing up in The Woodands, his college days in Conway, Arkansas, and "competing" for preeminence in the distinctive club scene of Crystal Beach, Texas during the early days of his performing career. At one point in the show, Carll admitted that he was struggling with naming his third album (scheduled for release in April, 2008), but that his mother -- who attended the show and still resides in The Woodlands with Hayes' father -- suggested the title "He's a Very Good Boy."
Check out Carll's touring schedule. If you enjoy Texas country/folk/rock music, then you will not be disappointed if you take in one of his shows (he is playing the Mucky Duck in Houston on December 1st). In the meantime, enjoy the video below of Carll singing "It's a Shame," which is on Flowers and Liquor. There is a reason that some are calling Hayes Carll the new "Bob Dylan of Texas."
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
November 23, 2007
The 2007 UT-A&M Game
Although the 113 year-old rivalry game between the Texas Longhorns and the Texas A&M Aggies is always interesting, this year's edition at 2:30 p.m., CST today in College Station (ABC) has an added element of intrigue over the typical UT-AM slugfest.
First, just a season removed from arguably saving his job by guiding the Ags to an upset of the Horns in Austin, embattled A&M head coach Dennis Franchione will almost certainly be coaching his final game for the Aggies. Franchione did not fit in at Aggieland and never seemed capable of winning big games consistently -- his Aggie team followed up that big win over the Horns last year with a humiliating 45-10 loss to Cal in the Holiday Bowl. You never know what to expect from players who are playing their final game for their coach. Could be good, could be bad.
Second, the 13th-ranked Horns (9-2/5-2) need a win if they are going to keep their slim BCS Bowl game hopes alive. With a win and an Oklahoma loss on Saturday against Oklahoma State, the Horns would win the Big 12 South division and play either Missouri or Kansas in the Big 12 title game in San Antonio on December 1st. But a loss to the Ags not only would end those hopes, it would earmark the Longhorns to a middle-tier bowl game for the second straight season.
The Horns are a 5 1/2 point favorite, but there really is not much difference between the two teams this season. Texas throws the ball more effectively than A&M, but that's not saying much because the Aggies act as if the forward pass is a new-fangled innovation that cannot be perfected until some uncertain date in the future. Both teams run the ball with about equal effectiveness and neither team's defense has been particularly dominant. Although the Horns have reeled off five straight wins since their loss to Oklahoma, the wins came over teams with a combined conference record of 12-26.
The Horns have dominated the series with an overall record of 73-35-5 record, but that record is a bit deceptive, particularly with regard to how close the series has been in recent decades. If you back out the Horns' dominant 31-3-1 record during the period from 1940 through 1974 when A&M was being transformed from a small, male-only military institution into a large, co-educational state university similar to UT, the record is a more balanced 42-32-4. In fact, since 1975, the Aggies actually lead the series 17-15.
Finally, for once, the UT-A&M game will not be the biggest game in the Big 12 this weekend. That moniker goes to the Border War showdown on Saturday night in Kansas City between no. 2 Kansas (11-0/7-0) and no. 4 Missouri (10-1/6-1). Take a moment to read this fine Joe Posnanski column on KU head coach Mark Mangino, a fellow for whom it is really easy to cheer.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
November 22, 2007
A butcher's turkey carving instructions
I've been carving the family's Thanksgiving turkey for the past 25 years, so I speak with a bit of expertise in saying that this NY Times article and accompanying video provides the best turkey-carving instructions and tips that I've come across in quite awhile.
Have a restful and joyous Thanksgiving, and thanks for reading Clear Thinkers.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
November 21, 2007
The Chronicle continues to defy reality
As noted in this earlier post on the improbable Astrodome hotel redevelopment project (previous posts here), the Chronicle continues to beat the drum in support of the deal without any meaningful financial or economic analysis. The intro to the editorial reveals the depth of the Chron editorial board's analysis -- "The public favors preserving the world's first indoor stadium; all parties should cooperate to do that."
Here are just a few of the questions that the Chronicle editorial board should be asking:
If the Astrodome were not in Reliant Park, would anyone in their right mind even be thinking of investing over a half billion dollars to build a 1,300 room resort hotel in the middle of Reliant Park?If the answer to the prior question is "no," then why should anyone in their right mind even be thinking of investing over a half billion dollars to build a 1,300 room resort hotel in the middle of Reliant Park simply because the decrepit hulk of the Dome is there?
In one of the tightest credit and equity markets in years, and with many economic forecasters predicting a U.S. recession over the next 12-18 months, who realistically is going to fund the half billion dollars that the promoters claim is necessary to convert the Dome into a resort hotel?
If the promoters have not been able to put together a viable plan for redevelopment of the Dome in over three years of trying, then why are we still talking about this?
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The red-light camera scam
Anne Linehan over at blogHouston.net has been doing a good job of following the City of Houston's red-light camera scam on its citizens. As Anne's post notes, it's not at all clear that the red light cameras are reducing accidents or that they are even generating enough revenue to justify the cost of the program.
Although red-light cameras sound peachy in theory, my sense is that they are quite likely to cause more accidents, not fewer. As drivers become aware of the cameras, more rear-end collisions will likely result as drivers slam on their brakes at the first sight of yellow to avoid the risk of being photographed running a red-light. The red-light cameras should have been carefully evaluated first and then installed only after it was established that they truly increase safety. That they were installed without such an evaluation reveals that the cameras are nothing more than another local government money grab. And not even a particularly effective one at that.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Lubbock is just a tough place, period
As this earlier post notes, Lubbock -- the home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders -- is a tough place to play for visiting college football teams.
But the video below shows that Lubbock is also a tough place for at least a couple of the hundreds of excited Tech fans who rushed the field after Tech's Saturday night victory over fourth-ranked Oklahoma.
What on earth are these police officers thinking?
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
November 20, 2007
A real insurance fraud
I've been meaning to pass along this James Q. Wilson/WSJ ($) op-ed that lucidly describes the crisis that has developed in property insurance markets along the Gulf Coast as a result of the litigation risk and attendant cost of clearly inapplicable claims being asserted against property insurance policies:
When Hurricane Katrina hit our southern coast, it was the worst natural disaster in American history, killing 1,800 people, forcing more than a million to evacuate the area, and putting four-fifths of New Orleans under water. In the struggle to recover from this event, people turned to their insurance companies for help. Thousands of claims were handled, but for some people there wasn't any coverage. The problem was they were not insured against flooding.Insurance companies' policies are quite clear on this, and state insurance departments, including the ones in Mississippi and New Orleans, have approved these rules. The homeowners' policy issued by State Farm, for example, says that water damage from a flood, waves, tidal waves, or a tsunami are not covered. . . .
The reason for the exclusion of water damage is quite clear: Hardly any insurance company wants to encourage people to build or occupy structures in places where such damage is likely. If they did allow this, either the company would go bankrupt from losses it could not pay or it would have to charge a premium so high that hardly anyone could afford the insurance. Even without water-damage coverage, insurance companies paid out around $40 billion to Katrina victims. [. . .]
Not content with these policies and rules, trial lawyers and politicians in Mississippi demanded that insurance companies should be required to pay for flood losses even though they were not covered by the policies. Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a veteran of class-action suits, and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood worked together to create a lawsuit that would retrospectively ban the flood exclusion rule. (Mr. Scruggs was a major source of campaign money for Attorney General Hood.) At the same time, Rep. Gene Taylor from Mississippi urged Congress to require a retroactive payment of flood insurance. Never mind what the homeowners' insurance policies said or what their coverage was, demanding money to which they were not entitled became "good public policy." [. . .]
In time some measure of sanity was restored. A federal district court judge upheld the flood exclusion in insurance policies, a view that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. More recently, the Fifth Circuit has affirmed that there is no coverage when an excluded peril (such as flooding) and a covered one (such as windstorms) both contribute to the same damage. A Louisiana state judge agreed that policies not written to provide flood insurance did not, in fact, provide it. . . .
But the return of sanity was of short duration. In June Mr. Scruggs filed a lawsuit against State Farm saying that it engaged in racketeering, and Attorney General Hood filed a new civil lawsuit -- and then followed up with another grand jury investigation contrary to his prior agreement with State Farm. One wonders how its claims adjusters feel when they are told that they are no better than members of the Mafia.
In light of all this, State Farm announced earlier this year that it would no longer sell new homeowners' policies in Mississippi, not to punish people there but because politicians had made it impossible to do business in an orderly way. In response, Attorney General Hood demanded that the governor order State Farm to write new policies. Gov. Haley Barbour replied, quite reasonably, that he does not have the authority to tell a private company that it must do business in his state. There will no doubt be congressional investigations of the insurance business because it did what it told people it was doing.
And Hood calls himself a public "servant" (see earlier post here)?
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Nicklaus sours on the public corporation
This Bloomberg video interview reveals that you can count legendary PGA Tour champion Jack Nicklaus as another businessman who has had enough of the public form of corporation:
The biggest mistake I ever did was let my guys talk me into taking a part of the company public. That was the biggest mistake I ever made. I had no idea what--what the rules and laws were of a public company. And we did a public company. And a lot of people lost money, including me...It was a great lesson. But, you know, if you're gonna get into that business, you better know what the devil you're doing.
Nicklaus discusses a number of different topics during the 20 minute interview, including his golf course design business and the evolution of Tiger Woods. Check it out.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The economics of divorce lawyers
Tim Harford passes along some interesting data on the economic impact of hiring a lawyer in connection with a divorce:
The Austrian economist Martin Halla has collected data from divorce proceedings in his home country, and he finds a curious pattern. Husbands end up paying the smallest alimony when no lawyers are involved. If the husband hires a lawyer, but his wife does not, the alimony payment rises (and then there are fees to be paid, too). If the wife hires a lawyer, or the couple hires a joint lawyer, the husband forks out still more. Worst case scenario for hubby is if both sides hire their own lawyer. On top of that the proceedings are longer and more expensive.
One of the funniest war stories about attorneys' fees that I've ever heard involved a couple of old Houston litigators fighting over a divorce estate. Remind me to pass it along when we bump into each other.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 19, 2007
2007 Weekly local football review
(AP Photo/Dave Einsel; previous weekly reviews here)
The Texans (5-5) enjoyed the return from their bye week with a convincing win over the Saints (4-6), who appear to be a shadow of the team that played in the NFC Championship Game last season. QB Matt Schaub (21/33 for 293 yds, 2 TD's, no ints), who had his best game as a Texan, and previously injured star WR Andre Johnson (6 rec, 120 yds, 1 TD (73)) were particularly effective, while the Texans defense led by DE Mario Williams and an undermanned but feisty secondary kept the Saints' offense off-rhythm for much of the game. The Texans go on the road over the next two weeks for games against the Browns (6-4) and the Titans (6-3) before returning home for three of the season's last four games.
Houston Cougars 35 Marshall 28
The Cougars (7-4/6-2) kept their fleeting Conference USA title hopes alive with a close win over Marshall (2-9/2-5) as the potent Houston offense came alive in the 2nd half after taking a long nap during the debacle last week against Tulsa and during the first half of this game. The Coogs finish up their regular season with a non-conference game next Saturday against hapless Division I-AA Texas Southern (0-10) while awaiting the outcome of Rice's grudge match against Tulsa at Rice Stadium. If the Owls can pull off the upset against Tulsa, then the Coogs win the CUSA West division title and advance to the conference championship game on December 1st against Central Florida.
The Owls (3-8/3-4) modest three game winning streak came to an end as Tulane RB Matt Forde rolled up 194 yards and 5 TD's against Rice's overwhelmed defense. Rice's Chase Clement was 35-of-55 passing for 353 yards and four touchdowns, and -- with 379 total yards -- set a Rice season record for total offense with 3,319 yards. The Owls could do a big favor for their cross-town rival Cougars by upsetting Tulsa (8-3/5-2) in the Todd Graham Grudge Match next Saturday at Rice Stadium. However, without a meaningful defense, the Owls offense will probably have to put 60 points on the board against Tulsa for Rice to have a chance to win the game.
Texas (9-2/5-2) and Texas A&M (6-5/3-4) were idle this weekend as they prepare for their annual Friday afternoon (2:30 p.m./ABC) game, which has taken on added importance with Oklahoma's (9-2/5-2) loss to Texas Tech (8-4/4/4) on Saturday night. If the Horns beat the Aggies and a beat-up OU loses to Oklahoma State (6-5/4-3) next Saturday, then the Longhorns will win the Big 12 South Division and represent the division in the Big 12 championship game in San Antonio on December 1st.
And finally, in another type of football, the Houston Dynamo won its second straight Major League Soccer Cup Title, defeating the New England Revolution 2-1. The Dynamo are the first team to win back-to-back MLS Cups since D.C. United did so in 1996-97. The Dynamo will celebrate their latest championship on Tuesday at Houston City Hall from 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Posted by Tom at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Transit survey raises more questions than it answers
Isn't it interesting the different reactions that Anne Linehan, Charles Kuffner and Tory Gattis had to the 2007 Houston Area Survey regarding transit options? The Chronicle and other light rail enthusiasts immediately seized upon the survey as evidence that Houston-area residents want to dump more money into the light rail money pit.
But the problem with such surveys is that they generally ask people questions in a vacuum and do not address Peter Gordon's three elegantly simple questions regarding economic choices:
1) At what cost?
2) Compared to what? and
3) How do you know?
For example, assume for a moment that the persons surveyed were informed of the fact that the average urban freeway lane costs about $10 million per mile and that the average light rail line costs about $50 million per mile while carrying only one-fifth as many people as the freeway lane. And these are only average figures -- as Randal O'Toole recently pointed out, Seattle's recently rejected light rail expansion was projected to cost $250 million per mile, a whopping 125 times more expensive at moving people than a freeway.
Moreover, let's also assume that the persons surveyed are informed that the expenditure of a billion or so of public money on expanding a poorly-used light rail system has real consequences, such as leaving inadequate funds to make improvements to Houston's infrastructure that would dramatically decrease the risk of death and property damage from flooding. Or whether the billion or so being flushed down the light rail drain would be better used to fix various area traffic "hotspots" where accidents or bottlenecks occur with high frequency.
No one knows for sure, but my bet is that the survey results would be dramatically different if the foregoing costs and alternatives were included as a part of the survey. It's a shame that neither the City's current leaders nor the mainstream media are asking the simple questions set forth above that would generate a meaningful cost-benefit analysis and ensuing well-informed debate regarding continued investment in expensive public works projects such as Metro's light rail system.
Instead, we get this:
Metro executive vice president John Sedlak led off [a presentation to the Transportation Policy Council, a group of elected officials and agency staffers that sets priorities for transportation spending in the 13-county Gulf Coast planning region] with a slide show describing the [proposed Metro University light rail line] project and told the panel its approval was needed so Metro could get federal funding and start engineering work.If there was a short delay, Holm asked, "What would be the consequence?"
Sedlak replied that the project is on "an aggressive schedule" and that a delay "would send a message to Washington that there are issues with our overall program."
Holm asked why Washington would think there were issues and not just loose ends to tie up.
"They watch every activity that takes place very carefully," Sedlak said. "The federal government is aware we are having this meeting today."
Holm asked what the application deadline was. Sedlak said it was "in the month of December."
"If the delay was just a few days, would it jeopardize the funding of the entire program?" Holm asked.
"I truly believe it could," Sedlak replied.
Kemah Mayor Bill King had questions, too.
How many more passengers would the rail carry than the buses on Richmond do now?
Sedlak said he did not know, but Metro could get him the answer.
King asked how the line would impact traffic on Richmond.
Sedlak said there would be some negative effects, but the finished line should "take vehicles off the street." Numerical estimates are in the line's environmental impact document, he said.
Holm spoke again, her voice a little shaky.
"There are cities," she said, "that have never been turned down for a funding request. It's not because they agree on everything they want. It's because they do their due diligence and they do their battles at home.
"We need to still build consensus in this community. We need to be able to walk hand-in-hand in supporting a project," she said.
Update: As usual, Tory Gattis has additional insightful thoughts.
Posted by Tom at 12:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
"In the Hamptons"
As economists such as Nouriel Roubini increasingly predict a recession and a hard landing for the U.S. economy, Merle Hazard channels Merle Haggard, Arthur Laffer, Milton Friedman, Mac Davis, Ben Bernanke and Elvis -- to name just a few -- in expressing Wall Street's current trepidation. It doesn't get any better than "In the Hamptons" (H/T to the NY Times via Larry Ribstein):
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 18, 2007
Thinking about the Bonds case
Two topics on this blog are legal matters and baseball, so Barry Bonds has been a frequent subject of posts here over the past four years. Inasmuch as this post from over two years ago speculated that Bonds would be indicted, regular readers of this blog weren't surprised when the shoe finally dropped on Bonds this past week.
The Bonds indictment was met with typical self-righteous vindication by much of the mainstream media, but the blogs have thankfully provided a much more measured analysis of the charges. For example:
Peter Henning provides this excellent analysis (see also here) of the indictment and the probable course of the prosecution. Also, JC Bradbury compiles some thoughts from other legal commentators about the Bonds case, and Keith Scherer provides this extensive analysis of the Bonds case;Norm Pattis provides this interesting post that analyzes the probable prison sentence that Bonds is facing, which is far less than those typically reported in the mainstream media. Thankfully, Bonds does not appear to face a draconian trial penalty if he chooses to defend himself at trial;
Reason's Hit & Run blog provides this balanced compendium of blog posts and articles from over the years that remind us that witch hunts are common when a controversial person such as Bonds is prosecuted for covering up an alleged crime when the investigation was actually into the alleged crime, not the cover up; and
Along those same lines, Scott Henson questions the prosecution's motives and judgment in pursuing Bonds.
And as Bonds is being singled out while more popular ballplayers have had a pass on being investigated for alleged illegal use of steroids, I'm trying to figure out why the Apple Rule is not available to protect Bonds? Could it be for the same reason that it was not available to former heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson during an earlier era?
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
November 17, 2007
The managing partner
The incomparable Stu Rees of Stu's Views passes along a common experience shared by most attorneys who have had the "pleasure" of managing a law firm:
Posted by Tom at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
November 16, 2007
Mike Leach's selective memory
By now, most folks who follow college football know that Texas Tech head coach Mike Leach received a record fine and public reprimand from the Big 12 Conference for his post-game comments questioning the integrity of the referees who officiated last weekend's Texas-Texas