The Purpose of the Sword

Posted on by
1

As readers of this blog know, I am not enamored of many Bush Administration policies, but I am a supporter of the Administration’s overall policy in prosecuting the war against the radical Islamic fascists despite the fact that the Administration has made tactical errors and not always presented the proper case for the war. Apart from the disingenuousness reflected by his his questionable record on defense matters generally, my sense is that Mr. Kerry’s criticism of the Administration’s war policy is somewhat akin to sniping at FDR’s decision to invade North Africa early in World War II rather than opening up the key European front or confronting the Japanese directly in the South Pacific.
However, what really underlies Mr. Kerry’s criticism of the war against the radical Islamic fascists is the belief that this is not truly a just war. Addressing that issue head on in this recent review of Jean Bethke Elshtain‘s book, Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, one of my favorite political philosophy professors — the Reverend James V. Schall of Georgetown University — persuasively refutes those who argue against the morality of the Bush Administration’s decision to wage war on the radical Islamic fascists:

The last time we were up in arms, so to speak, about “just war” was when we were all overly wrought about nuclear proliferation, piously denying that deterrence could not work. Little did we know at the time that this nuclear worry, with all its subtle distinctions, would not be our most pressing war problem a few decades later?unless the terrorists get nuclear weapons, which they well might. The latter possibility makes it even more immoral not to do all we can to stop them now.

Professor Schall then addresses the muddled thinking of those who rationalize inaction in the face of pure evil:

A surprisingly few determined Muslims, none poor or uneducated, have made every airport and public building in the world a potential inferno, one at a time. They have made every airport and train station, most public buildings, small armed camps on constant look out for disaster. The “suicide bomber” turns out to be more dangerous by far than Soviet missiles. And instead of international outrage at the very idea of religious sources encouraging this suicide weapon, we even have those who claim it might be “justified” for sociological reasons. We are in danger of losing sight of common-sense principles: “The best preparation for peace,” it used to be said, “is to prepare for war.” The trick is to know what kind of a war is before us. All nations have a record of preparing diligently for the last war. This book warns against that sort of preparation.

. . . [C]ertain types of ideological and religious mind will not stop their aggression unless their minds are changed voluntarily or unless they are taken out before they carry out their plans. We do not like to hear this. We are little prepared with our own tolerant ideology even to imagine such minds. But they exist and to deny it is a form of blindness. Elshtain does not deny their existence. We are “ecumenical” at our peril when we fail to engage in debates about suicide bombings. The killing of the innocent by this terrible method is more than just the killing of the innocent. It is the bankruptcy of a theology that supports it, a proof that it cannot be true.

Professor Schall notes that the main problem is in the nature of Islam itself, something that the liberal West is loathe to admit:

This endeavor requires a much more careful look at Islam and its long, disturbing record than many would like to face. It is not that there are no “peaceful” Muslims, but as Elshtain recognizes, even the peaceful ones are under threat in their own world from those more bent on pursuing the ancient Islamic goal of world domination usually by military means. What most of us, with our more liberal bent, are loathe to admit, is that any historical movement can seek century after century to pursue a single goal of world domination. Our memories are shorter than many Muslim visionaries.
Belloc, in his writings on Islam, understood this likelihood, this persistency over time. We have to have a certain begrudging admiration, as well as fear, for this determination. But it is an aberration and needs to be called such. Moreover the lack of freedom and independence within actual Muslim societies needs to be much more honestly faced and described. Few are willing to recall that Europe is not Muslim today because it was stopped in France and before Vienna by the sword. At bottom, the Crusades were classic defensive war against an aggressive power, without which Europe would have been absorbed centuries ago.

And although good intelligence is the first line of defense, the will to exercise force remains the key to overcoming “the determined wrath of wrongdoers:”

But though the first line of defense is intelligence in the sense of knowing the enemy, the situation, we need force. We cannot doubt that some individuals and movements cannot be stopped except by force. Force means army, navy, air power, technology, and above all will and brains. But it also means intention. It cannot be lost in legalities or institutions that prevent action on an immediate danger. If there is anything new about this situation, it is found in the very title of the Elshtain book, Just War Against Terror. Something can and must be done about terror, beginning with its proper identification as to its source and cause. This “doing something” requires that potential threats be stopped where they are by armed force acting justly.

Professor Schall concludes by noting that, lest we forget, another 9/11-type attack can happen:

[More radical Islamic terrorist attacks] can happen again, are intended to happen again, and that they not only can be stopped, but can be stopped morally. The fact is, since 9/11, because of our military and security efforts, terrorists have been stopped. All we do not know is the full record of this success that has saved things we cannot imagine, as we can now imagine the World Trade Center destroyed. This prevention, after all, is the purpose of the “sword”?”he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.” Jean Elshtain understands this use of mind and force and her book is a comfort for those who, in honor and justice, have to carry out, often at the cost of their lives, the rugged work that prevents the determined wrath of the wrongdoers from falling on us all.

Read the entire piece. And here is Professor Schall’s website.

Nice primer on health care finance

Posted on by
2

For those of you looking for an explanation of the sometimes numbing concepts used in discussions of health care finance issues, check out this useful Introduction to Health Economics.

On the politics of income taxes

Posted on by
1

Count me as one who is skeptical of John Kerry’s position that soaking the rich with more income taxes is the way to relieve middle class tax rates and to reduce the federal government’s deficit. Similarly, I am not particularly sanguine about the prospects for income tax reform and simplification in a second Bush Administration. However, it is somewhat galling to listen to Mr. Kerry decry income tax “loopholes” for wealthy Americans while, at the same time, taking advantage of those loopholes personally.
In this Wall Street Journal op-ed, Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth takes dead aim at the hypocrisy of Senator Kerry’s position on the income tax:

According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, . . . the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.

Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate — combined payroll and income tax — for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys’, paid a tax rate of 30%.

Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.
The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

Meanwhile, Steven Pearlstein in this Washington Post op-ed takes a look at the current corporate tax bill in Congress and throws up his hands:

It remains a mystery why Congress feels such a need to reduce corporate tax burdens even further. Despite what you hear from politicians and the National Association of Manufacturers, there is precious little economic evidence linking reductions in corporate profit taxes to job creation. Struggling firms don’t have profits, while successful ones with ample cash flow are likely to base hiring decisions on whether the new employees will generate new profits.
This is largely a Republican bill reflecting the majority party’s tax-cutting philosophy and increasingly strong corporate ties. But it says something about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of congressional Democrats — and their lack of political imagination — that they haven’t rallied behind a Senate filibuster of this legislative abomination. If, at a time of record federal budget deficits, a self-proclaimed “party of the people” can’t take a principled stand against the biggest corporate tax giveaway in a generation, maybe it doesn’t deserve to be the majority party.

And finally, check out Professor Maule’s analysis of the candidates’ statements in regard to taxation policy, a part of which follows:

Listening to these two candidates spar over taxes was unpleasant. They toss about sound-bite phrases but I would be shocked if they really understood the underlying issues.
Though each candidate tried to paint the other?s tax philosophy as bringing a significantly different approach to the table, neither one persuaded me that they get it. Both hold philosophies that complicate the code. Neither one addressed the flaws inherent in taxing capital gains and dividends at lower rates; the plans advocated by each candidate would continue to treat these types of income as less deserving of taxation than are wages.

Update (10/12-13/04): Trent, a reader of the blog, points us to this Kerry-Edwards Campaign press release from May of this year regarding Ms. Heinz-Kerry’s tax return, and Buster points us to another site that purports to refute Mr. Moore’s analysis.
The press release and the website analysis are both somewhat ambiguous because they make assertions that cannot be verified without reviewing the actual tax returns (or at least having an independent expert review them). However, Trent fairly points out that the Mrs. Heinz-Kerry paid taxes equal to a more reasonable 32% of their taxable income, and that Mr. Moore’s 12.8% rate appears to be based on total income, which includes non-taxable income. The other website’s analysis — i.e., that the Kerrys’ lower taxable income was purely the result of the Kerrys’ charitable donations — is not at all clear to me from the available information.
However, the fact remains that the Kerrys take advantage of loopholes in the tax laws by sheltering roughly half of their income in tax-exempt investment vehicles. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this as the Kerrys are simply doing what our antiquated tax laws allow. Nevertheless, Mr. Kerry would be more credible to independent voters such as me if he would advocate reasonable income tax reform and simplification — an area in which the Bush Administration has failed miserably — rather than engaging in divisive demagoguery regarding tax loopholes while enjoying the benefits of those same loopholes.

The sad life of Ken Caminiti ends

Posted on by
Reply

Former Stros third baseman Ken Caminiti, who was a unanimous pick for the 1996 National League MVP while playing with the Padres, died Sunday at the age of 41 of a heart attack in the Bronx. Caminiti is survived by three daughters from a marriage that ended in divorce several years ago.
Caminiti had a .794 career OPS (on base average + slugging percentage), compared to his league average of .746, and 154 RCAA in 1760 games (RCAA explained here), mostly with the Astros and Padres, from 1987-2001. His best year was a .621 SLG, .408 OBA, 1.028 OPS, and 66 RCAA with the 1996 Padres.
The three-time All-Star led often a troubled life the past few years after retiring from baseball in 2001. Last Tuesday, he admitted in a Houston criminal court that he violated his probation by testing positive for cocaine. State District Judge William Harmon sentenced Caminiti to 180 days in jail for violating his probation, but gave him credit for the 189 days he already served in jail and a treatment facility since he was sentenced to three years probation for a another cocaine arrest in March 2001.
In May 2002, Caminiti generated national media interest when he told Sports Illustrated magazine that he had used steroids during his MVP season and speculated that half of the Major League Baseball players were also using them.
Caminiti was beloved by his teammates for his strong work ethic and willingness to play hurt, but he was a poster child for the professional athlete who knows of no other way to live than to play the game in which they excel. Once Caminiti’s abilities eroded below the Major League level, he became lost and was never able to find his way into a meaningful way of life after baseball. His death will weigh heavily on Bags and Bidg, who played with Cammy for many years in Houston.

2004 Weekly local football review

Posted on by
Reply

Vikings 34 Texans 28 (OT). Down 21-zip midway through the third quarter, the Texans came charging back to tie the game at 28 behind a gutty performance from QB David Carr and extraordinary efforts from WR’s Andre Johnson and Derick Armstrong. Unfortunately, the Texans defense could not stop a hard chargin’ marching band, so early NFC Pro Bowl QB candidate Dante Culpepper threw for over 400 yards, five TD’s, and the hit the 50 yard gamewinner in overtime. And Dom Capers is supposed to be a defensive coach? The Texans go to Nashville next Sunday to play the well-balanced (at least if Steve McNair is playing) Titans.
Giants 26 Cowboys 10. With no passing offense, 11 penalties, and two turnovers, this performance will not be on Bill Parcells‘ career highlight film. The Cowboys remind me of the NFL version of the Texas Longhorns. The Pokes play the Steelers next Sunday in Dallas.
Oklahoma 12 Texas Longhorns 0. As noted in earlier weekly reviews, Texas simply does not have the passing game to force OU’s DB’s to play defensive back rather than linebacker. Consequently, OU stuffed the Horns’ running game and Vincent Young was incapable of making the Sooners pay for stacking their defense to stop Ced Benson. Texas’ defense did an admirable job stopping OU’s vaunted passing game, but OU freshman phenom Adrian Peterson shredded the Horns’ rushing defense for 232 yards. Based on their performance on this game, the Horns are going to have tough games against Tech, Oklahoma State, and A&M, although they get Okie State and A&M at home, which will help. However, Bob Stoops continually outcoaches Mack Brown while Texas continues its mystifying inability to develop their quarterback talent — Major Applewhite is the only UT QB in recent memory to develop reasonably well over his career. If the Horns slip to third or fourth in the Big 12 South this season, how long will UT’s alums — who have invested an enormous amount into the UT program over the past five years — put up with this obvious inability to reach the top tier of college football? The Horns get Missouri next week in Austin, which should be reasonably easy, but Tech looms in two weeks in Lubbock.
Texas Aggies 34 Iowa State 3. The Ags are starting to gain some confidence as they reel off their fourth straight win. Next week is a tougher test — Okie State at Stillwater. Man, is the Big 12 South looking tough this season or what?
Southern Miss 35 Houston 29 (OT). The Coogs beat the spread in this Thursday night ESPN game, but allowed USM to score the last 14 points of the game to grab the loss from the jaws of victory. The Coogs somewho lost this game despite almost 520 yards of total offense and no turnovers. Oh, well, the Coogs are off next weekend before trying to avoid a 1-6 record at TCU the following weekend.
Rice 44 SMU 3. The Owls crushed the Ponies while racking up 501 yards of total offense, 496 of which was on the ground. The word in the coaching community is that SMU head coach Phil Bennett is in hot water, and performances like this one will only make the hot seat even warmer. The Owls go to Nevada next week for another WAC game that they should win.
And remember, for a more thorough weekly review of Big 12 games, check out Kevin Whited’s analysis over at PubliusTX.net.

Braves force Game 5

Posted on by
Reply

The Braves fought back from a 5-2 deficit and J.D. Drew had the game winning hit in the top of the ninth as Atlanta forced a fifth game on Monday at Turner Field by beating the Stros 6-5 on Sunday afternoon in a heart-pounding thriller at the Juice Box. The Braves win broke the Stros’ 19 game winning streak at the Juice Box that had propelled the Stros into this National League Division series.
Craig Biggio’s three-run yak in the second and Roger Clemens gutty pitching performance on three days rest had given the Stros a 5-2 lead going into the sixth inning, but the Stros’ Chad Qualls gave up a massive 3 run tater to Adam Larouche in the sixth that tied the game. The clubs remained knotted through the next three excrutiating innings of wonderful playoff baseball until Drew knocked in the winning run in the ninth.
The Stros placed two men on in both the eighth and ninth innings only to have John Smoltz make two incredible plays to keep the Stros from scoring. In the eighth, with two outs and runners on first and third, Marcus Giles made a great play in the hole between first and second on Orlando Palmeiro‘s grounder and made a perfect off balance throw to Smoltz, who barely beat Palmeiro to first base for the third out. Then, in the ninth, after Berkman‘s clutch single put runners on first and third with one out, Smoltz induced JK to hit into a GIDP that sent the series back to Atlanta for Game 5.
Clemens was running on fumes today as he never could gain a rhythm, giving up two runs on six hits and two walks in his five innings. Still, the Rocket put the Stros in a position to win the game, and that’s all anyone could reasonably ask of a 42 year old man starting his second game in a week while recovering from a stomach virus. The key to this game turned out to be the Braves’ superior depth in the bullpen, as that group pitched six scoreless innings after the Stros’ five run second inning to give the Braves a chance to come back.
Despite the trauma of the loss to Stros’ fans, the Stros actually are in pretty good shape going into Game Five tomorrow in Atlanta. Roy O is ready to start and Lidge was limited to seven pitches in Sunday’s game, so he should be reasonably fresh, too. The Braves counter with Jaret Wright, who was no mystery for the Stros hitters in Game 1 of the series, and their bullpen has been stretched in both of the last two games. So, keep the faith, Stros fans, the Stros still have a good chance to pull this one out.

Stros close to within one game of NLCS

Posted on by
3

Brandon Backe pitched the best six innings of his life and the Stros plated five runs with two outs as they pulled to within one game of advancing to the National League Championship Series with an 8-5 win over the Braves on Saturday afternoon in front of a deafening sellout Juice Box crowd. The win was the Stros 19th straight at the Juice Box, and the club’s 38th win in their last 49 games.
Based on the outcome of the other two division series games on Saturday, the Stros and Braves will play on Sunday at either noon or 6:30 p.m. The Rocket will pitch for the Stros on three day’s against the Braves Russ Ortiz.
Backe continued to show the same extraordinary poise that he displayed when he stepped in for the ailing Clemens last Sunday to lead the Stros to their Wild Card playoff clinching win in the regular-season finale. In Saturday’s game, Backe worked his way out of a bases-loaded jam in the second by getting the third out with a 94-mph heater, and retired the final seven batters he faced. Backe’s final numbers were solid — two runs, five hits, five strikeouts and two walks in six innings.
Carlos Beltran‘s two run yak got the Stros started in the third inning, and then the rest of the Stros put it away with five runs in the fifth and sixth innings as Jeff Kent, Lance Berkman, and Morgan Ensberg all had key hits in the rallies. But for a couple of baserunning errors, the Stros would likely have had a couple of more runs, and the final score was closer than the game really was. The Braves’ Andruw Jones cranked a three run tater off of hard luck Russ Springer in the eighth to bring the Braves within three runs after the Stros gave the Braves an extra out in that inning by failing to catch J.D. Drew‘s popup that hit one of the Juice Box roof supports. Brad Lidge pitched a dominating ninth to nail down the victory.
Finally, the Juice Box crowd was tuned into every pitch, and almost blew the roof off the place when Lidge struck out the final hitter. The Juice Box should be totally juiced when Clemens takes the mound on Sunday to try and bring Houston its first win in a Major League Baseball playoff series. Tune in and hang on for a wild ride!

Checking in again on the Nigerian Barge trial

Posted on by
1

I was in federal court yesterday, so I had occasion to drop in again (here is my earlier report on the trial) on the ongoing Enron-related Nigerian Barge trial, which was concluding its third week. The prosecution’s second star witness — former Enron treasurer and Andy Fastow favorite son, Ben Glisan — finished his testimony and the prosecution rested. Despite the mainstream media’s continued simplistic analysis of everything related to Enron generally and this trial in particular, the prosecution’s case has not gone well.
There are huge holes in the prosecution’s case. First, the prosecution’s case relies almost entirely on the testimony of former Enron executives Michael Kopper and Glisan, who both admitted that they are prodigious liars and that they copped deals with the Justice Department to hedge their risk of lengthy jail sentences. Moreover, the government inexplicably failed to call the person — that is, Fastow — who supposedly originated the sham side deal between Enron and Merrill. Indeed, the prosecution did not even call an independent expert witness to testify on a key issue in the trial — i.e., that Fastow’s legally unenforceable oral inducement to Merrill that Enron would either buy the barges back or broker a deal for them rendered false Enron’s accounting of the deal and, thus, misleading to Enron’s investors.
For what it’s worth, Glisan’s testimony dovetailed generally with that of Kopper, although Kopper thought Merrill was at real risk with regard to the barge deal while Glisan downplayed that risk. Similar to Kopper, Glisan dumped on former Enron treasurer Jeffrey McMahon, who Glisan contends told him he was “was comfortable” with Fastow’s oral inducement to Merrill. Consistent with its approach to this case, the prosecution failed to elicit from either Glisan or Kopper that Fastow and them did not get along with McMahon, who was not involved in receiving any of the millions of dollars that Fastow, Kopper and Glisan received from “investing” in Fastow’s off-balance sheet partnerships. In fact, Fastow ultimately engineered both McMahon’s firing as Enron’s treasurer (because of McMahon’s criticism of Fastow’s off-balance sheet partnerships to former Enron CEO, Jeff Skilling), and Glisan’s replacement of McMahon as Enron’s treasurer. That the prosecution would allow the Fastow cabal to defame the unindicted McMahon in such a manner without pointing out their well-established acrimony toward him is just one example of how the Justice Department is willing to dispense with a balanced presentation of the facts to obtain convictions in this case.
Meanwhile, two of the Merrill defendants appear to have pretty darn good grounds for a directed verdict of acquittal. Tom Hagemann, defense counsel for Merrill defendant Daniel Bayly, argued persuasively that the prosecution’s case against Mr. Bayly consisted solely of testimony that Mr. Bayly participated in the telephone call in which Fastow made the oral inducement to Merrill to buy the barges, and then that Mr. Bayly directed the Merrill representatives to send an engagement letter to Enron that included Fastow’s oral representation that Enron would take Merrill out of the barge deal within six months. Inasmuch as the prosecution presented no further evidence that Mr. Bayly was involved in the deal in any respect after that point and did not attempt in any way to cover up the fact that Fastow had made the oral inducement, Mr. Hagemann pointed out that it is simply impossible for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof that Mr. Bayly was involved in a wide-ranging conspiracy with Enron to cover up the true nature of the deal.
Equally persuasive was David Spears‘ motion for a directed verdict of acquittal for Merrill defendant William Fuhs. Incredibly, the prosecution did not present even one witness who knew or had ever talked with Mr. Fuhs regarding the barge transaction! Consequently, the prosecution’s case against Mr. Fuhs relies totally on about a half dozen documents and emails that the prosecution could not prove that Mr. Fuhs ever read and which are subject to various interpretations. As Mr. Spears pointed out, based on that evidentiary record, the prosecution cannot sustain its burden of proof that Mr. Fuhs was involved in any type of conspiracy with Enron or that he was involved in fraud on Enron’s investors.
Finally, in a devastating cross-examination of Glisan, Lawrence J. Zweifach, Merrill defendant James Brown’s attorney, elicited that Fastow’s supposed promise to buy back the barges from Merrill made no economic sense and, thus, is of dubious credibility. Inasmuch as such a buy back would have required Enron to restate earnings and endure the market’s bad reaction to such a restatement, Glisan admitted that it would have been far less damaging to Enron in terms of the investor market not to sell the barges to Merrill and simply to take the one penny-per-share earnings hit in the fourth quarter of 1999. In short, reasoned Mr. Zweifach, why would Fastow risk the much worse market effect of a restatement by making the oral side deal when simply holding the barges would not result in much of a market effect in the first place? Glisan had no answer to that question.
Of course, as noted in my earlier post, no one really knows how all of this plays out with either Judge Werlein or the jury. But one thing is crystal clear — the Justice Department believes that it is shooting fish in a barrel even when it puts on as flimsy a case as this because it figures that most jurors will be biased against any defendant having anything to do with the cultural pariah Enron.
Beyond the effect on the individual lives involved in this case, that’s the real societal significance of this case. For if the government can use its power to obtain convictions and long jail sentences in a case as weak as this one, then business executives everywhere should be concerned that the risk of doing business in the United States will have just risen to an entirely new level.

KPMG agrees to record malpractice settlement

Posted on by
Reply

KPMG LLP and its Belgian affiliate agreed to pay $115 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit in Boston claiming they had failed in their audit work for Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV, the defunct Belgian maker of speech-recognition software. The proposed settlement is one of the largest ever by an auditing firm.
As with many software firms, Lernout & Hauspie soared to prominence in the late 1990’s in the field of speech recognition software. The company had a market capitalization of nearly $10 billion on the Nasdaq exchange at one point. But in all to familiar a story, Lernout collapsed in 2000 and later admitted to a massive fraud, which included falsifying approximately 70% of sales in its largest unit. The company has been liquidated.
The suit alleged that KPMG was responsible for Lernout’s false and misleading financial statements and sought damages on behalf of the company’s shareholders. As usual in such settlements, KPMG and its Belgian affiliate publicly stated that they settled to avoid “protracted legal battles” and that they “deny all allegations and any liability.”
However, the settlement does not end KPMG’s nightmare with regard to the Lernout account. Earlier this year, KPMG and its Belgian unit were sued for $340 million by the trustee in Lernout’s bankruptcy case, who is attempting to recover that sum for Lernout’s creditors. Moreover, the Belgian liquidator for Lernout piled on by filing a separate claim for $427.5 million against KPMG’s Belgian affiliate. Finally, KPMG’s work in the Lernout case also remains subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
The settlement is the latest in a string of such large settlements for KPMG and other big auditing firms. Last year, KPMG paid $125 million to settle shareholder claims related to its audit of drugstore chain Rite Aid Corp., and $75 million related to its audit of Oxford Health Plans Inc. The largest amount that an accounting firm has paid in settlement of a private shareholder class-action suit remains Ernst & Young LLP‘s $335 million settlement in 1999 related to its audit of Cendant Corp.
In the meantime, many relatively good size companies are finding that they cannot hire the services of the Big Four accounting firms because of the firms’ staffing problems attendant to their larger audit clients.

Braves outlast Stros

Posted on by
Reply

The Braves jailbird-to-be Rafeal Furcal hit a two-out, two-run walkoff homer in the 11th inning off of Dan Miceli that propelled the Braves to a 4-2 victory over the Stros Thursday afternoon at Turner Field in Atlanta. The Braves’ win tied their NL playoff series with the Stros at one game each.
Furcal was in court just hours before Game 1 of the series where he was sentenced to 21 days in jail and 28 days in a treatment center for violating probation with his second drunken-driving arrest in four years. However, the judge — obviously a Braves fan — put the sentence off until the day after the season ends.
With the Stros on the verge of taking a commanding lead, manager Phil Garner brought closer Brad Lidge into the game in the seventh inning when the Stros had a 2-1 lead, but the Braves rallied to force extra innings. The Braves outhit the Stros 14-4 and held the Stros without a hit for the final 5 1/3 innings.
Realizing the importance of the game, the Braves kept closer John Smoltz on the mound for three innings, which was his longest outing since September 2001. Similarly, Lidge went 2 2/3 innings, which was his longest outing of the season.
Both starters for the respective teams pitched well. Roy O gave up eight hits and a run in 6 2/3 innings while Mike Hampton gave up just four hits in 6 1/3 innings, including solo yaks to Bags and Raul Chavez. Hampton left in the seventh because of tightness in his left forearm, but the injury is not believed to be serious.
The series now moves to the Juice Box on Saturday where the Stros have won 18 straight games with the Stros’ Brandon Backe going up against the Braves’ John Thomson. Game time has been moved to noon on Saturday.