Sunday, February 22, 2015
Monday, June 24, 2013
Episode 109 -- Reasoing Behind Ticket Price Increase and News Wheel
This week the team tackles Beth Kassab's take on recent ticket price news. News Wheel turns on umbrellas at Be Our Guest, Magic Bands and more.
Download Episode 109
Download Episode 109
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Book Thoughts: Killer Show by John Barylick
This week marks the ten year anniversary of the Station Nightclub Fire. All Rhode Islanders were touched by the accident. Coverage of the anniversary and my interest as an attorney pushed me towards downloading and reading Killer Show by John Barylick, one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys.
1. My biggest takeaway from the book was how avoidable the catastrophe was. If any number of laws or ordinances were to have been followed the fire could have been avoided or slowed. The rub wasn't that there wasn't enough regulation, but that the regulations already on the book weren't enforced. This is something to probably consider for any debate on guns.
2. The Derderians were horrible people. I was most struck by how so much of their behavior was just bullying. With each business they purchased, they forced their employees to immediately work at least partially under the table. These were guys who were middle class to slightly wealthy forcing employees who were making people earning next to nothing work without protection. For example, one of the club's bartenders worked for $40/night and tips.
One of the more disgusting tricks used by the brothers was keeping a $20,000 "deposit" from a prospective buyer and refusing to return it. Even the foam insulation that ignited the firestorm was purchased from a neighbor who had complained about the club's noise. By purchasing the insulation at from the neighbor they were able to placate the neighbor with a sale and mitigate the noise problem.
I have to wonder what would have happened if someone had really pushed these bullies back? Would an employee reporting them to the Department of Labor and Training and the resulting sanction have helped them re-evaluate their fast and loose business practices? Ditto if the prospective buyers had called the police or Attorney General's office. If the neighbor hadn't been happy to make a foam sale and persisted in decreasing the noise at the Station would the club have been shut down or faced more scrutiny?
Twerps like these guys need brush back pitches.
3. I'm very glad that this book was written. A tragedy like this needs a thorough account of the events memorialized before time robs of us of the opportunity. I'm also glad that it was told with a viewpoint. It would have been very easy for a local reporter to put together an oral history.* My only wish is that the book had been written by a neutral and not a straight partisan.
4. Barylick is an excellent lawyer. The theories of liability** that the plaintiffs group were able to articulate is a testament to their skill, mental agility, and perseverance.
5. One section I didn't appreciate was Risky Business. In that chapter, Barylick lays out the rationale for why plaintiffs attorneys in the matter, or rather the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, deserved their fee.
My first issue is that Barylick paints with a very broad brush with regards to attorneys who advertise.*** At one point, he states that "many advertising 'personal injury attorneys' are either referral networks or settlement mills." He also goes on to state, without naming names, that several of these advertising attorneys screwed up victims' claims or free loaded on their group. Rhode Island has a small bar, that is allegedly a collegial. I guess not here. Also, why not name names? He has no problems meticulously outlining the mistakes of individuals involved with the catastrophe. Why not the same with bungling attorneys?****
Secondly, he also goes on to state that advertising attorneys have tarnished the reputation of the bar. Some have. Could one also say, however unfair or lacking nuance, that trying to hang liability on Anheuser-Busch, who was just selling beer, in one of the biggest tragedies in our state's history may have done equal harm? As someone who has sat on victims' couches and at kitchen tables, I did not appreciate the dig.
Finally, there were a couple of kicks at defense counsel for dragging in their heels, delaying justice, and running up big bills. Their duty to their clients were no less than Barylick's to his own. Painting defense counsel as money hungry to the detriment of their clients is unfair.
* Oral histories are the worst. Absolutely horrible. Even worse, they're taking over. Grantland did one on Cheers. There was even one on Bridesmaids. The movie.
** As I tell my clients, you need to have two things that are linked together to have a case: somebody has to do something wrong and injury. A rear end car accident often results in temporary (read: less valuable) injuries, but are easy since the party in the wrong is obviously wrong. With other accidents or slip and falls or products cases, it is tougher to prove the wrongdoing. It's almost like puzzle solving. The more severe (read: valuable) the injury the harder that your average plaintiff attorney will work to find a solution to the puzzle.
*** Before going solo, I worked for a firm that advertised moderately, but not with a serious tone. My firm did not represent any of the Station victims at any point and I was not admitted to practice until 2007.
**** Barylick alludes to two firms that are well known. He does not specifically tie them to early on bungles, but does give the impression that they were involved. The confusion was not appreciated by this reader.
1. My biggest takeaway from the book was how avoidable the catastrophe was. If any number of laws or ordinances were to have been followed the fire could have been avoided or slowed. The rub wasn't that there wasn't enough regulation, but that the regulations already on the book weren't enforced. This is something to probably consider for any debate on guns.
2. The Derderians were horrible people. I was most struck by how so much of their behavior was just bullying. With each business they purchased, they forced their employees to immediately work at least partially under the table. These were guys who were middle class to slightly wealthy forcing employees who were making people earning next to nothing work without protection. For example, one of the club's bartenders worked for $40/night and tips.
One of the more disgusting tricks used by the brothers was keeping a $20,000 "deposit" from a prospective buyer and refusing to return it. Even the foam insulation that ignited the firestorm was purchased from a neighbor who had complained about the club's noise. By purchasing the insulation at from the neighbor they were able to placate the neighbor with a sale and mitigate the noise problem.
I have to wonder what would have happened if someone had really pushed these bullies back? Would an employee reporting them to the Department of Labor and Training and the resulting sanction have helped them re-evaluate their fast and loose business practices? Ditto if the prospective buyers had called the police or Attorney General's office. If the neighbor hadn't been happy to make a foam sale and persisted in decreasing the noise at the Station would the club have been shut down or faced more scrutiny?
Twerps like these guys need brush back pitches.
3. I'm very glad that this book was written. A tragedy like this needs a thorough account of the events memorialized before time robs of us of the opportunity. I'm also glad that it was told with a viewpoint. It would have been very easy for a local reporter to put together an oral history.* My only wish is that the book had been written by a neutral and not a straight partisan.
4. Barylick is an excellent lawyer. The theories of liability** that the plaintiffs group were able to articulate is a testament to their skill, mental agility, and perseverance.
5. One section I didn't appreciate was Risky Business. In that chapter, Barylick lays out the rationale for why plaintiffs attorneys in the matter, or rather the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, deserved their fee.
My first issue is that Barylick paints with a very broad brush with regards to attorneys who advertise.*** At one point, he states that "many advertising 'personal injury attorneys' are either referral networks or settlement mills." He also goes on to state, without naming names, that several of these advertising attorneys screwed up victims' claims or free loaded on their group. Rhode Island has a small bar, that is allegedly a collegial. I guess not here. Also, why not name names? He has no problems meticulously outlining the mistakes of individuals involved with the catastrophe. Why not the same with bungling attorneys?****
Secondly, he also goes on to state that advertising attorneys have tarnished the reputation of the bar. Some have. Could one also say, however unfair or lacking nuance, that trying to hang liability on Anheuser-Busch, who was just selling beer, in one of the biggest tragedies in our state's history may have done equal harm? As someone who has sat on victims' couches and at kitchen tables, I did not appreciate the dig.
Finally, there were a couple of kicks at defense counsel for dragging in their heels, delaying justice, and running up big bills. Their duty to their clients were no less than Barylick's to his own. Painting defense counsel as money hungry to the detriment of their clients is unfair.
* Oral histories are the worst. Absolutely horrible. Even worse, they're taking over. Grantland did one on Cheers. There was even one on Bridesmaids. The movie.
** As I tell my clients, you need to have two things that are linked together to have a case: somebody has to do something wrong and injury. A rear end car accident often results in temporary (read: less valuable) injuries, but are easy since the party in the wrong is obviously wrong. With other accidents or slip and falls or products cases, it is tougher to prove the wrongdoing. It's almost like puzzle solving. The more severe (read: valuable) the injury the harder that your average plaintiff attorney will work to find a solution to the puzzle.
*** Before going solo, I worked for a firm that advertised moderately, but not with a serious tone. My firm did not represent any of the Station victims at any point and I was not admitted to practice until 2007.
**** Barylick alludes to two firms that are well known. He does not specifically tie them to early on bungles, but does give the impression that they were involved. The confusion was not appreciated by this reader.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Book Thoughts: The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver
Only 12% deep on the Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver. Not too thrilled so far. Early on, Silver goes on at length that there are two types of analysts: foxes and hedgehogs. Hedgehogs are bullish, biased, and always looking to confirm what they believe. Foxes are always scavenging the world around them to pull in little bits of data or anything that will help them understand the problem. It is obvious which Silver thinks he is.
My thought: duh. Of course people who don't ignore relevant information are able to make more accurate predictions. I don't think you need to be a stats whiz to understand that being self-critical and empirical may be helpful traits. Silver took a lot of pages to say something that is fairly obvious.
This reminds me of criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. Blink focused on intuitive thinking and was well read going back a few years ago. Throughout the book, there are tons of anecdotes of how experts in their fields are able to quickly solve problems or defeat a sophisticated computer meant in a war game. The takeaway from the book is that people are able to process information very quickly and subconsciously, especially experts. D'uh.
The difference between Gladwell and Silver, so far, is that Gladwell is an excellent writer. His style is accessible. He is able to dazzle you so much with that style that you don't even notice that the substance isn't too impressive. So far, Silver hasn't said much and he hasn't said it well.
As a bonus, here's a fun and somewhat unfair thrashing of Gladwell by the Hon. Richard Posner.
My thought: duh. Of course people who don't ignore relevant information are able to make more accurate predictions. I don't think you need to be a stats whiz to understand that being self-critical and empirical may be helpful traits. Silver took a lot of pages to say something that is fairly obvious.
This reminds me of criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. Blink focused on intuitive thinking and was well read going back a few years ago. Throughout the book, there are tons of anecdotes of how experts in their fields are able to quickly solve problems or defeat a sophisticated computer meant in a war game. The takeaway from the book is that people are able to process information very quickly and subconsciously, especially experts. D'uh.
The difference between Gladwell and Silver, so far, is that Gladwell is an excellent writer. His style is accessible. He is able to dazzle you so much with that style that you don't even notice that the substance isn't too impressive. So far, Silver hasn't said much and he hasn't said it well.
As a bonus, here's a fun and somewhat unfair thrashing of Gladwell by the Hon. Richard Posner.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Book Thoughts: Francona: The Red Sox Years by Francona
"There is not limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." -- Ronald Reagan
1.) This is the second memoir that I've read since starting this project. Like W's, I came away realy liking Tito. He's the right mix of regular guy and arch competitor. He's got some great stories, like Mike Lowell telling Dustin Pedroia "Simmer down, Napolean," or driving down to spring training in 2005 and flipping off dejected Eagles fans driving back from Jacksonville after the Birds lost Super Bowl 39.* Francona can also have a bit of mean streak as well. When the media was in the process of fluffing Bobby V, Terry said "I wanted to put rings on both fingers and say, 'We were a little above average.'" Love it.
2.) If my son is half as awesome as Dustin Pedroia, I'll be happy. Even better, he's almost as tall.
3.) At one point in the book, Francona refers to Queer Eye for the Staight guy as "the TV show with the homosexuals."
4.) Francona only made $500K/year his first three years with the Sox. At the time he was hired, the Sox had recently been purchased for about $700M or so. It seems absolutely insane to me that ownership would turn over the car keys to a guy making that little compared to other managers. I also don't understand playing hardball with him on the salary. His salary would eventually get up into the $3.5M/year range.
5.) People in baseball are babies and weirdos. It is such an insular society and that fraternity makes people into loons. Whether it's guys like David Ortiz or Mike Lowell refusing to accept a smaller role commensurate with their declining skill or idiosyncrasies like Derek Jeter refusing to step in the batter's box until he got a nod from Francona, everyone is insane. I completely understand how a Manny Ramirez could exist in this world.
Francona is no better. He really loves everything about being in baseball's oddball universe. It must be the 162 games because his mind does seem addled at some points. He is incredibly protective of his routine and projects that love of routine on a lot of other actors. His morning routine is especially weird, but is grounded in his love of the clubhouse. Every morning he would pull up to Fenway and give his keys to the clubbies. He'd tell them that they could use the car, but not to tell him about it.
Tito also would get extremely frustrated with line up suggestions from baseball ops (read: stats guys). This one puzzled me. He wasn't given orders. He was given something to think about. More information is usually a good thing, especially if it is concise. I think he saw it as an affront to his role as manager.
Francona also had an "open wallet" policy that struck me as generous but odd. He would leave his wallet everyday on his desk and the clubbies woud be able to take a loan from it whenever they wanted. One of the attendants even bragged that he went into his wallet like once a day. Call me crazy, but that is absolutely insane. Is this is a baseball thing? I googled it and it doesn't look like it. I just wish that we had stats on this. How much was loaned? How much was paid back? How much did Manny take?
6.) Not to be too mean here, but being a baseball manager doesn't seem to be too difficult. I've read Halberstam's Belichick book and it seems like the difference in degree of difficulty between jobs is off the charts. I don't think that Belichick has a lot of time for cribbage with Julian Edelman. I do understand that there is a lot more personality management in baseball and it's obvious that Terry Francona has the perfect temperament for it.
7.) This is a follow up note to my thoughts on HGH. Simmons asked at the end of his podcast why players wouldn't consent to blood testing. Terry Francona's story is the best case against blood testing. When Francona went to the team doctor and through a MLB sponsored program, it was set up so that only four or five people would know about it. It was reported in a local paper just days after Francona left the team. The moral here is that leagues and/or player associations have not shown themselves to be trustworthy with confidential health information. Until we live in a world where this doesn't happen, blood tests can't happen.**
8.) It is bizarre that Tito and Theo Epstein attempt to deflect blame the September 2011 collapse from Francona's use of pain killers by pointing out that he used way more pain killers in 2004.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read for Red Sox fans regardless of hat color and Yankee fans. I'd also suggest it for anyone looking for a baseball fix waiting for spring training and fantasy baseball prep to start.
*Francona managed the Phillies during their lean years. He was not popular in Philadelphia. I went to law school in Philly and people were not happy when he won the World Series in 2004. Steve-o, friend of the MMOM, has often said that he would rather a hump on his back than Terry Francona. What most fairweather Phillies phans don't understand is that their team sucked in the late 90s and nothing any manager could do would fix that.
** If you had VD, would you want Larry Lucchino to have access to your blood samples? Would you trust Tom Werner to not have your blood genetically tested?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)