Unpopular

For much of my childhood, I was unpopular. The reasons for this need not be analyzed; those readers who know me know the details of my childhood all too well, and those who do not know me need not be bored with those details. Suffice it to say that, for a variety of reasons, none of them good, I was, during my first 18 years excluded from activities, ostracized by my peers, and ridiculed for various "deficiencies" large and small. However, I would not trade my experience for any other, and I have no significant regrets. Let me tell you why.

Although I did not understand this then, during the entire time of those first eighteen years, I had intrinsic value as a human being; just like everyone else. Regardless of how I talked, dressed or behaved, regardless of my interests or what I cared about, regardless of whether I was good at sports or "athletically demented" as one quite eloquent "popular" kid once put it, I was a person. I mattered. No one, no matter what they did had the right or ability to make that untrue. That my worth was devalued was no failing on my part; rather, it emanated from the greed and cynicism of some peers, and the indifference of others, and some teachers. My bad experiences were caused by bad actors, bad policies, and failures of leadership. While these problems, which still plague too many childhoods, can and should be corrected, that they were not soon enough does not reflect poorly on me.

On the other hand, my conduct in my childhood reflects well on me, because in the qualities over which I actually had agency, which made up my true character, there was much to admire :

--I was honest

--I was fair

--I was kind

--I was ethical

--I was curious

--I was productive

--I was respectful

--I was friendly

--I was loving

--I took risks

In short, I had no control over whether I was "popular." It was for want of nothing intrinsic. Devaluing me with was just a cynical tactic that people with less to offer used to conceal their own deficiencies. But in everything that mattered; everything that was in my control, every core element of my being, I excelled. And I did what was required of me at the time with determination, perseverance, and dignity even in the face of exclusion and sometimes outright scorn. I was courageous--I got up every day, went to a place where people ridiculed and ostricized me constantly, -- and got the education to which I was entitled, and which was my duty to obtain. There was nothing not to like about me, and everything to admire. On the flip side, the "popular" kids, in order to achieve their popularity often had to resort to being everything I was not. Today I sometimes wonder how these individuals face that reality (assuming they ever achieved the self awareness and genuine honesty to grasp it).

Ironically, my intrinsic qualities, whatever their impact on my reception by my childhood peers, have made all the difference to my success as an adult. I attribute to them much of my success, both in my professional and in my social life. My wife loves me in spite of or perhaps because of, the fact that I didn't play football, smoke dope out back, or get laid, and I'm a good lawyer because I am kind of nerdy and, frankly, thinking and acting outside the crowd is precisely what genuine success in this world takes.

I was unpopular, to be certain. But I'm proud of the person I was, because I'm proud of the person I am. As I sit here today, I the people I feel sorriest for are the popular ones, especially, that subclass that decided I was "unpopular" and labored with such alacrity to make me unpopular. In addition to having to live with knowing, as adults, that they behaved in ways that demeaned them far more than their behavior demeaned me, many of them are now largely irrelevant; by dint of the qualities they possessed and developed in order to be "popular". I on the other hand, get to bend the arc of the universe every single day, and I can sleep at night knowing I earned my success, and did so at no one else's expense.

Bobby Takes Poop--National Crisis Averted

New York, NY-April 25, 2010

AP-As Americans from coast to coast sat on tenderhooks today, Robert Gerstein finally moved his bowels, putting a 48 hour ordeal finally to an end.

The elimination, which was average sized, emerged at 9:35 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Robert is now clean, and in good spirits, but heated discussions among the nation's leaders continue.

The crisis, which began at approximately 7:00 am on the morning of April 24th has provoked a special investigation by the United States House Energy Subcommittee on Health. The Committee will begin holding hearings at 8:00am tomorrow morning. In a press conference earlier today, Committee Chairman, Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey promised to get to the "root causes of the controversy. We have a lot of questions," said the Congressman "and frankly, some of the people involved may have a lot to answer for. The people need answers, and we need to get to the root causes. America's kids shouldn't have to spend a moment longer than necessary on the can."

Among issues the Congressman cited for investigation was the controversial decision to feed Robert rice cereal, which some experts say should not be introduced until at least six months. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebilius also expressed concern. "I'm glad the prunes worked," said the Secretary when asked about corrective measures that had been taken to finally move things along, "but really, breast milk or formula is all they should be getting at that age." Sebilius has promised that her department will be launching its own, independent investigation in the near future.

Meanwhile, an angry Tea Party protest on the National Mall nearly turned into a riot as activists slammed the government, insisting that Federal activity was the cause of Robert's constipation. "Those Commies definitely put something in the water!" Shouted Moe Briggs of Altoona, PA. "This never happened when Bush was President! Just shove a thermometer up his butt." Protesters also waved signs saying "My kid crapped when he was s'pos'd to! Why can't yours?" and "Prunes are for liberals and red socalists." Not to be outdone, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele promised to make Robert's bowel movements a divisive issue in the 2010 congressional elections.

President Obama had earlier today Federalized the New Jersey Air National Guard and scrambled F-16 Fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing, but they have since been recalled as the emergency has passed.

Republcians See RHG Birth As "Game Changer" in Health Care Fight

New York, NY (AP)-

Two Leading Republicans have hailed the birth of Robert Harold Gerstein, which occurred earlier this week, as giving their party a significant edge in the health care debate before the U.S. Senate.

Senate Minority Leader John Boehner praised the event as a "game changer".

"I don't see how you can look at the outstanding health care he received and not conclude how ludicrous and unnecessary this proposed legislation is. Bobby Gerstein's birth clearly proves, once and for all, that privately funded health insurance is alive, well and working for the majority of Americans."

The birth also attracted applause from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. "If private health care is good enough for socialist countries like New York," said Palin "it should be good enough for America."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned his Republican Senate colleagues to temper their optimism, however. "I have it on good authority that Bobby strongly supports this bill," stated Reid. "He wants this legislation because he knows how critical it is for America's future, and we are going to pass it for him."

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, welcomed Gerstein's birth for reasons unrelated to the healthcare debate. "He's a great little ranger, and I can't wait to serve alongside him in my Army, " said McChrystal.

U.N. Secretary General Hails RHG Birth

New York NY (AP)--In a brief press conference this morning, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Kai-moon offered congratulations to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on the birth of their son, Robert Harold Gerstein. The Secretary-General hailed the birth as a "stupendous event."

"We expect great things from Bobby, " declared the Secretary General, "the whole world is watching, and will continue watching. This is change we can count on!"

Gerstein was born on December 1, 2009 at 11:35 pm, at New York Presbyterian Hospital, in New York City.

Adidas to Sponsor Ephraim

New York-June 8, 2009

Erich Stamminger, Adidas brand CEO unveiled a new sponsorship agreement with Ephraim Gerstein, in a press conference at Rockefeller Center earlier this morning. The partnership is believed to be the first in history to feature a relatively unknown private citizen, rather than a professional athlete or celebrity. Adidas did not reveal the endorsement fees paid to Gerstein at press time. The optimistic Stamminger appeared relaxed and enthusiastic to begin what many commentators believe to be an audacious marketing strategy.  "To us, it was a no-brainer," declared Stamminger.  "The Adidas brand stands for quality, understated style, and a tradition of overall excellence, so it was natural to want to partner with an individual who lives those values. [Gerstein's] relative anonymity might pose something of a marketing challenge, but Adidas could not pass up the opportunity to deliver such a fresh, compelling message."

CNBC commentator Phil LeBeau believes the unconventional deal holds promise for Adidas.  "It's certainly a new way of doing things," said LeBeau "but I believe that this is a leading indicator that we are entering a post-celebrity era.  It may be that many consumers will relate better to Ephraim than they would to a celebrity.  After all, most consumers are not famous.  I think Adidas is betting that a young, upscale target audience would look at Ephraim and say 'here's a guy just like me, someone I can trust.' He's wholesome. Trendy, but not excessively so. Someone you could aspire to be, but within reach."

Though Adidas kept most of the deal's details under wraps, Stamminger said that Gerstein will not have to throw away his Chuck Taylors. "We don't consider those to be a competing product," said Stamminger. 

And The Problem Is?

This puzzling article about Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor appeared in this morning's edition of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29puerto.html?_r=1&hpw

Basically what it seems to be saying is that her job, as a young attorney, with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, somehow renders her less than qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  The gist of the argument seems to be:

1. Sonia Sotomayor represented indigent immigrants as part of her job.

2. She did her job well.

3. Therefore, she might presently be biased in favor of the people she used to represent as part of her old job.

The absurdity is not only in this argument, but that NYT reports it as though it's a legitimate conflict of interest.  All I can tell you (and this is from personal experience) is that we represent clients.  In order to do our job effectively, we have to empathize with our clients.  We are their advocates.  By this logic, all lawyers who have ever represented anyone in any capacity cannot serve on the Supreme Court, because we all have represented clients whose positions might be different from those of the parties we might judge.  The President will have to confine his search to first year law school students.  

Supreme Court Justice: Not a bad entry level job. 

Guantanamo Inmates To Alaska

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject of the Guantanamo inmates, however, I would like to make a couple of observations:

1. Guantanamo bay is unsettlingly close to south Florida--I don't know anything about this prison's security procedures, but it would seem to me that if an inmate was smart enough to escape, it might not take much more to get ahold of a small boat and get across the straights.  I know that those who raise the NIMBY problem are professedly concerned about having terrorists in their backyard, but I would counter that Cuba is our backyard.  A nice, remote location in the interior might be better.

2. Alaska is far away from most Americans, sparsely populated and very cold--Even if a prisoner could escape a supermax in Alaska, they would be very far away from our centers of population, and, depending on where it is in Alaska, might have to cover some very punishing terrain.  

Yes, the more I think about it, the more attractive a supermax in Alaska becomes forthe housing of Guantanamo inmates.  Of course, the Alaskans might not want them in their backyard, but that's fewer people being "inconvenienced" than anywhere else in the country.  Also, it's yet another opportunity for them to get federal funding.  Admittedly, this would also be a politically expedient solution for Obama, as Alaska has few electoral votes, and the Republicans will probably get them anyway (though I consider this, at most, an incidental dividend).

It seems like a winner all around.

P.S. I'm not, by this post, necessarily advocating that we indefinitley hold people without charging them.  That is, of course, a separate issue that I have to give more thought.