In which I explain my sports mojo

I've written about this before, many years ago, but here's a refresher course for those of you who weren't reading then: I am a super duper lucky charm for a city's sports teams. Don't believe me?

In 1993, I moved to Tallahassee to attend FSU. They won the national championship. They played for the national championship four more times that decade, winning it again in 1999. I had moved away back then, and thus began a decade of awfulness.

The summer of 1995, I was back in Orlando (my hometown) working at Disney World for the summer, and the Orlando Magic made it to the NBA Finals in just their 5th year of existence. (They did get swept in the Finals, but I was only in Orlando for 2 short months so my lucky effect probably had not built up enough by then.)

In 1997, I moved to Boston for law school. The Red Sox were mediocre, the Patriots were mediocre, the Celtics were awful. It took a few years for it to kick in, but in 2002 the Patriots won their first of three Super Bowls championships in four years. In 2004 the Red Sox broke an 86 year curse on their way to 2 World Series championships in four years. And in 2008 the Celtics even won a championship, the culmination of a rebuilding that started while I was still there.

In fall of 2005 I moved to Georgia, just after the Atlanta Braves made the playoffs for the last of their amazing 14 year postseason streak. In February 2006 I formally moved to Atlanta, and slowly began switching my allegiances to Atlanta sports teams. The first to go was football, because I was really bothered by the Patriots' taping/cheating scandal. Then went basketball, because I liked the young, raw talent of the Hawks and their tremendous upside. But I'd been holding onto my Red Sox love, and had a really hard time giving it up. I had been through hell and bliss with my Sox, and I just wasn't sure I could root for any other team. Still, at the start of this season, I decided I had to do it. The Braves needed me, and I told everyone I was on board.

Needless to say, it's helping. The Braves just returned to the postseason for the first time since 2005 despite having the wheels nearly fall off due to numerous injuries to critical players. The Hawks have made it to the playoffs three years in a row, and should have a very good team this year again. The Falcons made the playoffs two years ago, broke the curse of never having back to back winning seasons with their 9-7 record last year (after Matt Ryan's injury), and look great this year--so great that they have become a very trendy sleeper Super Bowl pick. I have no idea when the championships will come, but within the next five years, I think any one of the Braves, Hawks or Falcons could win it all. Maybe all three.

When I moved to Atlanta in 2006, none of our major sports teams were in the postseason. The Braves were going into rebuilding mode, the Falcons were dealing with the Michael Vick saga, and the Hawks were still a young team that had been nothing to write home about for over a decade. Since then, all 3 have made the postseason at least once, and this year we should have all 3 in the postseason in the same year. Meanwhile, the Patriots have stopped winning Super Bowls, and the Red Sox failed to make the postseason this year. Boston's reign as supreme sports town is drawing to a close, while Atlanta's is just beginning.

You can all thank me later.

Atlanta Floods: NEVER FORGET

While I'm on this nostalgia kick, someone mentioned on Twitter this morning that this is the anniversary of the Atlanta floods of a year ago. And lo and behold, the AJC has a retrospective up. Check it out, and relive the insanity, heartbreak and ALL THAT WATER.

What happens when you ignore "objective reality"

You may recall my little spat with Atlanta Progressive News' Matthew Cardinale last November over a misleading story he wrote about Kasim Reed's representation of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain. In the story, Cardinale implied that Reed currently represented Cracker Barrel (my review of the docket showed he withdrew from the case in 2001 when he was still a young associate) and that he was defending Cracker Barrel against race discrimination claims brought by the NAACP (in fact it was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the NAACP filed an amicus brief). It took me all of half an hour reviewing the federal court's PACER docket to find that his story was full of misleading implications and omitted context. So, I called him a lazy biased fucking douchebag, which apparently offended his delicate sensibilities.

But Cardinale is SO committed to his irresponsibly slanted form of yellow journalism masquerading as progressive thought that he just fired one of APN's writers for insisting on a pursuit of "objective reality" (which apparently is pretty unwelcome at APN.) Ignoring objective reality in favor of a progressive slant is what allows Cardinale to write a story all about how Cracker Barrel is a big old racist company and Kasim Reed defends them in cases brought by the NAACP, while leaving out that this one case happened 9 years ago, had nothing to do with allegations of race discrimination, and the NAACP only played a tangential role. It also means that the stories coming out of APN must be viewed with an extremely critical eye, because there is no telling what facts have been emphasized or omitted depending on whether they do or do not support Cardinale's progressive vision.

I've long had concerns about APN's ethical integrity, only some of which I have publicly voiced on this blog. (Having friends in politics and journalism, and not wanting to throw stones without being sure *I* had a fully-sourced understanding of "objective reality" has caused me to hold my tongue when perhaps I shouldn't have.) The fact that Cardinale would and did fire a reporter for wanting to find the truth in a story does nothing to ease my concerns. Instead, it tells me exactly how it was possible to justify to himself the story he decided to tell about Kasim Reed last fall. Take any "news" reported by APN from this point forward with a massive heaping dose of salt...for we now know the rules of the game they are playing, and "objective reality" is not their goal.

Bobby's Last Goodbye

Local photographer Josh D. Weiss beautifully photographed the Gator Bowl yesterday, which was legendary Florida State coach Bobby Bowden's swan song. The pregame celebrations of Bowden's legacy included a long walk to the stadium joined by his current players, surrounded by over 300 former players and loyal fans. These photographs are fantastic, and I urge you to check them out at Weiss' website.

Get off your ass and VOTE, Atlanta

Tomorrow the City of Atlanta will hold runoff elections for the Mayor's race, City Council President, City Council Post 2 At Large, and City Council District 6. I won't be making new endorsements this time around because everyone I said I was voting for in the November 3rd general election either won outright or made the runoff, so my reasoning then still holds now.

Instead, I want to emphasize the importance of every single voter in the City of Atlanta turning out tomorrow to cast a ballot. First, let's dispel a few myths about runoff elections:

1. "It will take too long." Not so, since sadly turnout is projected to be in the ridiculously low category. In the general election, only 24% of Atlanta voters cast a ballot, and turnout for a runoff is usually below half the turnout for the general. It took me less than 5 minutes to vote on November 3rd, so really you should be able to carve out the 15 minutes it will take to find your precinct, cast a ballot, and head on to work in the morning or home after work at night. Don't be lazy!

2. "I can't vote in a runoff if I didn't vote in the general." I am not sure where this myth comes from, but it's completely not true. Nobody checks your name against voters who cast ballots on November 3rd. If you are a registered voter in the Atlanta city limits, you can vote in the runoff even if you've never cast a ballot in your life. Do NOT let anyone convince you that you have somehow waived your right to be heard.

3. "The candidate who got the most votes on election day always wins anyhow, so why bother." Oh how some candidates wish this were true! All you need to do is look at the 2008 Senate primary to see how false that is. Vernon Jones had a huge lead on the other candidates in the primary, but lost handily to Jim Martin in the runoff. In fact, runoff elections usually feature SUCH low turnout that it really is unpredictable as to who will win the race. One thing is for certain--your vote can absolutely make a difference. My City Council District, #6, was won in a runoff by just FIVE VOTES in 2005.

4. "My candidate lost the first time around, so why should I care." Most losing candidates in these crowded races have gone on to endorse someone who made it into the runoff, so why not see who they endorsed and decide if maybe they have a good reason to urge their supporters in that direction?

5. "It won't matter; this city will still be screwed up no matter who is elected." This may be true, but at least if you vote you won't feel like you squandered the opportunity to help stop it because you had a bunch of excuses and couldn't get your butt off the sofa. Besides, there are some important potential landmarks to be gained by tomorrow's races, depending on where you live--we could see the first gay man and Asian-American elected to city council, we could see the first black lesbian elected to Georgia state house. We could see Atlanta's mayorship held by a white woman for the first time in eons. It could be the first election where a major southern city's gay vote decided numerous elections. Tomorrow could be historic in so many ways--don't you want to be a part of it?

Now the details: polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m tomorrow. Find your polling place here. Review a sample ballot here.

As I said above, just 24% of registered voters in City of Atlanta voted in the November 3rd general election. If we are lucky, just half of that will vote in this runoff. That means about one in eight of us will be deciding who will run this city at a crucial juncture in our governance. That, frankly, is just sad. I really hope everyone who reads this site who lives in the City of Atlanta will decide to be part of the electorate, rather than part of the problem.

OK, stepping off my soapbox now. Good luck to the candidates and the many people I know who are busting their asses to get good people elected. (You can sleep starting Wednesday!)

Reminder: Virtual Candidate Forum Today

As I posted about on Friday, the Committee for a Better Atlanta's Virtual Candidate Forum is today from 4:30 to 7:00pm. Already, some great questions have been posted on CfaBA's website, and I am sure even better questions will be asked during the live forum itself.

Here is the schedule of candidate question sessions, if you want to ask questions or just see what each has to say:

4:30 pm Kasim Reed (Mayor)
4:45 pm Amir Faroki (City Council Post 2 At-Large)
5:00 pm Clair Muller(City Council President)
5:15 pm Ceasar Mitchell (City Council President)
5:30 pm Mary Norwood (Mayor)
5:45 pm Liz Coyle (City Council District 6)
6:00 pm Alex Wan (City Council District 6)
6:15 pm Aaron Watson (City Council Post 2 At-Large)

Depending on how much I get to participate and whether it ends up as interesting as I'm hoping for, I may have a summary up later tonight for those of you who can't make it.

Questions for the Candidates?

In what I can only assume was a complete and total mistake (calling me a "prominent blogger" makes me question your judgment!), the Committee for a Better Atlanta has invited me to participate in a Virtual Mayoral Forum next Tuesday from 4:30 to 7pm. The event will be hosted live on CBA’s online community at http://www.betteratlanta.org/. I have been asked to pass this information on to you, my 12 readers, so that you can submit questions for Norwood and Reed during the forum. If you aren't comfortable submitting your own questions and you want me to ask the candidates something, put it in the comments, or email me at sarawara@gmail.com if you are not comfortable posting your question for all to see.

In addition, you should tune in on Tuesday, since this really is a fairly cool concept and probably will be a little more interesting than the standard televised debates.

The Committee for a Better Atlanta will also be allowing us to pose questions to the City Council candidates in the various races that have gone to runoff--Clair Muller vs. Ceasar Mitchell for the Council President slot, Amir Farokhi vs. Aaron Watson for At Large Post 2, and Alex Wan vs. Liz Coyle for District 6. So please pass along questions for them, if you have them, as well.

If nothing else, it is nice that even local politics are embracing the power and opportunities of social media. I still am surprised I was included in this because I feel like a blogging peon, but want to give everyone the opportunity to participate. So have at it!

On Advocacy

It is very easy for people to make fun of, look down upon, and pass judgment upon lawyers. As I have often said to friends, lawyers have the reputational issue they do because generally people only need one of us at the worst points in life: you have been injured, you have been accused of a crime, you have been sued, you are getting a divorce, you need to declare bankruptcy, or someone has died. As a result, it often feels to people who suddenly need to interact with lawyers that we are profiting from your misfortune, because we get paid for the work we do on some of the worst days of your life.

But on the worst days of your life, when your property, your liberty, or your rights are at risk, I assure you that you will want the most vigorous advocate you can find. You will want the person who will leave no stone unturned in trying to find the evidence of your innocence or the police misconduct that will keep you out of jail. You will want the person who persuades the judge not to give your ex sole custody of your children. You will want the person who makes sure your company is not run out of business by a massive punitive damages award simply because you made a great product that was involved in an isolated and unforeseeable injury. You will want the strongest advocate you can find and afford, and you will want that person to agree to represent you even if you are not 100% pure. Because frankly, nobody is.

When we sign up to go to law school, we know we will someday take an oath to vigorously advocate on behalf of our clients. We will agree to keep their secrets in virtually all circumstances (except when telling them can prevent death or serious injury to someone else). We will agree to take on representation we may later be ethically prohibited from withdrawing from even if we never get paid. We will agree to take positions that we may not personally agree with, because they are the best position for our client. And we will agree to put our own self-interest behind the interests of our clients virtually all the time. This is part and parcel of becoming a lawyer.

We agree to all of these things because we believe that vigorous advocacy is a necessary part of our criminal and civil justice system, which for all of its faults is the best one in the world. We recognize that we hold tremendous responsibility within that system as "officers of the court" to bring injustice to light, to prevent the entry of falsehood into the record whenever we can, and to ensure that every litigant's rights are protected whenever possible. Thought it is fashionable to assume we walk into court and lie every day, throw out the bad documents if we don't feel like turning them over to the other side, and train our witnesses how to wriggle out of responsibility for their actions, the truth down in the trenches is not even remotely close to this. In 9 years of practice, I can count on one hand, not using all of the fingers even, the number of lawyers I have worked with or battled against who I truly felt pushed the bounds of legal ethics. These people are usually treated as pariahs by the rest of us who are, by and large, passionate about upholding what we have sworn to do.

Some people can't fathom the commitments our profession requires, and for those people it is easy to announce moral absolutes about how they would rather get fired than represent this type of criminal defendant or that corporate behemoth with sketchy accusations against them. Perhaps they are incapable of compartmentalizing, and cannot understand that preventing police and prosecutorial excess is important even when doing so in defense of someone who committed armed robbery or rape. Perhaps they are incapable of anything but strict adherence to a particular ideology, and prefer not to examine it too closely to see if it should be revised from time to time. Whatever the reason, for people who recognize their own unsuitability for this profession to criticize the way in which others have performed it is ludicrous.

Kasim Reed defended large corporations accused of discrimination and other violations of employees' statutory rights. Not every case in which discrimination is alleged is meritorious, and not every corporate defendant accused of discrimination is branded an evildoer for all time.

Some plaintiffs' employment cases are bogus, and those should be weeded out and dismissed so that the meritorious cases can be resolved faster and more amicably. If a county has 20 rape allegations in one month and half of them are proven to be false accusations, then it makes it harder for the other 10 to obtain justice. The same is true with frivolous plaintiffs' litigation--it makes it harder for the meritorious cases to obtain justice more quickly.

In addition, corporations are not immutable objects incapable of change. A person may be a rapist for all time if convicted of (and actually guilty of rape.) But corporations are different--boards fire CEOs and hire new ones, company policies change, and the corporation that paid women less than men in 1979 shouldn't have that hanging over their heads thirty years later if it's no longer the case. To take Reed to task for representing Cracker Barrel in 1999 based upon cases that occurred years earlier completely ignores the potential for change within an organization. Perhaps this is by design--all large corporations are inherently evil, to some. But once we get to that point, we're demanding the sort of ideological purity that will disqualify virtually every candidate.

But even if I were retained to represent Cracker Barrel in a race discrimination case today--why shouldn't I? I am not going to lie, cheat or steal to win the case, I am only going to use the facts and evidence, legal defenses and procedural maneuvers legitimately available to me. If the company has really engaged in systemic discrimination, then that should usually result in either a verdict at trial or a settlement in the event the company's lawyers decide a trial win is unlikely. This is exactly how the free market is supposed to work--if someone is indefensibly injured or damaged by a corporation, the corporation pays. And if I am able to obtain dismissal of the case or keep the verdict/settlement low, then the case probably wasn't as meritorious is plaintiffs first believed.

What bothers me most about Cardinale's position is that he presumes all of the defendants Reed represented had violated the rights of employees, and that Reed was therefore working against workers' rights by advocating on behalf of those companies. Again, should we presume that simply because corporations are always evil and hurting people however they can? Do we really believe that? I have worked on hundreds of cases at this point in my career, and I have seen very few true slam dunks of liability. I have seen many, many cases that fall in the grey areas, and many cases that are obviously frivolous. To completely ignore the possibility that some of these companies were not liable for discrimination or statutory violations, and simply assume Reed was defending bad companies, is simplistic and unsupported by the evidence.

I've glossed over many of the points I wanted to make but struggled with, because they are difficult to wrestle with in one post. For example, the notion that a junior or midlevel associate in a large law firm gets to pick and choose what clients he wants to do work for is, frankly, ludicrous. Even now with 9 years of experience and some decent seniority, if I said "no, I can't represent Cracker Barrel because I disagree with things they've done in the past," I would expect it to potentially get me fired, and certainly lead to negative comments in performance reviews, etc. Earlier this year an associate at the law firm of Quinn Emmanuel was fired just a few days after sending an email in which he questioned whether the firm should be defending the Washington Redskins against constitutional claims brought by Native Americans. Law firms do not provide the freedom to pick and choose your clients as an associate, and I would never presume to demand that anyone to turn down an assignment when it could get them fired (and potentially blackballed within their industry to boot.)

Every single candidate for political office who is an attorney has probably represented an individual or entity who was guilty or liable of something bad. If we are going to start holding candidates to the standard that they can't have represented any client who ever committed a bad act, then we might as well just disqualify all lawyers from political office. Considering that our President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and more than half of Congress are lawyers...have fun picking from what's leftover after the disqualifications are complete.

I am not the slightest bit ashamed of my profession, or of having represented corporations accused of injuring people. They deserved a strong defense, and I provided it. I will not apologize for that simply because some people are incapable of understanding that I am fulfilling a necessary role in our justice system. Kasim Reed should not have to apologize for it either.

Let a Lawyer Show You How It's Done

(This post will be a refutation of the factual assertions made by Atlanta Progressive News in two articles about Kasim Reed's representation of corporate interests in employment litigation. The background stories are here and here. I have pulled up the very same PACER dockets from which these stories were allegedly researched, except I bothered to actually read them all the way through and understand what they mean. In a separate post, I will share my strong feelings as to why it is complete garbage to make a political issue out of who a lawyer has represented.)

Dear Atlanta Progressive "News," if you weren't such lazy, biased f*cking douchebags, this is what you would have reported about Kasim Reed's representation of various corporations in employment litigation:

Kasim Reed's background

Reed was admitted to the bar in 1995. He initially joined the Atlanta law firm of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, where he was an associate in their employment litigation department. In that role, he represented a variety of corporations in cases brought against them alleging various types of employment discrimination, unfair employment practices, and the usual sorts of claims that employment litigators are called upon to defend. After a few years at Paul Hastings, Reed left for Holland & Knight, where he continued to practice employment litigation. It is not clear if he is still a current H&K employee, or if he is either on leave of absence or has left the firm to concentrate on his mayoral race. My guess is that he will have left H&K for good if he is elected.

First, APN tried to make an issue out of Reed's biography no longer appearing on the H&K website:

According to a 2006 article from the Black Commentator, the job description for Mr. Reed published on Holland & Knight's website read: "M. Kasim Reed represents employers in employment law matters, including sex, age and disability discrimination, civil rights litigation, and contract-related disputes… He has extensive experience representing employers before various state and federal courts, as well as before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal and state administrative agencies."

Incidentally, since that time all references for Reed have been apparently removed from Holland & Knight's website, which is unusual, especially when a firm should be proud to have a former employee running for Mayor of Atlanta.

It is not rare at all for law firms to remove the biographies of attorneys from their websites. It happens whenever an attorney leaves a firm. It happens if an attorney goes on leave. In fact, contrary to APN's assumption that H&K would want the good press of a former attorney made good on their site, I have never heard of a big firm keeping a biography of an attorney who has left the firm on their website. This argument by APN is just stupid.

Reed's Representation of Cracker Barrel

APN then attempts to stir up a storm of controversy over Reed's representation of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain in employment litigation. As many people know, Cracker Barrel was sued for discrimination in a variety of contexts and venues over the last few decades, and did not have the greatest run of PR during that time period. APN dedicated almost an entire article to community activists and well known (and paid) Norwood supporters acting shocked that Reed would dare represent Cracker Barrel when everyone knows they're racist bad guys. And APN is correct that Reed is listed as an attorney for Cracker Barrel in the Serena McDermott case, filed in 1999. But here's the rest of the story, as deduced from the very same PACER federal court docket information that APN claims to have reviewed:

Reed was counsel of record from 1999-2001 for Cracker Barrel, in Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by a class of employees. Though the case was brought by the NAACP, and though Cracker Barrel has been sued before for discrimination, the Fair Labor Standards Act is not a race discrimination statute. The lawsuit in question sought payment of unpaid and overtime wages, based upon allegations that the employees were made to work "off the clock," putting in more hours than they actually were compensated for and accruing time that was not compensated as overtime.

In other words, Reed did not defend Cracker Barrel in any sort of race discrimination case, or ANY type of discrimination case for that matter. Shame on APN for suggesting otherwise by quoting various individuals in their article to talk about past allegations against Cracker Barrel, without making the distinction between those cases and the one case Reed worked on.

In addition, Reed worked on the McDermott case from 1999-2001. The case continued until 2005, but PACER shows he was terminated from the case on 10/16/01. He was also one of twelve different attorneys who appeared on behalf of Cracker Barrel in the litigation, according to PACER. He was a 5th-7th year associate at the time of his involvement in this case, so it is not fair to suggest that he was lead counsel or necessarily even had a significant role in crafting the defense of Cracker Barrel to this major class action litigation. Attorneys can be added to the docket of a case whenever they appear for purposes of signing a few pleadings, appearing at a deposition or hearing, or to take over temporary responsibility for another attorney. Chances are good in a case of this magnitude that many firm associates were called upon to work on the case at various times, and Reed's role may have been very small. Neither of the two articles contain any followup research by APN to review the actual pleadings in the case to attempt to deduce if Reed was signing pleadings, if he was appearing at hearings or conferences, or if he had any significant involvement in the litigation. (I have not done that yet myself, but may do so if people continue to try and insist that he was lead counsel on this case and that it somehow should matter to his mayoral chances.)

APN also apparently did not contact the Reed campaign and give them a chance to respond to the allegations that Reed defended Cracker Barrel in cases brought by aggrieved workers. (There is no reference in either of the two articles about the Cracker Barrel case that APN sought comment from Reed or his campaign.) Presumably, Reed's campaign would have provided this sort of clarification of the actual scope of his role, however vast or limited, and it would have provided the article with proper context. But proper context does not appear to be what APN was after.

Kasim Reed's Other Employment Litigation Matters

Apart from the Cracker Barrel case, APN also reported about four other employment litigation cases in which Reed was counsel of record. I've checked those dockets as well. In the case in which he represented ATC Healthcare, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 2/13/97 until the case was terimnated in 9/16/98. In the case against The Hayman Company, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 12/11/96 until the case was terminated on 5/27/97. In the case against Parsons Brinckerhoff, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 2/14/96 until the case was terminated on 3/31/98. In each of these cases, the defendants were represented by additional counsel beyond Reed, and he was only a junior or midlevel associate at the time. He was almost certainly assigned to these cases and working under the direction of a partner who actually made the strategic decisions for the direction of the case.

To act like Reed was calling the shots and standing up to defend these companies in these cases when he was probably just a BigLaw minion is either disingenous, or demonstrates complete lack of understanding for life as a BigLaw employee. Since I am a BigLaw employee, in my next post I will explain exactly why it is ridiculous for APN to expect Reed or any other law firm attorney to refuse representation of companies that have been accused of race discrimination or other bad things, and why it is even more ridiculous to hold those past representations while a BigLaw associate against Reed the mayoral candidate today.

Absolutely

Stefan at Blog for Democracy gets it exactly right in his open letter to Kasim Reed, who I support in the Atlanta mayor's race. While I want Reed to win, Stefan is 100% correct that HOW you win elections is very nearly as important as WHETHER you win elections, at least for those of us who have to live in this city after a mayor is chosen. I want Reed to win (or rather, unfortunately, I don't want Mary Norwood to be my next mayor), but I don't want him to do it in a way that further polarizes city residents or reinforces the rest of the state's views of what's wrong with Atlanta.

I'm glad someone finally articulated the importance of how the next few weeks go down, because it definitely does matter and the stakes are huge.

Election Day

I've agonized over whether to do an endorsements post for the city elections that are happening today, because I'm concerned I will not be able to provide good strong reasons for my votes. So instead, I will just tell you who I am voting for and let you sort out whether it makes any sense or not.

Atlanta Mayor: Kasim Reed
Oh how I have struggled over this vote. I do not particularly like any of the candidates, but Reed made me cringe the least. Then Shirley Franklin gave him her quasi-endorsement yesterday, which I had feared for months. In the end, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Reed anyhow.

City Council President: Clair Muller
When I don't really know anything about the candidates, I vote for the girl.

City Council At Large Post 1: Michael Julian Bond
Because some of my politically astute friends said so.

City Council At Large Post 2: Amir Farokhi
Because we need to build a bench of young charismatic progressives in this state.

City Council At Large Post 3: Lamar Willis
This is a hold my nose vote, since Willis has had some ethical issues but from all accounts his opponent is not a better option.

City Council District 6: Alex Wan
I've met him, and he was impressive while the other candidates are all either really unpalatable or completely unprepared for real political office, judging by their increasingly bizarre mailers and astroturf wars in the Creative Loafing blog comments. This race is guaranteed to head to runoff, so I just hope this is one of the two lucky campaigns that get to fight it out for another month so we can watch the antics continue. (In the interest of full disclosure, I also know his campaign manager.)

For all of the Board of Education races,I'll be voting for the incumbent since I have no children in school and therefore no reason to believe that Fulton county schools are being run poorly. I have met Charlie Stadtlander, who is running for one of those seats, but I recently heard he's a Republican so that pretty much nixed any desire I had to deviate from my incumbency votes.

So there you have it. I'll be heading to Inman Middle School this morning, where I expect turnout will be ridiculously light. That's sad, because this is an important election for the City of Atlanta and will impact all of us more than we may realize.

AJC gets it right

It's easy for some in the local blogging community to treat our local newspaper as irrelvant, what with their repeated downsizing and the growing conventional wisdom that their eventual death and closure (and that of most major newspapers) is all but certain. But once in awhile, the AJC rises up and reminds us that news of their imminent demise is greatly exaggerated, and they can still put forth excellent local reporting of importance.

Yesterday's paper featured a fascinating story from AJC reporter Alison Young about the site of a former lead smelter in Atlanta's Morningside neighborhood, which may still be the source of some particularly scary pollution. Young's story is well-researched and incredibly thought provoking, particularly considering that numerous very expensive neighborhoods border the former smelter site. It appears that the entities who owned the site after the smelter was shut down have never bothered to undertake any sort of cleanup or remediation efforts at the site, so nearby families may still be exposed to unsafe levels of lead poisoning.

As a resident of Morningside who nearly bought a house just around the corner from that site, I was shocked to find that an obvious pollution source was sitting there unquestioned in what is otherwise a fairly active and vocal neighborhood. I am willing to bet most of the people who live in the area are similarly unaware and will be quite horrified to read this story. Already the article has resulted in an EPA investigation to determine if the federal Superfund program should mount a cleanup operation. (Interestingly, the state's environmental cleanup fund is broke and can't afford to provide any assistance here.)

Given that the City of Atlanta is currently in the throes of some fairly important elections, it will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue. Young should be commended for bringing attention to a story that we might never otherwise have heard about, and potentially saving families from future health effects due to exposure to lead in the area. Nice work, AJC.

Are you a clueless voter?

Don't be ashamed...I am too. When I voted in the February 2008 primary, I was shocked at how many positions I had to vote for where I knew completely zilch about any of the candidates. In those races, I decided my votes based on such superficial and ineffective factors as:

Who is the incumbent, and do I think it's likely that a change at that position is warranted? (For example, I always think the Fulton County Clerk of Courts could use a shakeup because that place is a total mess!)
Whose yard signs have I seen on my street at neighbors' houses?
Whose name interests me the most?
Which candidate is female?
Who have I *not* read a negative news story about in the last year?

I walked away from that experience determined to know more the next time I had to vote in a local election. Thankfully by the time the general election rolled around my choices had narrowed (or been decided in the primary since few Republicans are on the ballot in my district), so my choices were easier.

However, in 3 weeks we will have an election here in Atlanta that will be important, and if you're as wilfully clueless about local politics as I am, then you might be wondering if it's worth the time it would take to educate you about the issues. Well, what better way to make the decision about who should get your vote than to meet them up close and in person? You can do that tomorrow night, October 15th, at Manuel's Tavern. The Mid-Fulton Democrats have invited the mayoral candidates and all of the city council candidates to participate.

Now, rather than that pathetic list I gave you, you can at least decide your votes on things like their fashion sense, what beers they drink, and who has the hottest campaign staff. Knowledge is power, people!

Mood Music: a song and a story

It's been a weird week, folks. Thanks to Monday morning's email from the ex-boyfriend, I've had more occasion to think about my life in Tallahassee and Boston many years ago than I have in ages. This morning the following song came on my iPod and it immediately transported me to 2002.

But let me take you back even further, to the fall of 1995 when we first met. I was a young, inexperienced and woefully naive 20 year old FSU student. My roommate convinced me to run for student Senate, and while campaigning for our seats I met Gabe. I actually met him for the first time at the house just on the edge of campus that we used as our campaign HQ--known as the "House of Kaos." I was at a party there, and Gabe walked in. (He was also a student senate candidate.) It was one of those moments like out of a movie, when you see someone and for no apparent reason you realize they are going to be significant to you in ways you cannot possibly anticipate. A few days later, we spent an afternoon campaigning sitting at a table outside the English building talking to students who stopped by and wanted to know more about our party, the Progressive Coalition. I was intrigued by him, and the die was cast.

During the course of that senate campaign, I also met Susan, who was running for one of the other Arts & Sciences senate seats. We became fairly good friends almost immediately, and in the months that followed after we won our senate seats and took over the FSU student senate, we spent a lot of time together. Susan was there for the budding romance between Gabe and I, including the disastrous first date (wherein SOMEONE neglected to mention to me that he would be rooting for Miami until we arrived together at the FSU-Miami game), the dream I had that convinced me to give him another chance despite said disaster, and the growing realization that there was more than just a spark at work.

Susan probably also knew it would be an eventual catastrohic failure. In some very obvious and important ways, he and I were so different.

For reasons I've long since forgotten, Susan and I fell out of touch. Gabe and I moved to Boston for several years before we finally broke up at the beginning of 2002. At the end of that year, I bought Aimee Mann's Bachelor No. 2, and I can still remember the slow, sad smile that crept across my face as I listened to this song for the first time. It was just so right.

In a happy quirk of coincidence, Susan and I have now both ended up living in Atlanta, and last fall we reconnected via Facebook. There is something so wonderful about reconnecting with someone who knew you at such an incredibly important formative point in your life, and I am privileged to have her as a friend again. I have never told her this story of how this song has made me think of her for the past 7 years, but hopefully she will listen to it and smile as well.

Mood Music

Tuesday night I went to see U2 at the Georgia Dome. The show was fantastic. Though I was not surprised by it, they did not play my favorite song of theirs:



The doors you open
I just can't close...

Atlanta voter registration deadline fast approaching

It's hard to imagine that anyone managed to make it through the 2008 election without getting registered to vote, what with the dramatic rise in both registration and turnout. However, some people may have been stuck under a rock, and others may have moved and not had a chance to register at their new residence yet.

If you are a city of Atlanta resident and want to be able to vote in the incredibly important upcoming mayoral election to choose Shirley Franklin's replacement, you better make sure you are registered soon. October 5th is the deadline to register in time to be able to vote in the November 6th election. (And only those who registered in time will be eligible to vote in the even-more-important-and-inevitable runoff elections in December.) Creative Loafing has the details.

Why should you bother to vote in a municipal election for perhaps the first time in your life? Well, if you live within the Atlanta city limits then you almost certainly have been at minimum troubled by, if not directly touched by, the rash of high profile crimes in the city. You may have been bothered by the willful blindness exhibited by our current mayor and her police chief. You may be flabbergasted that in this day and age our once-progressive city is raiding gay bars to prevent the victimless crime of dancing in tighty whities. You may want to make sure that fiscal irresponsibility remains just a bad memory for our city rather than a hallmark. There are a host of good reasons to actually pay attention and vote in this election. So make sure you have the power to have a say, and get registered this week!

An interesting Atlanta-centered legal dispute

The organizers of this year's Dragon*Con are working through lawyers to persuade the Guinness Book of World Records to grant them the record for the largest choreographed performance of "Thriller," with over 900 people. Watch it here:



The previous record was 242 participants, but unfortunately before the Dragon*Con dancers' record could be established, almost 14,000 Mexicans beat them out and were able to obtain the official Guinness record. I'm not really sure how much of a legal issue this is (is the Guinness system considered an offer of a prize for completion of a task in reliance upon the receipt of the prize?) but I am sure one of the other lawyers who reads here and who has burned away fewer brain cells since law school than I have can wax philosophical on that point.

At any rate, the Dragon*Con video is hilarious, if for no other reason than at one point you see the Flying Spaghetti Monster doing the Thriller dance. Mexico's got nothing on that!

A Little Atlanta Inspiration

Very few things penetrate my hard little cynical heart these days, but when they do I feel the need to share. Reading the fascinating inside story of how community advocate Kyle Keyser decided to run for mayor and then managed to raise the $4500 filing fee in just under three days, I felt like the grinch who finally learned the meaning of Christmas.

I haven't been involved with Keyser's group ATAC for several months now, mainly because I began despairing that crime in Atlanta was a problem that the powers that be simply refused to really tackle head-on. I felt hopeless and decided there was no point in paying attention to those who had not yet lost hope. Keyser isn't going to win the mayor's race, but he will certainly keep the other candidates on their toes when it comes to the issues of rising crime in Atlanta and police incompetence. And in his continuing quest to achieve his ultimate objectives of a safer Atlanta with more accountable public officials and police force, that will be a tremendous achievement.

Ultimately it's a very inspiringly American story. An average guy who would never have seen himself doing something like this a year ago is now thrust into the spotlight of running for mayor. He calls up on his friends and neighbors to help him, and they come through. And then, once he cleared the first hurdle of qualifying, Keyser knew exactly where they should go for lunch afterwards.

My heart grew three sizes today.

The blueprint

Last night, I did not make it to Rep. Hank Johnson's town hall meeting on Healthcare due to work obligations and reports that a crowd of over 1000 were expected. The actual attendance numbers were likely well north of 1000 based upon on the ground reports, but the event overall turned out to be a mostly respectful discussion rather than the sort of bail-money-necessitating fruforal we worried it would be on Twitter. In fact, I'd dare say after reading the various reports catalogued below that Rep. Johnson may have just laid out the blueprint for other Democrats on how to do this townhall thing the right way.

Here are others' reports from the event:
Griftdrift's official writeup and Gonzo notes
Blog for Democracy's liveblog and next day impressions
Creative Loafing's Andisheh Nouraee gives his take from the madness outside
AJC's account

And here are some fantastic photographs from Josh D. Weiss.

I'm happy to see that Atlanta managed to have a lively discussion without any of the violence or truly scary behavior that has marred other town halls. Way to do our city proud, folks.

Be Heard

By now you have undoubtedly read the stories of Town Hall meetings and other public forums held by Congressmen that have devolved into protests, fights, and chaos. Well, if you want to see what all the fuss is about, you can come to Rep. Hank Johnson's town hall meeting on healthcare tonight:

Monday, August 10 from 7 to 9 p.m.
Georgia Perimeter College Clarkston Campus
Cole Auditorium/FineArtsCenter
555 North Indian Creek Drive
Clarkston, GA 30021

Why would I voluntarily go to such a fruforal, you might be wondering? Because I think it is important for everyone to make their opinions on this important issue known, not just those who are willing to yell the loudest to shut down debate.

We know what the tactics will be in this fight--creating the appearance of overwhelming opposition, relying upon supporters to be too confused or lazy to counter, and by spinning half-truths and outright lies in the media in order to scare people. It is time for those of us who want to see real change to do a little work to get there. I'm standing up and making the effort. Will you?