Ignore it, and it will go away. 08/24/2006 03:31:12 pm by Dan Krohn

	Over the last couple of days, I have twice come across people espousing “The Law of Attraction”. On these two occasions, this law was explained thusly: the subjects of our attention, by the sheer fact of their being subjects of our attention, will increase in number, size or some other magnitude. The most recent conversation revealed that I had upset someone by focusing attention on unpleasant things in the world. Now I am a firm believer in at least one aspect of this law of attraction, and a possible believer in other aspects. There is no doubt in my mind that a person who takes delivery of her/his brand new green Chevrolet will immediately start noticing a surprising number of green Chevrolets on the road. Has that person’s attention on his/her car caused others with green Chevrolets to drive to his/her neighborhood? Did it cause others to run out and buy green Chevies? Doubtful. Rather that person has developed increased awareness of green Chevrolets and notices them now when they were ignored before. Willing to go further, I am quite convinced that one giving attention to something unpleasant might find herself attracting more of that unpleasant something into her life. For example, Gautama Buddha, upon giving attention to poverty the first time, became troubled and chose a life of poverty for himself. (We can argue without really knowing how much free will was involved in his choice.) Where the law of attraction collapses for me is when it is expanded to give one person power over others. For example, it would be difficult to persuade me that Buddha’s attention to poverty directly caused more poverty to exist in the world - though it caused more poverty to exist in his world. Did Jesus by focusing attention on the downtrodden bring more misery to humanity? Similarly, I would not condemn Mother Theresa, as a person, aided and abetted by the media, who brought into the world untold amounts of poverty, disease and suffering. Nor can I believe that a person volunteering to help build a house through Habitat for Humanity is thereby, through his attention, increasing world homelessness and the percentage of persons living in slums. Again, such a volunteer, moved by compassion and an increased knowledge of the suffering of others and the ability to help, might choose to volunteer again - bringing more homeless people into his world. And there lies the rub. Taken to the extreme interpretation or application, belief in the law of attraction requires a person to give up compassion, because by its very nature compassion focuses attention on the less fortunate. If this law demands that we subscribe fully to the yuppie lifestyle, focusing all of our attention on bringing pleasure into our own worlds, paying no attention to others, it is a law that needs changing. But as a lawyer, I know that all laws are subject to interpretation. I choose to interpret the law of attraction in a compassionate way.

	[comments?]

War on Terror 08/16/2006 06:45:11 pm by Dan Krohn

	President George W. Bush has declared a “War on Terror” in the United States. While previously this blog has stated that one cannot have a war on terror (one can have a war against a group of terrorists - an important grammatical distinction), there is no arguing that terrorist acts are dominating the news. For the sake of convenience, this blog will refer to the war on terror from time to time as that term is coming into standard use. Unfortunately, eliminating acts of terror is a very difficult task. Below are a list of statements concerning the war on terror that appear to be true or at least have strong arguments in their behalf: 1) The United States must maintain a very strong military capability. 2) That military capability must be different from that of the nuclear standoff which was characteristic of the Cold War. 3) Successful opposition to the war on terror requires that the United States government cooperate with as many other governments as possible - ideally all of them. But The United States wants nothing to do with any number of nasty totalitarian states. 4) Terrorists are less likely to be bred in nations where the population is free. (Free in this context means having a democratic government that respects human and civil rights.) Most, not all, terrorists seem to be arising in totalitarian states. 5) Some civil rights must be limited or modified in order to effectively defend against terrorists. Yet, if too many civil rights are eliminated, the United States will cease to exist - save in name only. 6) Amartya Sen is correct when he argues that no one living in poverty is truly free. Thus, it is advantageous to assist people in escaping the enslavement of poverty. 7) The United States cannot afford to maintain all the military capability it would like. Nor can the United States afford to single-handedly lift everyone from poverty. The reader may disagree with some or all of the statements above. Indeed they contradict each other to some degree. Nonetheless, each of the statements above has been argued by more knowledgeable people than I. How do we reconcile them? I look forward to suggestions.

	[comments?]

Noncompete Agreements 08/16/2006 06:11:45 pm by Dan Krohn

	In this day and age, it is not at all uncommon for employers to request/require employees to sign agreements promising that they will not leave their jobs to compete with their employers for some specified length of time. Such agreements can be enforced, but here in Texas they have an interesting history. And in all probability, many of those agreements upon which Texas employers are relying would not be enforced by Texas courts today. Historically the Texas legislature has rather liked the concept of noncompete agreements. However, the Texas courts have not been so friendly - viewing such agreements as unfair restraints on the free enterprise system. The legislature has not altogether favored employers in this regard as the statutory authorizations for noncompete agreements have placed limits on them. Basically the limits have required that such agreements be reasonable in terms of geography and length of time. But if you are an employer, do not relax yet! Even if the limits are geographically reasonable and reasonably short; that is not enough. Under current Texas law, the employer must give the employee something in return for her/his autograph on a noncompete. For you readers who are thinking, "Well, I've given them jobs. Isn't that enough?" the answer is maybe but probably not. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, employment in Texas is "at will". That means, the employer can fire the employee for any reason at any time. ("Reasons" such as "It's summer and I'm hot - I think I'll fire someone" are quite acceptable.) Of late the Texas courts have made it very clear that employment "at will" is not enough. A job that someone could lose at anytime for any reason (or none) has been described as "illusory" in terms of consideration, that undefined something that an employee must receive in return for the noncompete to render a noncompete enforceable. Now it is still theoretically possible to have an enforceable noncompete agreement in Texas. Most obviously, it could be combined with an employment contract for a specific term under which the employee could only be fired for certain reasons. But many employers dread giving up the at will nature of the employment relationship. Well, in theory it is possible to have an enforceable noncompete agreement where the employee is employed at will; but you'd better have a good attorney draft it and it should have been drafted recently! Even then, it gets very dicey. Help might be on the way. The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Sheshunoff case. That case has been pending before the Texas Supreme Court for quite a while. If and when there is a written opinion of the court in that matter, we might get some clarification as to just what the law is. Of course, the legislature could always jump back in next session and toss employers and employees back into confusion.

	[comments?]

Back Again 08/16/2006 06:06:08 pm by Dan Krohn

	My apologies to readers. Over the last few weeks obligations to clients have had me hopping and my blog postings have been sparce. But much is happening in the world, so I'm back, commenting on issues which I find interesting and important. Comments with different points of view are welcomed.

	[comments?]

Where's Enforcement? 08/01/2006 03:25:24 pm by Dan Krohn

	Immigration has somehow become one of the top issues on the U.S. political agenda. And a HOT issue it is. Interestingly this is an issue on which the Republican party seems to be split. Some have proposed very strong measures and want a fence built on our southern border. Others, including the president, want a system that allows illegal immigrants to work here - at least some of them some of the time. Though there have been the expected denials, it seems clear that the leadership in Congress has timed hearings so as to avoid awkward votes before the November elections. Heaven forbid their constituents be able to vote knowing their positions. Now it seems that many are overlooking at least one simple fact. We do not need new laws to go after illegal immigrants; we have plenty already. If there is a problem with too many illegal immigrants in the land, what we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books. And to have effective enforcement, we need to enforce the laws against employers who hire the illegal immigrants. Once in a while some company gets nailed, but it is quite rare. For some reason a decision was made somewhere that enforcement of the immigration laws against employers would not be a high priority. Who made that decision? There must be some group with substantial political clout. "Follow the money" is an old and accurate saying. If the jobs were not being offered to illegal immigrants, then they would stop coming. Now this author has not come to a final conclusion on the immigration issue, as it is very complex. We ought not jump to hasty conclusions but need to consider a host of issues such as the effects of cutting off the flow of money from illegal immigrants in the U.S. to their families south of the border. But rather than passing yet more laws, which may or may not be enforced for the purpose of making a show for the public, if immigration is a problem, let's have enforcement of the laws already on the books. And that should include enforcement against employers of illegal immigrants, even if those employers are major campaign supporters of those who are charged with doing the enforcing.

	[comments?]

Is there such a thing as wrong? 08/23/2006 05:03:47 pm by Dan Krohn

	“There is no such thing as wrong.” Recently while dining with a friend, I heard that interesting philosophical proposal stated as absolute truth. It was not the first time. That was at a lunch meeting about four years ago, where the statement was presented by the guest speaker at a luncheon. (Perhaps this is a position only taken by people enjoying a good meal.) To me this statement demanded more than casual acceptance. First there is the question of exactly what it means. On those occasions when I’ve heard it stated and argued that there is no such thing as wrong, the position has been advocated by kindly people generally inclined to a variation of “New Age” thought. Certainly many religions make the existence of wrong a centerpiece. Perhaps they are both correct. So what does it really mean? Is it a corollary of there being no such thing as wrong, that everything is right? Is everything “right”? If indeed everything is right, then the term “right” ceases to have any meaning whatsoever. If that is the case, then everything simply is. This is a rather Eastern way of thinking, but there is a certain validity to the interpretation. After hearing this statement, I posed the it to a Buddhist friend of mine. His suggestion was direct: that the next time I heard someone say, “There is no such thing as wrong” I should slap them across the face and ask, “Are you sure?” On second thought, my friend suggested serving such a speaker spoiled food as a less violent demonstration. After all, if nothing is wrong, it follows that serving five day old fish must not be wrong. Yet, there is a position from which the statement is correct. From God’s point of view, everything may well be working just the way it should work. In Genesis, God creates the world and says that it is good. And perhaps according to God’s design criteria, the world is just perfect. However, we humans are not existing on God’s plane, and lacking omniscience and perfect understanding, not entitled to the same viewpoint. The matter comes down to free choice. Do we humans have the ability to make choices? And is it possible to make wrong choices? I can easily believe that this world was created with free choice in mind, that the system is working very well, indeed perfectly, and that free choice is part of that system. A close friend of mine often states that people are designed to learn by trial and error. If he is correct, then there are right choices and wrong choices; and we hope over time to improve our choosing capability. Ultimately each of us must ask ourselves whether or not we are entitled to hurt others. Indeed, it may even be required for humans to examine the extent to which they have an affirmative burden to help others. And is an effort by parents to impart some form of moral code to their children required? If the answers to any of those questions are affirmative, then for us there exists both right and wrong. And therein lies the trap. Humanity, living as it does on this planet, is required to make choices -- choices between right and wrong. To believe otherwise is to condemn humanity to the inhumane.

	[comments?]