My Soda Blog.

$66 billion dollars a year. That’s what American’s spend on carbonated drinks every year. Well, according to this at least. (Notice it’s an addiction center website--I find that funny/interesting/disturbing/comical/questionable).

Another interesting factoid: from 1970 to 1990, “the supply of low-fat milk rose from 5.8 to 15.5 gallons..but that of soft drinks rose from 24.3 to 53 gallons.” Food Politics, Marion Nestle, page 9.

I started looking into the negative health effects of soda, and ahoy, there’s quite a few of them. Including, but not limited to:

• Tooth decay
• Obesity (“...for each additional soda consumed, the risk of obesity increases 1.6 times”)
• Bone loss
• Hypokalemia

Why am I writing about soda? When Jeff and I moved into our apartment back in 2008, we stopped buying soda because we realized we didn’t need to spend money on that. Ever since then, we consume mostly water and beer. And iced tea on occasion. It works out well. We save a few bucks, which allows us to buy more beer. But I digress.

After a while of not having soda at home, I realized that when we’d go out to eat, I didn’t feel like drinking soda. It was too sweet, and sounded less than appetizing. This made me realize how prevalent soda is everywhere, and how few alternatives there really are.

I was made more aware of this when I discovered Native Foods, and their non-soda beverages. It was disturbing to realize how weird it was that Native Foods didn’t have soda (instead they have delicious lavender lemonade, watermelon fresca, and native iced idea). So this got me thinking: how did this relationship develop between food establishments (especially fast food) and the soda industry, to the point that they go hand in hand?

Another food establishment that got me thinking about this, in a somewhat different manner, is In n Out’s policy regarding bottled water. The policy is that they don’t sell any. I found that really interesting, and pretty admirable. What does this have to do with soda? Well, it has more to do with the soda industry, since Dasani is owned by Coca Cola, and Aquafina is owned by PepsiCo. Interesting and long discussion on the promotion of bottled water versus tap water here.

Both of these got me wondering how this all got started, and how we ended up drinking as much soda and bottled water as we do.

Let’s start with a little history.

Carbonated drinks were sold commercially before the 19th century as tonic or “medicine,” and it wasn’t until someone started adding fruit syrups to it that soft drinks became popular. There’s also an interesting correlation between “soft” drinks and “hard” liquor, ha! It seems that soda became especially popular during the prohibition, where soft drinks were encouraged and promoted over hard liquor. Who knew?

You can find an interesting, and entertaining, history of soda fountains here. There’s also a time line and history of each major soda company (including my personal favorite, Dr. Pepper) that you can read here.

So, soda came, and it conquered.

It’s taken a special place in our culture. In an NPR article, a speaker states “I remember when I was a child, it was not considered appropriate to offer a soda with a meal on a regular basis, milk or water was the norm.” Ha!

The second segment of that NPR special talks about a student who was proud about having a healthy breakfast: a pineapple soda.

Huh.

Again, how did we get here?

Jeff has always been surprised by the legality of “lobbying.” So, you pay money to get what you want, even if it run against what’s good or in the best interest? Yep.

Food Politics has a whole chapter (chapter 9) devoted to lobbying efforts and soft drinks. It talks about how soft drink companies (mostly the Coca Cola company) pour tons of money into schools in exchange for exclusivity rights (aka “pouring rights”). Many schools are not in a position to turn down these financially lucrative offers, so what happens? “...soft drinks have replaced milk in the diets of many American children as well as adults...From 1985 to 1997, school districts decreased the amounts of milk they bought by nearly 30% and increased their purchase of carbonated sodas by an impressive 1,100%.” Nestle, 198-9; emphasis added.

The book has an interesting timeline of the history of regulations governing sales of soft drinks in elementary and secondary schools. For example, in 1970: amendments to 1996 Act ban sales of sodas in or near school cafeterias during mealtimes...then in 1972 another amendment permits sale during mealtimes if the proceeds benefit schools or school groups. Regulation authority is then transferred to the USDA, who tries unsuccessfully to clamp down even more and ban completely the sale of soda on school campuses. Every time they try to propose such amendments, the Coca Cola company and PepsiCo lobby against it. One bill introduction caused Coca-Cola to organize a letter-writing campaign “among school principles, superintendents, and coaches who feared losing revenues generated by vending machines.” Nestle, 208-9, 210.

Part of some state regulations include restrictions like “no water ices except those which contain fruit or fruit juices, shall be sold in any public school within the state.” So... “companies developed sweetened fruit ‘drinks’ that can be sold on lunch lines; these contain just barely enough juice (5%) to get around being defined as a food of minimal nutritional value.” Nestle, 212. Take THAT!

Food Politics focuses on lobbying only at the educational level, but I think that has longstanding implications: you get used to drinking soda at a young age, and probably continue to do so way past your formative educational years.

This website has some interesting, albeit outdated, information concerning campaign contributions and the Coca Cola company. The site breaks down campaign contributions by year, and by political party (up to 2003, $491,000 to Republican party committees and $8,850 to Democratic party committees--I find that interesting), as well as lobbying expenses.

“Congressional reluctance to favor children’s health above the rights of soft drink producers is a direct result of election laws that require legislators to obtain corporate funding for their campaigns. Like most corporations, soft drink companies donate funds to local and national candidates. More rational campaign financing laws might permit Congress to take positions based on public good rather than private greed.” Nestle, 217; emphasis added.

This influence on congress has far reaching implications.

The Coca Cola Company has been demonized in Latin America because of it’s influence on fighting local labor unions. There are sites dedicated to lobbying against the Coca Cola Company, suck as Killer Coke.

There’s also the issue of the environment. The Coca Cola Company seemed to be pretty bent out of shape when the Grand Canyon decided to ban plastic bottles from the park. Coca Cola has donated more than $13 billion to the parks, and the park started to second guess whether it really wanted to ban plastic bottles or not when Coca Cola representatives weren’t happy with the news. Hmmm. In the end, the park moved forward with its plans, but with some conditions.

Yikes, I kinda went all over the place on this one (this includes mixing issues such as soda health concerns and bottled water environmental concerns). I'm sure this could be a whole research paper on the subject, but hopefully these little tid bits of information are interesting to you. What it means to you is up to you. I still enjoy a Coke or Dr. Pepper on occasion, but I’m glad I stopped consuming as much of it as I used to.

Introducing: Discussions on Development

I had an idea.

Since Jeff and I met, we'd have these serious conversations about Guatemala, the impunity and corruption there, and we'd try to figure out the answers to "why?," and then the larger question of "what would change things?" I think these are some of my most favorite conversations with Jeff: we get super academic and talk about things that might be slightly out of our league :)

These questions followed me back from Haiti, and some of the best conversations I had with people there involved the same questions I mentioned above. My initial idea was to simply write one blog about my thoughts, the issues I see, and possible solutions (according to the not-all-knowing me), and leave it at that. But then I thought it would be cool to take it one step further. So here's my idea: have people who are similarly interested in answering the same questions do guest posts, where they can analyze the "how's" and "why's," in whatever context they find appropriate. For example, I asked Haiti Scholarships co-founder Jim, and he'll probably take on a more financial argument, being that he's a finance professor and all (and was that a shameless plug for Haiti Scholarships? Yep. Did I post the same link three times? Yes).

My disclaimers: I'm not claiming we have the solutions. Heck, people have been debating these answers for decades before I even came across them. My goal in getting different people to post their thoughts is simply to gain a little more insight about something I'm passionate about, and maybe open discussion about these same ideas. Unlike this guy, I don't really know what I'm doing. Also, I'm not big on censorship of ideas, so I will allow people to write about whatever they want, but I take no responsibility for their thoughts or opinions!

Finally, if you have any interest in submitting a guest post, do let me know :)

Old Spice vs. Edge Shave Gel

Apparently (I'm tempted to say "allegedly" but it just doesn't apply, sigh) I'm about a month behind on this, but I just saw the Edge Shave gel commercial tonight and the similarity to the Old Spice commercial was just uncanny.

It made me instantly wonder if something like that would actually work, or just backfire. On the one hand, they're using an idea that's worked before, to a miraculous degree. Ok, miraculous might be an exaggeration, but I guess that would depend on your religious/spiritual beliefs. It worked for Old Spice, why wouldn't it work for them? (I decided to do some research on whether the Old Spice ad campaign actually translated into money...and apparently it didn't. What it did do, however, was give Old Spice a facelift and show how social media can be put to good work in an advertising campaign.)

On the other hand, it's such a blatant copy cat, and Old Spice picked up quite the admiration with it's commercial, that maybe people would be offended that someone would copy it. I'm assuming that Edge Shave knew how blatant the copy cat was, and thought people would find it funny. But you can't mock something that people like...because people get defensive. And you're trying to win those people over to buy your product.

Turns out, this wasn't such a smart move for Edge Shave. Comments on the interweb were generally negative and disappointed in the blatant copying of the Old Spice commercials.

Anyhow, my thought process immediately following the commercial are superflous since comparisons have already been made. But I thought I'd add my two cents to the internet anyway.

What do you think:

vs.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Ugh.

So my last blog on the subject of ex-president of Guatemala, Alfonso Portillo, I wrote:

"This is a defining moment for Guatemala and its judicial system. I am hoping and praying that all parties play by the rules, and that Mr. Portillo doesn't get off the hook on some crazy technicality, or the judge rules important evidence is inadmissible for whatever reason she gets paid to bring up. Guatemala needs to prove it can punish criminal behavior, that corruption will not go unpunished. Here's their chance."

For those not familiar, Portillo was president of Guatemala from 2000-2004, during which time he embezzled about $15 million. Might not seem much compared to the millions we've heard thrown around after the financial crisis here in the U.S., but $15 million in Guatemala is some serious cash-ola. Guatemala is also infamous for letting criminals off the hook (corruption, in general), given criminals have the necessary money and connections.

With the introduction of the CICIG in Guatemala, I really thought this trial was going to go differently. I'm not sure what part of my rationality caved in with this thought process.

Today it was announced that Portillo, AND his fellow ministers of finance and defense, were all innocent of the embezzlement charges. From what I can tell from the two short articles available at this time (nothing in English yet), it seems the accounting evidence fell short of proving what needed to be proven, and something or other about deficient audits. Well no shit--I wonder who's fault that was. I'm looking forward to reading the opinion (if there is any), and seeing just how ridiculous it is.

Ugh.

(Radio Netherlands Worldwide)
"There's nothing I can't get away with."

Damn you for being right.

Update: I guess the U.S. still has a chance to try him on embezzlement charges. At least he was stupid enough to go through U.S. banks! It also seems that a key reason there was insufficient evidence was because the judge threw out two of the prosecutor's key witnesses for lying under oath. Hmmmmm..

The Economy Sucks.

I bet you had no idea! Ha. I think the current state of the economy is something this is affecting everyone in this country, no matter how rich or poor you were when it first started. In the least, I'm sure everyone at least knows someone who has been. Our little home has definitely felt the effects in a very personal way, and although it sucks, we just have to keep the hope that it will get better in time.

What is really scary is seeing all the business that are closing around town. On our way to Jeff's parents house, there is one shopping center that is completely empty except for the liquor store--because we all still need to drink away our sorrows, no matter how poor we are! But I've seen shopping centers like that everywhere...one shop closes down, then the next, then the next. Before you know it, there are tumbleweeds blowing across the parking lot. Cue Family Guy scene:

Cleveland: The only guy making any money is the guy that sells tumbleweeds.

Old guy: Y'all laughed at me! heh haw hah! Y'all laughed at me! (flashes money to beautiful woman) What do you think of this?

Beautiful woman: That makes you attractive!

Ok, enough of that.

So recently Jeff and I found out that our favorite Mexican restaurant, Fresca's, closed down. I am really bummed that we can't go there for lunch anymore, but I'm confident we can find mexican food somewhere else (one of the many great things about Southern California). What really bummed me out was thinking about the cashier who recognized us every time we came in, and the cooks who never seemed upset when I asked for extra limes or sour cream (although I still have my theory that that's because I speak Spanish...but now we'll never know). I can't help but wonder what they're doing now, how are they feeding their families, where they able to find something else?

According to a random website I found, 1.5 million businesses have closed, and California particularly has seen some of the greatest losses with 174,000 places closing.

In lieu of this, I'm sure we all know a business that was near and dear to our hearts that is no longer. What's your favorite business that has closed? Do you think they'll come back in a few years? For completely selfish reasons, I hope Fresca's is up and running again soon...

New Layout-ish.

Some of you may notice there are some [minor] changes to the blog. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I like the new color template because it's a lot easier to read. And I love the old map background at the top. But I can't get my picture to be centered, and that's driving the OCD-part of me a little insane. Any thoughts or suggestions? Should I got back to the old format or try to figure out this new one? Change is usually difficult for me, so it feels weird to switch this up, but I'm thinking it's time.

What's your impact?

So Jeff and I watched an interesting movie tonight that actually made me want to make some changes to how we do things in our home. I will admit that I wasn't stoked on watching it--not because it looked bad, I just wasn't in the mood for a documentary, but I'm glad we ended up watching it. The movie is called "No Impact Man," and is basically the project of one man to have him and his family live for a year without making any net impact: no trash, no energy consumption, etc. Sounds crazy, right? I still don't know how his wife agreed! (I also wonder how this guy ended up being a "traditional" family man...I think you'll know what I mean if you watch the movie ;) ). But she did, and they did, and there's a movie to prove it.

Other than being entertaining to watch, it made me think about what small things we can each do in our lives to make less of a negative impact on our environment. I know I'm not going to give up electricity as a whole, or get rid of my TV, but I'm sure there are things I can do that in the aggregate might make a small difference. The main protagonist in the film says that if you are going to do just one thing, it should be to get involved with a conservation project in your community: he thinks getting back to our sense of community is crucial.

I think most of us know of the obvious things we can do to have less impact:

• don't use bottled water. Use a container that's washable and reusable. "30 billion plastic water bottles are thrown away every year. Plastic can take up to a thousand years to disintegrate."
  
• lay off the plastic bags: instead of just leaving your Ralph's bag in the car, remember to take it down and use it instead of using plastic bags (I suffer from this a lot)
• use energy efficient light bulbs and household appliances (it took me over a minute to come up with the word "appliances")

Here are some things that might not be as obvious:

• did you know you can reduce your junk mail in your physical (not cyber) mailbox by calling places and asking them not to mail you stuff? I definitely need to do that. "Junk mail produces 1 billion pounds of landfill each year."
  
• support local farmers. I need to go to the farmers market more often.
• recycle, reuse, reduce. I'm pretty sure this was standard elementary education, but we tend to forget. I don't see myself making my own compost, but I would like to be more active in recycling stuff--not just plastics, cans and aluminum, but general stuff around the house.
• be more vegan. this one I'm really not sure I can do. I love bacon. I love a good burger every now and then. But then again, "animal agriculture emits more global warming gases into the air than does transportation." huh.

These are all pretty mild and tame ways of helping out. I recommend watching the movie to see what challenges you think you might be able to handle.

I do want to point out an interesting scene: the protagonist is talking to his wife during a period of frustration with his project wondering, why is he really doing this? Is it really making any difference? Towards the end, he goes on to explain that if we each get one person to change something in their lifestyle, then we are all making a difference. I thought it was especially interesting given my recent soul searching for my career. I've yet to delve into this and make any serious analysis or conclusion of it, but thought it was oddly similar to what I've been wondering about my desire to pursue public interest.

What do you do to reduce your global impact? What are your ideas?

Losing the Shimmer

I met up with a solo-practitioner last week to discuss how she started her own firm (let's call her Lucy), but was able to keep it public-interest minded. Basically, if I can't find a job working for a non-profit, I gotta find a way to make this whole attorney-thing work for me; a possibility is to start my own practice, but be able to keep it focused on low-income clients, while still making a living for myself (sounds almost like an extended oxymoron, huh?).

It was an extremely productive lunch meeting (I tried some sort of Thai coconut soup for the first time...something I would have never ordered myself, but actually enjoyed), but it also brought me back to a concept I brought up when I first started this blog: at what point do we stop pursuing our goals to pursue something more realistic?

Lucy worked for a big non profit law firm in Los Angeles about a year after law school, and I could see the shimmer in her eye when she talked about those days: everyone she worked with was empowered to change the world, and believed they could do it. There was a contagious excitement about the work they were doing, about helping people, about making it happen. Lucky worked with this non profit for about twenty years, until congressional regulations started restricting the kind of work they could do: no more personal injuries, no more class actions (these take away large sums of money from attorneys that actually want to get paid), no more funding if you're helping illegal immigrants, etc. Lucy grew so frustrated because she felt she was no longer doing what she went to law school do to, so she decided to go out on her own.

Years later, sitting in a hole-in-the-wall Thai restaurant in Brea, she talks about how she just had to make the decision, and now she has to be a business person rather than a public-interest attorney: she's gotta make money to pay for her elderly mothers 24-hour caregiver. I can tell from the shift in her tone, and the lack of shimmer in here eye, that she's not overly excited about this: she has to network with attorneys (ick! ;] ), put her name out there to find new clients, and charge clients for her service. I know charging seems normal to most of you, but for a public interest attorney who is used to working in a firm that provides free services, it feels almost immoral to charge people. But it's what she has to do now. She also wonders: how much impact was I really having, helping one person at a time? I certainly was no closer to saving the world when I first started, then twenty years later. I could tell this was something she had pondered before...her look became a little more distant, and I could see she was thinking of all the cases she had worked on in those twenty years and asking herself: did they really change anything?

I'm only two weeks into my unemployment (today is actually my two week anniversary!), but I'm already thinking about my alternatives if I can't find a job soon with a non profit or public interest firm. I might have to go out on my own. I'm gonna have to charge my clients. I'm gonna have to find a way to compromise what my heart desires, and what our family needs. How can I do this without loosing my shimmer? It may sound pathetic, but I'm scared of losing my idealistic aspirations, I'm scared of realizing I can't save the world.

Guatemala Update

A subject I have frequently written about is the Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala. I read a great article about it in the Washington Post today.

It was great to see the Washington Post write a long and thorough article on something that isn't in the news much, and that no mainstream media has much of an interest for.

As usual with Guatemala, it's depressing to see opposition to something that can actually help with the level of crime and impunity that exist within it. The CICIG has been facing opposition from various sectors since the very beginning, and I'm sure it will continue to face opposition for the remainder of its days. It just makes me sad.

It makes me sad because I read posts from my friend Isabel, who lives in Guatemala, and she talks about her frustrations with the crime and violence in Guatemala. People shut themselves in their house by 8pm. Their crime rate, as mentioned in the article, is three times that of Mexico. Three times. The crime rate of Mexico. Let that sink in for a bit.

So here's an organization that is fighting corruption and crime, and trying to prosecute those before thought to be untouchable because of their political influence and/or wealth. But it has to fight to survive.

I hope the two year extension of the CICIG is granted, and I hope it continues to provide meaningful improvements to the government of Guatemala. I hope the people of Guatemala demand it, should anyone stand in the way.

Eras of Friendships

Here's what I love about bridal showers, bachelorette parties, baby showers, etc.: you get to meet the different groups of friends of the person being celebrated. For my wedding festivities, there were the high school friends (Bhavini, thank you for representing!), the undergrad grup, the law school group, the Starbucks group, the work group, etc. It may cause a little bit of an anxiety attack to think of all these groups meeting, and wondering how they will mingle, but it's also absolutely amazing to see all of your closest friends, from all walks of life, together in one place.

I've been able to experience this several times, most recently at a co-workers bridal shower, and it never fails to amaze me. Every group has their own personality: the high school friends may be a little crazier than the law school folks, some maybe more social than others, but you can get a glimpse of what your friend's life was like during that period of time. I'm looking forward to many of these occasions in the next two Summers ;)

Part of the lawschool group at the Bui's wedding:

High school and college reps at my bridal shower:

Some of my Starbucks ladies (bearing an intense sun...)

Those were the days...

I remember the days, and I remember them well. I had made it through the initial stages of waking up, pulling some clothes over my head, pretending to brush my teeth, getting my backpack ready, and finally making my way to the kitchen. Drag my feet over to the pantry...pull out the cereal box...a free mini pez dispenser! A free super duper cool spoon! A free watch, action figure, trading card, or sticker! The possibilities were endless. And my excitement, extreme.

I also remember my mom yelling at me whenever she caught me digging through the cereal box...was I really supposed to wait patiently for the day it would just drop onto my bowl while I served my cereal? I mean, there's a TOY in there somewhere! And I can have it TODAY! So I would grab my cereal box, walk over to the dinning room table. Look left. Look right. Coast is clear. And...dig. My favorite was when they were on the side of the box, it always made things easier. Tell me I'm not the only one...

I'm not sure when it happened, but they stopped giving toys in cereal boxes. I'm sure it was because of a choking hazard or something, but the point is, they took away my cereal toys. And now, almost two decades later, they want to take away my happy meal toys. The argument is "that using toys to entice children instills bad eating habits and puts kids at higher risk of risk of developing obesity, diabetes, or other diet-related diseases over the course of their lifetime." Well...maybe, but that's why you have parents, right? To say, "no, no happy meal today," or "no, we're getting apple slices instead of fries," or "no, we're eating dinner at home today." I mean, since when is McDonald's supposed to be a regular part of a kids diet? Not gonna lie, one of my favorite parts about Sundays was going to McDonald's after church. Because that was the only time we had it, if at all. It was called a special occasion, not a daily dinner. I know people may have more hectic schedules these days, with most homes having both parents working and therefore less time to cook at home, but there are other alternatives to having McDonald's four times a week.

What are we all going to do now without the worthless pieces of plastic and paper? What are we supposed to fill our car side doors and random shelves with now? What are you supposed to sell for ten cents at garage sells? And how on EARTH can you call a Happy Meal a Happy Meal without a toy inside? We're doomed, I tell you, doomed.

Book Review: A Long Way Gone

Abby and I were wandering the halls of the Miami international airport, our last stop before boarding a plane to Haiti. We had a bit of a layover, and I really wanted to find something worth reading. I perused the bookstore for quite a bit of time, hoping to find something cheery and uplifting. I knew I was headed to a county that had been devastated by January's earthquake, so I didn't want something that was super serious or a "downer" by any means.

With those search criteria in mind, I came across "A Long Way Gone: memoirs of a boy soldier," by Ishmael Beah. How's THAT for a light read? I held on to that book for a while as I tried to find something "lighter," but nothing else really caught my attention, and I really had been wanting to read this book for a while. So the memoirs of a boy soldier it would be.

I'm a little torn on my review of this book. I think it gives a good account of what children soldiers have to go through, how they get where they are, and how they're able to carry out the orders they're given (which I know I didn't really understand before reading this book). The book gives a good first account of someone who has had to live through horrific and terrifying scenes, scenes which most of us can never even imagine.

I think my only criticism is that the author is simply telling his story, and I was wanting to read something "more." The author's purpose is to tell his story, not necessarily to win a Nobel Prize in Literature. He's not concerned with the flow of the book, or embellishments, or making sure things sound good, he is concerned with letting the world know what he had to live through. I think the book is exactly what you expect, and not much more. Like I mentioned before, it wasn't quite the book I was in the mood for, but I'm still glad I read it. It's a good read, especially if you've never read or heard about children soldiers, but in the words of a good friend, it's "not overly insightful or surprising." I would still give this book a read if you're in the right mood for it.

Guatemala CICIG Updates

Well, it seems Guatemala can't catch a break. Faithful readers may remember some prior blog entries where I mention the CICIG, the Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, and the work of it's director, Carlos Castresana. For whatever criticism Mr. Castresana and the CICIG have gotten, no one can deny the fact that more has been done in the past two years by Mr. Castresana and this organization to fight crime and corruption, then in anytime since the end of the civil war.

It was with a heavy heart that I read news earlier this week announcing Mr. Castresana's resignation from the CICIG. From what I read, Mr. Castresana was frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the Guatemalan government, and stated that he could do no more for the country. The tipping point, apparently, was the appointment of Conrado Reyes as Attorney General, an individual whom Mr. Castresana believed was linked to organized crime. Alvaro Colom, the president of Guatemala, disregarded Mr. Castresana's concerns and appointed Mr. Reyes anyway.

It's interesting, however, that days after Mr. Castresana's resignation the Constitutional Court of Guatemala handed down an ruling in which it ousted Mr. Reyes from the position of Attorney General. Colom is not disputing the ruling. Huh.

In a speech given to the press regarding his resignation, Mr. Castresana praised the success of the commission so far, giving a briefing on what they have accomplished so far, and what he recommends still needs to be done. He also stated he will be staying on board until a replacement is found.

Personally, I'm very sad to see Mr. Castresana go. He's one of the first people that I have seen talk about the issues and problems facing Guatemala without holding back: he was not afraid to name names, and to call out people who were before untouchable. His replacement has big shoes to fill, and I wish them the best of luck.

Who you are, defined by your iPhone apps :)

In the age of iPhones and iPhone applications, I've come to the realization that you can tell a lot about a person by the applications they decide to put on their phones. And I've come to the realization that I'm kind of a dork. There are the standard applications, for weather, maps, Facebook (a must, obviously). As far as games, I only use Words Free so Shirley can kick my butt, and Sol Free to play solitaire (see previous entry). Other than that, here are the applications I REALLY use:

• Fluent News
• UN News
• AP Mobile
• NPR News

Yes, that's right, all news. Fluent News gives me snippets of headlines from all sources of print information, from CNN, FOX, AP Mobile, USA Today, BBC, Wall Street Journal, etc. AP Mobile is similar, but it breaks the news down into categories: top news, showbiz, US News, top news, world, etc. Of course, you can customize what categories you want to see. NPR is just a great source of information when you actually want a little more in depth information on anything, since they go the extra mile in investigative journalism (I think).

But by far my favorite is UN News. I actually paid for this one. I have 16 different newsfeeds on this app, and the ones I check the most right now are "top stories" and "Americas." What's awesome about this app is that it is keeping me updated on the latest news about what is going on in terms of Haiti relief. With my trip coming up in less than two weeks, its great to see this app and know what's going on and what the latest UN projects are over there.

Like I said, dork status number one.

Justice or Injustice?

I recently came across an article about a father who is being forced to pay legal fees for the church he was suing, the church who organized protests at his son's burial. His son was killed in action. Here's a snippet from the CNN article as to why the church was protesting at the funeral:

"Members of the fundamentalist church based in Topeka, Kansas, appeared outside Snyder's funeral in 2006 in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "You're going to hell," "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." Among the teachings of the church, which was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps, is the belief that God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events such as soldiers' deaths."

Mr. Snyder's lawsuit initially met with success, receiving a verdict in his favor and an award of $8 million dollars. The church later appealed the ruling, which was reversed, and now the father has been ordered to pay $16,000 for their legal fees. Jeff and I were talking about how ridiculous this was: a father sues to protect the sanctity of his son's funeral, and ends up having to pay crazy legal fees for the people that invaded that sanctity.

This article reminded me about something I learned in my remedies class: anti-SLAPP motions. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. I remember having to memorize what these were for and how they could be used, and thinking: this is a waste of time. Not so much. It's through this legal method that the church was able to get an award of legal fees from the plaintiff. Surprisingly, just as I was thinking of writing this blog entry, the Orange County Lawyer published an article on anti-SLAPP motions, "Avoid SLAPP Motions," so I will let them explain some basic definitions. Anti-SLAPP, codified in the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") Section 425.16, was "[e]nacted in 1992 as a deterrent to the filing of non-meritorious lawsuits which prevent citizens from exercising petition or free speech rights." Mr. James Moneer proceeds in his article to describe the anti-SLAPP motion as the "most powerful dispositive motion available," and "a 'super summary judgment motion' with a nuclear warhead attached." One of the things that makes this motion so powerful is that there is a "mandatory award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs." Ah-ha.

What is the point of this motion? It was basically instituted as a way to protect free speech. The church argues that their protest was simply an exercise of their free speech rights. A lawsuit to prevent this free speech rights is highly susceptible to an anti-SLAPP motion because of the rights involved. I think that, as Americans, we can all recognize the importance of free speech, of being able to protest injustice, being able to assemble and express our opinions. And yes, these rights should be protected. But where do we draw the line?

It seems the Supreme Court will be addressing these issues in the near future.

Is God Dead?

I went to church today, Easter Sunday, and expected to hear a pretty standard sermon on the resurrection of Jesus. I was pretty surprised by the angle the priest took, however.

I have never heard the words "kill" and "murder" used so many times in one speech. I was cringing at first, thinking this was way too intense for an Easter Sunday. I was looking uncomfortably at parents who had young children with them, wondering if they were going to walk out. It turned out to be a pretty interesting sermon though. The priest quoted from Nietzsche's Mad Man parable and a few other philosophers, recounting the exact moment when God had been killed for each of these men (like receiving their first Holy Communion, and looking at the sour and unhappy faces of the people around him in Church--people who were there because they HAD to be, not because they wanted to be there). He went on to talk about how people kill God everyday, and not necessarily when you do something outlandish or crazy. He recounted how there was a gay man who told the priest how the Catholic church had been his greatest source of refuge years ago, but through the institution of the church and the people within the church, their constant criticism basically, God had been killed for him, and he couldn't go back. He talked about the actions of priests within the Catholic church who have killed God for so many people: they no longer have faith in the church, or in God. He talked about the rules of the church, and how some of these have killed God for people.

I understood what he was saying, and I was honestly surprised to hear a Catholic priest addressing these issues before his congregation. I've been a Catholic my whole life, and intend on being one for the rest of my life. But I understand people that have issues with it. I understand how there are things/issues/beliefs/actions of the church, of the institution itself, that turns people away from church, instead of towards it.

It was a slightly depressing sermon, although he did bring it around, emphasizing that we each have the power to bring God back to life to those people around us, possibly by our most minor of actions.

"You can kill God, but you can't kill Him forever."

What killed God for you? Who killed God for you? What can bring Him back to life for you?

Haiti in the News

So we're coming up on 3 months since the massive earthquake hit Haiti, which means we're not hearing too much about it in the media anymore (we all know the media has the attention span of of a two year old). One piece of news I think is worth mentioning is the International Donor's Conference that took place this week at the UN Headquarters in New York. During this conference, countries from around the world pledged to provide Haiti with over $5.3 billion dollars in aid over the next 18 months.

A few things that make this Conference unique is the goal of rebuilding a country from the foundation up: not just the infrastructure, but the government. Haiti has long been a poor nation, plagued by crime, corruption, and an ineffective government. The proposed Action Plan includes areas for economic rebuilding, social rebuilding, and institutional rebuilding (among others).

A NY Times Editorial emphasized the need these organizations recognize to include Haiti and it's government in these reconstructions efforts. The bodies involved in the reconstruction of Haiti are trying to learn from lessons of the past: you cannot try to improve a country without involving the government that will eventually have to take over control and leadership: they must be included from the beginning.

Jeff's Art, On your phone!

So Jeff found this website that basically puts whatever you want on your iPhone cover. I'm sure for many of you this may not be a novel idea, but we thought it was pretty cool. Anyhow, here is what it looks like to have Jeff's art on your iPhone:

Pretty cool, huh??

Work Moments That Make Me Happy

It's no secret that bankruptcy law wasn't exactly what I set out to do. With that said, it's been a much more enjoyable road than I had imagined. In the last couple weeks there have been several events that make me enjoy my job more than I thought I would. I hadn't realized that practicing bankruptcy law had some similarities with the general public interest job I wanted to do: you can help people. I know some have issues with the idea that people can even file bankruptcy, especially when people max out their credit cards and then can have their debt wiped away and not be held responsible for their actions. I agree there are people who take advantage of the system. But I also think there are many people who are in need of this system in order to get things back on track, and who had never though they would ever be filing for bankruptcy.

A lot of times when people come into my office to sign their petitions, you can tell they're not happy to be sitting across from me. It's nothing personal, it's just slightly embarrassing to be signing documents where you're basically saying you have failed in the financial aspect of your life. Many of them explain the situation they're in, and tell me they never thought they would ever be filing for bankruptcy.

Needless to say, people aren't necessarily happy when they're in my office, but lately it's been nice to see that I can make a small difference in people's lives just by the way I treat them.

Case in point: a couple came in to sign their petition, and the wife looked like she wanted to bite my head off. It turned out that she was a little weary about our office. As I've mentioned before, my firm handles mostly Spanish-speaking clients, most of whom are not familiar with legal issues, attorneys, 50-page documents, etc. They know about notario fraud, and they know that a lot of people these days are getting cheated out of their money by attorneys who promise to modify their loan and then never hear from them again. So I think it's justified when a client wants to see my California bar number to make sure I'm really an attorney. And I think this wife was justified in being weary of what her and her husband were getting into. By the end of our meeting, the wife and I were chatting away, she felt comfortable with who she had hired, and she left with a smile on her face. I love that.

I also had a great moment when a client and his wife came back and told Rama and I that he talked about us to his son the night before: he told his son how happy he was that there were still honest people out there who cared. This guy is one of our (Rama and I) favorites: he' s the sweetest, nicest, older man you can imagine! So him and his wife have offered to take us out to lunch, and I think we may just have to take them up on it so we can see them again!

Cultural Differences

So I was writing my prior blog about how addicted I am to coffee, and I started going off on quite the tangent. Rather than going off on the biggest tangent ever, I thought I'd just make it it's own entry. But I'll pick it up where the last one was going...

Before you say how lame it is [giving up coffee for lent]: I live for coffee. Since I was little. No joke. (Warning: going on a tangent). I think it's a cultural thing, but I clearly remember drinking coffee when I was little, like five years old. In Guatemala you have a "refaccion" in the afternoon: around 4 or 5pm, you make coffee and have a little snack, usually sweet bread or champurradas. I loved that time of day. My grandma would stop working for a bit (she worked at home), and we would sit in her kitchen, drink our coffee, and eat our champurradas. Sometimes her friends would come over, and I would listen in to all the neighborhood/church gossip. Best afternoons ever. I never knew it was weird to drink coffee until I moved back to the States in Junior High, where I found out that everyone freaks out about children having coffee. Well, it certainly didn't stunt my growth.

Another funny cultural thing I didn't realize was pierced ears. I've had mine pierced since I was three months old or so, and plan on doing the same to my little girl if God ever decides to lift the Armstrong male dominance. I remember being in junior high and a girl told me: "You're so lucky you have your ears pierced! I've been begging my dad to let me get my ears pierced forever." I was shocked. I mean, why wouldn't your parents want you to have your ears pierced? As a girl, you're SUPPOSED to have your ears pierced, right?

It's so interesting to see how culture shapes your opinion and outlook on things. What seems so incredibly normal to one girl can be completely crazy to another.