RJ update

RJ had another bad night last night, but he seems a little bit better. His coughs sound awful, but at least he can get enough oxygen to cough now. Hopefully, he's over the worst of it and can recover in time for the family to enjoy Thanksgiving, even if it's just staying home with our little family. But it will probably take a while for him to get back to normal, and I anticipate another bad night or two, sleep-wise, for H and myself.

Oh, croop!

Little R got croop over the weekend. He had a rough night on Saturday, and neither he nor his parents slept well. Last night, he got worse, and H and I took him to the ER around 8:00. Despite a fairly full waiting room, they took him right in. His stat was at 85, meaning his blood oxygen was fairly low, so they gave him oxygen and a steroid shot. When we left, the reassuring nurse was kind enough to tell us the last child she saw whose breathing sounded like that, "didn't make it."

I didn't get home until about 2:00 and didn't sleep great after that, so I'm pretty tired today. Fortunately, R is doing somewhat better. It does mean, unfortunately, that our trip to Seattle to visit H's brother is out. They have three pre-K children, so we're not going to expose them to our germs--plus, who wants to travel with a baby in that condition?

Go Irish

A classmate of mine from my MBA days at the University of Notre Dame sent me a link to the latest Business Week rankings. While I realize there are serious shortcomings in rankings and believe rankings should not be the predominant factor in selecting a business school, I was pleased to see that Notre Dame has cracked the top 20 in the rankings. At the time I applied to Notre Dame, the school was investing heavily to try to build the MBA brand, in part due to a generous gift from the Mendoza family. I took a gamble, as it were, to go there on full scholarship over more highly ranked schools, and I'm pleased to see that the commitment the school has made to the program has translated into external respect and improved job prospects for my fellow alumni. I freely admit, however, that my decision was based on a feeling it was the place I was supposed to be, rather than a rational conclusion that the school was under-ranked, but would improve.

Outside counsel interview

My interview with outside counsel for the tech company went well, except for a couple of quirks. The company had called me the day before asking about the fact that I live an hour away and asking if that is a problem. I don't even know if that question is legal, but the outside counsel raised it again yesterday. Umm, I know where the job is, and I wouldn't have applied if that was a problem. Thanks, next question.

The next question the outside counsel asked was, "Are you married?" What?? Isn't this guy an attorney? Everyone, especially every attorney, knows that that is an illegal question to ask in a job interview. He described the CEO and CFO as working "24/7." I guess he was trying to tell me that the combination of the commute and the likely hours at first merit reflection before accepting for a family man like myself. But that is not legal!

What do you do in a situation like that? If you are interested in the job, you keep your mouth shut, because if you complain you probably don't get the job, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons they could hire someone else for this job. It didn't bother me much, but attorneys especially should know better.

Other than that, the interview went well. We had a good rapport, and I could see myself working with him as outside counsel if I took the job. I am concerned about the hours and also the risk involved, though. The attorney was frank in his assessment of this position as high risk, but the rewards are also potentially very high. If I take the job, I will have to rely on the strength of my resume to get me another job if this one doesn't work out. All things considered, though, I'm inclined to take the job if it is offered and a compensation package is structured such that the risk is balanced by a significant potential financial upside. If I'm offered merely a salary or token equity/incentive compensation, it's probably not worth the risk right now, given the current economic situation. I still also need to meet with the CEO and see their financials before I can make that determination, though.

A few thoughts on Prop 8

I admit, I am disturbed by the many protests and acts of intimidation and even violence against supporters of the recent Proposition 8 in California. In some cases, people have even lost their employment over support of the measure. While I respect the opinions of people who support gay marriage, I find the nature of some responses troubling and ironic. The LDS church and the State of Utah have been particularly targeted, the latter for boycotts, strange since (1) the measure passed by a larger margin than the number of LDS voters in California, and (2) the State of California, where the measure was passed, has not been targeted for any boycotts, while Utah has been targeted and even labeled a "hate state" by some.

In my opinion, the issue of gay marriage is not about constitutional or fundamental rights or the ability to express sexual love. It is about state recognition of a social arrangement society has deemed beneficial and therefore worthy of promotion. Studies have shown that children do best as measured by objective outcomes (education, income, crime) when raised in an environment where a mother and father are present and involved in a supportive relationship.

To promote this beneficial social contract, historically marriages were often arranged by, and for the benefit of, the extended family, community or nation (in cases of royal families), with little regard for the wishes of the couple to be married. In our culture people are free to chose their own mates, but the societal goal of marriage remains the same. The state has an interest in providing an environment in which members of the opposite sex can form stable lifelong relationships and raise children who will be good citizens.

I heard an analogy where marriage was compared to the military. Joining the military is not a natural right; only those who meet the physical and other requirements are allowed to wear the uniform, with its concomitant obligations and responsibilities. Similarly, the prerequisites to marriage are being of a certain age and finding someone of the opposite sex of a certain age who accepts joint responsibility to create a family. I believe it within the scope of public policy to decide which parties should be eligible to be recognized by the state as taking upon themselves those responsibilities. Just as society is best served by not allowing children to marry, society benefits when marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, many enter into marriage without taking the marriage contract or covenant seriously, just as many take upon themselves the obligation of parenting without being married. But these failures should not detract from the ideal or policies that strengthen families and promote the fulfillment of the responsibilities taken by married couples and unintended parents. Changing the definition of marriage to mean a social arrangement of any two (or more) people who happen to be in love undermines the family, and by extension, the basis of our civilization. Such a definition erroneously focuses on the benefits received to the exclusion of the responsibilities involved.

I do not believe society should mandate whether or how consenting adults may express intimate feelings for one another, regardless of sexual orientation. This should be protected by the constitutional freedoms of assembly and association. Neither do I condone hate or intolerance based on sexual orientation. However, I do not believe that marriage should be recognized by society simply because two individuals wish to call their relationship by that name. In my opinion, turning a blind eye to the differences between such unions and traditional marriage is neither fair nor expressive of tolerance.

I would ask anyone who comments on this post to refrain from hateful or bigoted remarks directed towards the LDS Church, gays or lesbians, or any other group, as well as profanity or crude language.

Testing the waters again

I have a second interview in a couple of days, but this is a different type of opportunity than what I've considered. This is with a small company, financed by the skin of their teeth, but that has huge potential opportunity. They have significant pilot projects of their technology with many of the big customers in their space, and are close to sealing a blockbuster deal with a household name. This position would be as their first real general counsel. I've already met with the CFO and will meet with outside counsel this time around.

It's the kind of opportunity that could either spell riches or rags in a year or two, so it's scary to contemplate. However, it won't get any easier to pursue such opportunities later as I become more entrenched in a large corporation and stare down college, mission, and wedding costs for my kids. This would probably be a real inflection point in my career, but an inflection can go up or down...

Underwater?

Here's an article from the NY Times about a city in CA where 90% of homeowners are underwater. The housing crisis has sure hit California hard. Still, it's hard to feel too sorry for some of the people:

"He has cut his DVD buying from 50 a month to perhaps one, and is waiting until the Christmas sales to buy a high-definition television. He does not indulge much anymore in his hobbies of scuba diving and flying. “Best to wait for a better price, or do without,” Mr. Rogers, 52, said."

Wow, what hardship. I'm sure your personal choices have nothing to do with your household balance sheet. 50 DVDs a month...?