I've been reading lately about all of the issues regarding airlines. Planes stuck on the tarmac for hours; lost luggage; bitchy crew; long lines, yada yada.

From someone who has actually worked in that industry for a time, I can tell you first-hand that people simply don't realize what a technological and logistical marvel - miracle in fact - modern air travel really is. To keep planes flying, more-or-less on schedule for the most part, is an incredible undertaking, and despite improvements in technology, communications, flight instruments, navigational systems and such, the simple fact is that it still has to be run by people, and those people for the most part, I believe, do an outstanding job of getting people to and from their destinations safely.

Do they make mistakes? I'm sure they do. I wouldn't want to sit on a plane for seven hours. But ya know, it's going to happen. That's just the way it is.

And for you idiots who want to sue the airline for such issues, you are complete morons because all you are doing is a)creating a needless cost center which takes money away from improving airline operations and instead focuses airline resources on defending frivolous lawsuits, and b) causing the airlines to become more conservative in everything they do - including estimating flight schedules - thus creating even more havoc by a plane actually being on-time and waiting at the gate because so much padding was built in to the schedule.

So my recommendation to you is to take a chill pill, and just try to be understanding when these types of things happen. Put yourself in the shoes of all the different people that work hard to get you where you are going. For the most part, it's a thankless job. I wouldn't ever want to be a flight attendant, making ridiculously low pay just to hear your bitching and moaning because you don't like your seat. Get over it, and instead focus your negative energy elsewhere. And be thankful that we actually have an amazing system that works (most of the time), that continues to evolve to address various challenges that are constantly introduced. Have a nice flight!

Well... I'M not rich, by a huge stretch of the imagination. I was, of course, referring to Mark Cuban. Yes, this is the continuation of my previous post about the continuing saga of Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and Don Nelson, a former coach of the Mavericks.

On my previous post, I included a link to a transcript of a deposition that was released recently. It was a truly fascinating read, especially for someone such as myself who has had direct dealing with Mr. Cuban (he bought my company back in 2006). Because of this knowledge, I can read into the responses that Mr. Cuban is providing to opposing counsel and not only see a pattern, but an almost embarrassing disregard to basic facts.

Specifically, at one time they are questioning Mr. Cuban about a series of $200,000 payments that was to be made to Mr. Nelson as part of a consulting agreement. The CFO of Cuban's company emails Cuban to tell him that yes, in fact, the money is owed, per the contract, and that it should be paid. Twice, in fact. Cuban's response? Basically (and I'm paraphrasing) to "see what Mr. Nelson will do". Say what?

So the lawyer and Cuban go round and round about this part of the contract, and each time Cuban tries to wrangle his way around the question without giving the obvious answer that yes, indeed, the money was owed.

To quote one of his responses, it goes something like this:

"Q. (Opposing Counsel) - Ok. So at this point in time the--your CFO says, the contract's coming up, and we are going to have to start paying him the $200,000. You say that's not the way I remember it. They e-mail back and say, yeah, I looked back, and we owe him the money. Your CFO has now told you twice that you owe the money, and you say now, I might have left it out of the e-mail, but we didn't agree we would pay, so let's not pay it. What's that all about"?

A. (Mark Cuban) - It's part of a give-and-take conversation.

Q. (Opposing Counsel) - Sounds pretty clear to me. The guy says we owe it, you say that's not the way I remember it. He says yes, here it is, we owe it. And you said that's not the way I remember it, so let's not pay it. Why were you disagreeing iwth the CFO who had all the records and telling him not to pay it?

A. (Mark Cuban) - Because we were having an interactive conversation here. It may not seem like it, but my method, this would be a single phone call for most people. So as you can see, this is all happening within a very brief, brief period of time. And so this is just my way -- I might have been someplace, you know, who knows what the circumstances were, but it's my way of having a give-and-take conversation. So this is all for all intents and purposes a single conversation.

Q. (Opposing Counsel) - It's a single conversation.

A. (Mark Cuban) - Yes, sir.

Q. (Opposing Counsel) - So you are -- are you going to tell Judge Ashworth that your CFO who has now told you twice, we owe this consulting salary, are you going ot say that the Mav's chief financial officer is speaking out of school?

A. (Mark Cuban) - I don't understand the speaking out of school. Is part of it - you know, in business conversations you go back and forth with your management."


This my friends goes ON and ON, to the point where it is ridiculous. This is a guy (Cuban) who makes it a point to let everyone know that he enjoys being the "smartest guy in the room". Does this sound like the smartest guy to you? Either he *thinks* he is so smart (and possibly rich) that he can outwit highly trained attorneys who have pored over a legal document, or he is simply so stupid that he truly doesn't understand what "pay the man" means. I seriously doubt the latter.

Eventually this exchange - this single exchange about this consulting fee - goes on for about a dozen pages! And then the interviewer recalls previous testimony from Cuban that he said he wanted to see Mr. Nelson "on his knees" begging for the money.

Are you kidding?

Unfortunately, this is in black and white and reinforces the fact that some people feel it is their God-given right to behave in an unethical fashion.

To continue, another section points out money that is to be paid (the larger sum - several million dollars) that apparently Cuban also had failed to pay to Mr. Nelson. Along the lines of the questioning, Cuban tells the interviewer, and I quote:

"Well, in many business situations you will have money set aside as escrow, you will have money set - you will have set asides in case of contingent liabilities or contingent scenarios. In this particular case this was money he had earned, that was earned but had the opportunity to - if certain scenarios weren't met, that it would not be paid. You can still earn it, but --you can earn a lot of things in life and then screw them up.

(Reply from the Counsel)

You taught us that, Mr. Cuban."

This exchange goes on and on and in the end Mr. Cuban can't really explain the contingent liabilities nor can he explain why Mr. Nelson wasn't paid.

Let's look at the words "contingent liabilities." In my experience, this is a way that someone can justify screwing you out of money, but in a "legal" sense. They have an attorney write up language that is so vague and broad that they can justify keeping money that otherwise would have been paid. This is not the first time I have heard those words come from the Cuban camp.

At any rate, this is a guy who is worth billions of dollars, who is trying to screw a 60+ year old man out of what is in reality pocket change to Cuban. Why is it that some people, when they come into a large amount of money, they forget about behaving in an ethical fashion and believe that somehow because they are rich they can do what they want? I mean seriously! This poor man (Nelson) just wants the money that a contract promised him. And you have a billionaire trying to get out of paying it. This case seems pretty clear to me. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I'm only getting this from the source, er, I mean a replicated copy of an official deposition. So who knows. It just amazes me and truly brings to light that some of my own personal experiences I have had with Cuban do not seem to be isolated.

I come from a well-schooled family. I grew up as a kid in a house of educators and people in the law field. Specifically, my mom was an English professor, so I was around academia quite a bit.

All of the press about the police officer in Cambridge doing "racial profiling" is a bit much. How can anyone say that when no one really knows the facts? It's ridiculous! And yes, I respect Obama as our president, but I also believe he spoke a little too soon.

Let's wait for the facts before we pull the race card. The fact of the matter is that it sounds as though the officer was doing his job - from the incomplete facts that *have* been disseminated. This officer apparently actively teaches a course in racial profiling, and is well-respected in his department and the community. He once attempted to save a high-profile black athlete.

The unfortunate fact, too, is that there are those in the community that cannot wait to pull the race card just to start a fuss. I can't say that's the case here, because again, I don't have all the facts. Do you see what I'm saying? It's really hard to figure out what happened with incomplete information, and people on both sides of the issue should not rush to judgment. I don't care what color you are - things happen and sometimes things get out of hand, but that doesn't mean that every time it happens it is racially motivated! Sometimes I feel like we are in a country of little kids who can't seem to get along despite the fact we are all basically the same.

Here's the way I look at it. The cops respond to a call of two men breaking into a house. I'm a former Air Force cop. Let me tell you. I don't care WHO you say you are, if I catch you in a house where there has been a 911 call, until I know for sure that you are who you say you are, you are going to be treated as a suspect. Period. When you are in law enforcement, your own safety is at risk every time you do your job. So if you are black, white, green, yellow, red... whatever... if you are giving me lip and you are not cooperating, then guess what? It's going to raise my suspicion and put me that much more on guard in a tense situation. That, my friends, is not profiling. It's making sure that the suspect isn't going to whip out a firearm and end my day (and life) too early!