The Cost of the new Bay Bridge has reputedly quintupled. Of course this is all due to rising steel costs (Cough Cough Hack Hack). After raising bridge tolls one dollar to engage in all kinds of feeley good liberal transit projects they're talking of raising the bay toll another dollar. Great, swell it's not like that 3rd dollar could actually be used to do that, or wait wasn't the second dollar supposed to go for paying for seisemic retrofitting and all that great and swell jazz. And wait you thought the bridges were going to be free when they first built them didn't you. I've long thought the Bay Bridge II was just a waste of time anyways, why demolish the first one, if an Earthquake comes that knocks down the original Bay Bridge there will be a lot more to worry about than just those on the bridge. Seriously, the big mistake is getting rid of the original Eastern Span, just have the old bridge merge into 280 and the new span (and a new Western Span) merge into the existing framework, it'd be a nice idea, but it'd never happen.
Allah be praised, Akhmed, but haven't you heard that turbans are for girlie men?
Put down that RPG and meet me at the free weights. One day you too can crush cans between your butt cheeks.
(hat tip: Drudge)
Just when you thought the Kerry campaign couldn't hit any more snags, he's just been outed (on a tip from yours truly) as the Fifth Teletubby.
Though I've tried, I can’t listen to the speeches coming from the Democratic National Convention. After hearing four or five lies, I already find myself at the limit of my endurance. Their lies, strung together in an unbroken chain, reek as a necklace fished from a septic tank.
Each exhalation of their breath has seemed to contain more lies than CO2. Finally the thought occurred to me, ”How many lies are they cranking out per sentence?”
From portions I've heard, the speakers easily manage an obligatory lie within the typical sentence—a bare minimum necessary to grease the gears of their rhetoric.
When they start hyperventilating about Bushitler, though, the lies begin to telescope upon each other at an alarming rate: “Everyone hates us ‘cause the un-elected Bush lied and ill-used our troops through unilateral action, turning his back on the U.N., and displaying an arrogance that squandered the good-will felt by all following 9/11!”
I haven't run full tally-counts against actual transcripts, so I can't present scientific findings on the exact numeric value of Lies Per Sentence (LPS). What does my gut say? I'm torn on that count, alternating between assigning a generous LPS rating of 1.2 and a cynical one of 1.5.
What does your gut say? I’d be interested to hear your best guess regarding the LPS rating of the Democratic National Convention.
PS—Do we dare contemplate each Convention speaker’s personal LPS ranking? That could get complicated.
In recognition of the increasing influence of blogs in the American political conversation, washingtonpost.com is launching Best Blogs --Politics and Elections, 2004 Readers Choice Awards, a national contest for readers to select the blogs best poised to set the tone for grassroots participation in the 2004 elections.
The nomination process for the contest begins July 26, 2004, and continues through the September 3, 2004. A second round of voting for finalists begins September 27. Winners will be announced October 25.
Nominations will be taken in several serious and tongue-in-cheek
categories including: Best Democratic Party Coverage, Best Republican Party Coverage, Most Original, Most Likely to Last Beyond Election Day, Class Clown and Best Campaign Dirt, among others.
The press release is here.
The contest is here.
I have survived Birthday Week, when the twins and Calblog husband have their birthdays together. Now I just have to make it up to Calblog husband that he didn't get enough attention, as usual. I even managed to survive the big birthday party.
I wrote last year about the blowout parties of the last two years, the Casino and the Amazing Birthday Race. This year I paid a little more and did a little bit less myself. We went off to the Santa Monica Pier, which has a small amusement park, small enough that many people don't bother and the lines are short, even on a Sunday afternoon. Madeleine rode the Pacific Plunge 21 times. Pacific Plunge and Inkie's Scrambler are the newest rides in the park and the best. So if you haven't been there lately, consider going.
It's also small enough that once we were done with the party in the cabana I could stand in the middle of the park and keep my eyes on 9 13-year-olds, who accepted supervision but didn't really think they needed it. the beach was a nice break from the inland temps of La Canada.
I gave out birthday presents early to cut the summer boredom. Amanda got a DVD player (which doesn't work and has to be returned) and Madeleine got a hammock. At least when she lays around, it might be outside with a book and not inside with the TV. The girls put the hammock together themselves. They seemed content, Amanda in the house figuring out the features of her DVD player and Madeleine in lazy heaven on the hammock, and I started to get ready to leave for work when there's screaming from Madeleine. She screams a lot but this seemed genuine. The sprinklers had come on. Poor Madeleine.
Calblog husband's family has been in the United States for a long time and he has relatives connected to many historical events. He had relatives on both sides of the Civil War, an Admiral on the North and a general for the South.
The Confederate general owned no slaves. He did not go to war to protect slavery. He went to protect the South from the North, which dominated it, in his view. He advocated quite strongly early in the war that the slaves be freed.
Imagine our history books if he had prevailed. A Civil War which no one could say was about slavery. A South that freed the slaves.
UPDATE: Now cross-posted to Blogcritics to broaden the discussion.
(Please note addition of Sunday afternoon UPDATE below.)
Thursday of last week, Democratic Representative Corinne Brown assailed Republican Representatives on the floor of the U.S. House:
"I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world."After seeing her quote, I wondered if the Democratic National Convention--which arrives next week--would churn out barking moonbat speeches on the order of Brown’s recent outburst.
Silly me; I shouldn’t have had to wonder.
Recent news of Howard Dean teaming up on the podium with Michael Moore only confirms suspicions that “Bushitler Lied, People Died” will be a dominant theme at the Fleet Center in Boston.
Massachusetts Democratic Party spokeswoman Jane Lane raves,
“[H]aving Michael Moore in Boston to enjoy the events just adds a lot of excitement to everything else going on … .”“I think that every Democrat in Massachusetts will be thrilled.''
Moore—that loathsome, disgusting butterball—has become the cult favorite of the Democratic party, which itself says volumes of the depths to which the Party has sunk even since Howard Dean’s primal scream therapy only scant months ago.
With speakers like Dean, Gore, and Moore, next week’s Convention promises to be a leftist freak show.
UPDATE (Sunday afternoon):
Drudge reports that already infighting has begun among Democratic organizers over how much to bushitlerize the rhetoric at the Democratic Convention.
Already Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry 'McAwful' is trying to avoid a Convention meltdown by asserting,
"We are not Michael Moore"
That the Chairman Spinner of the DNC has to voice this disclaimer speaks volumes to the deep, inevitable, and perhaps irreversible Moorization that has already occurred in the Party. The full moon has already risen upon the Party; can its Chairman be heard above the howls of the gathering pack?
A little too little and too late, McAwful—the Moveon.org, Deaniac underbelly of your party has sewn the Butterball, and the Butterball it must reap. Moore's 'FraudNHate 9/11' remains the battle cry of the hardcore party faithful, who have themselves become identified with its extremism.
It will be a fascinating to watch the power struggle unfold at the Democratic National Convention this week, and see if pragmatist McAwful can keep the rabid party faithful from spinning the Convention out of control. Unless McAwful can quash the looming Hate-Fest, the Kerry Anti-Bush Campaign may be dead by the end of the week.
I'm hoping this West Nile outbreak stays in the range of rare but scary news story, though the reports of finding infected mosquitos ar disturbing. Now, a 57-year-old man has died in OC. NBC reports it with this comforting caveat:
NBC4's Dr. Bruce Hensel said that deaths from West Nile virus are very rare, and that people who have died from the virus usually have underlying illnesses.Well, comforting for those of you who don't have underlying illnesses. I'm not one of them.
I don't know who his speechwriters are but he says some odd things. Today's lowlights:
1. People of color are dying from preventable diseases like cancer. The politics of divisiveness and we can prevent cancer?
2. "Faith without deeds is dead." One of the theological differences between Catholicism and some Protestant religions is whether faith alone "saves" you and gets you to heaven. The theological phrase is usually "faith without works". Kerry adopted the Catholic position here. An odd place to visit on a political campaign.
Just remember once the criminal starts losing, then you have no self-defense rights. Have I mentioned how much I like Red California lately?
Update: I should note, I agree with Xrlq and Kaltes that the act of shooting a fleeing burglar does take one outside of self-defense. However, my point was that in parts of California (like where Kamela Harris is DA) you would get prosecuted. In other parts (Red California) you probably wouldn't, and my point was, this seems like a good place to exercise prosecutorial discretion. After wrestling down a criminal (who appeared to have the gun), and taking the gun from the criminal, I think most people would be running high on adreniline and auto-pilot.
"It's about time!", my neighbor said, when I told her of my plans to take out papers and run for city council. Tomorrow, at eight o'clock in the morning, I will officially begin my bid for a seat on the city council of our town. Our council has voted in lockstep on every single issue for over three years. There hasn't been an original thought and hardly a dissenting vote since December 13, 2000. Our council has had a stranglehold on this community for too long. It is my desire to bring equity, common sense, and representation of all of Cotati's citizens to the council, not just the desires of a select group of people. Wish me luck.
Or so thinks the LA Times:
Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a 511-page report documenting the catastrophic failure of U.S. intelligence on Iraq. When the U.S. and its allies attacked his regime, Saddam Hussein had no stores of poison gas, biotoxins or covert nuclear program. This week, a British inquiry into prewar intelligence failures reached similar conclusions, though it continued to assert that Britain had "credible" intelligence that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger as recently as 1999. No support was offered.Taken together, though, these reports were enough to kindle a fury among the politically minded Internet bloggers, who have become a major presence on the Net's freewheeling fringes. To them, Wilson — who has a flair for self-promotion — is the poster boy for a nearly traitorous opposition to the war.
The bloggers, whose rhetoric gains heat and velocity as it ricochets from one site to another through a chain of self-referential links, basically formulated a two-count indictment: First, Wilson lied by saying he was not recruited for the mission by his wife and about the conclusiveness of what he had found once in Niger. (The former charge is crucial in certain conspiratorial quarters because many neo-conservative bloggers believe the CIA, Plame's employer, was soft on Saddam and against the war.) Second, major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, were alleged to be suppressing the story of Wilson's mendacity. In other words, why won't the media tell us the truth?
In a reaction only Democrats could have, Schwarzenegger calls the Democrat opposition Girly men for being unwilling to represent the good of the state over special interests. In response, the Democrats insisted on being babies. (Hat Tip: Power Line.)
Well, it isn't politics as usual:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mocked his opponents in the California Legislature on Saturday as "girlie men," and called upon voters to "terminate" them at the polls in November if they don't pass his $103-billion budget.
One thing that I find myself thinking more and more often is not how different each person is from another, but instead, how alike people tend to be. I first came across this when I had the opportunity to read some classic literature.
One of my favorite quotes comes from Anna Karenin, Tolstoy writes "Oblonsky smiled. He knew that feeling of Levin's so well - that for Levin all the girls in the world were divided into two classes: one class included all the girls in the world except Kitty, and they had all the human weaknesses and were very ordinary girls; while Kitty was in a class by herself, without the least imperfection and above the rest of humanity." When I first came across this line I was 20 in College, I knew that feeling so well and could easily associate with it.
These kind of observations continued as I age. In reading Crime and Punishment, I found myself understanding Roskolnikov as he argues for the idea that some people are so great, that they stand above the law, to him this was Napoleon's case, to me, I saw the same in Julius Caesar. That somehow, because they had succeeded, that they were somehow also validated as being greater than all others standing above humanity. And then coming to recognize, that no man ought to stand above another, that the right or noble man, cannot stand above his conscience, and most importantly no one stands above God.
And this observation seems not to cease. Especially listening to Country Music. In Garth Brook's song Unanswered Prayers, he sings of an old high school flame "She was the one that I'd wanted for all times and each night I'd spend prayin' that God would make her mine and if he'd only grant me this wish I wished back then I'd never ask for anything again...And as she walked away and I looked at my wife and then and there I thanked the good Lord for the gifts in my life." Which again was something with which I completely relate.
Then Tim McGraw singing Where the Green Grass Grows "But all this glitter is gettin' dark there's concrete growin' in the city park I don't know who my neighbors are and there's bars on the corners and bars on my heart. I'm gonna live where the green grass grows watchin' my corn pop up in rows every night be tucked in close to you raise our kids where the good Lord's blessed point our rocking chairs towards the west plant our dreams where the peaceful river flows where the green grass grows." Having lived in Sacramento, then San Francisco, and now an ex-urb I feel the exact same way, Yes the commute is long, but it's definately worth the drive once I get home. Additionally, I care about my work, and am proud of it when I am finished, but I'm more amazed and taken when the tomatoes that my wife and I planted ripen, or the corn pops up in rows. Something, that to a great degree, I had a very small hand in.
My point in this I guess, is that the human condition at least to me seems surprisingly universal, and that we really don't start out that different from each other, but it is the choices we make that takes us down very different paths.
I'm in a hurry, so this will be quick, Kevin over at his blog writes on two supposedly unrelated political issues. I tend to think that those two issues run together and are getting you closer to the answer than it appears at first blush.
Kevin notes that Kerry wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. This is something I'm desparately not sure of. Republicans persuing an aggressive foreign policy are hampered in by Democratic opposition, but Republicans are seemingly less likely to stridently oppose Democratic aggressive foreign policy. Kosovo is actually an interesting example, some Republicans in Congress said how it was irresponsible, but did any major protests come or major opposition, not particularly. Democrats often can go further than Republicans when it comes to an aggressive foreign policy. There's little doubt in my mind that if Howard Dean, an angry American, was president on July 17th, 2005 and there was a major terror attack on July 16th, the response would be far stronger than Bush's of recent. This ties hand in hand with why welfare reform took place under Clinton.
This reflects back into the Gay Marriage because the longer I watch politics in America, I'm sold on the idea that the real battle is over the social issues. In fact, it isn't even over social issues generally it is over the Supreme Court. I think is largely related to the issue of why Nader supporters see so little difference in the parties. To them, neither one is the greatest. I think this is also why a large number of Libertarians, checking Yes or No on social issues, are considering a vote for Kerry. Will Kerry raise my taxes? Eh...Depends on the Congress, Which may or may not happen. Now I know, I will be told there's a wealth of differences on non-social issues, but I doubt it, most of it's posturing for the recurring 4 year dance. This is also why the question "Do you listen to Country Music?" is quickly becoming a proxy of "Republican or Democrat?"
This news is the kind that seems big at first, then you think about it and say what does it matter to my life, but it is big. Its importance will probabbly not be clear in our lifetime.
After almost 30 years of arguing that a black hole swallows up everything that falls into it, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking backpedaled Thursday. In doing so, he lost one of the most famous bets in recent scientific history.The world-famous author of a "Brief History of Time" said he and other scientists had gotten it wrong —the galactic traps may in fact allow information to escape.
Too important to ignore...too frightening to forget.
[My inital hat-tip to Instapundit, though the link can be found in several blog streams by now.]
Drudge features an interesting story from Australia claiming that the new Iraqi Prime Minister personally executed six suspected Iraqi terrorists/insurgents.
Assuming this is all true, some may call it a major scandal.
I call it a good start.
Once again, I maintain that Due Process is
the fortunate byproduct of a stable democracy, not an ingredient that can be used to build a democracy from scratch while a country is still currently at war with the forces of tyrrany.
For anyone to demand the exacting scrutiny of a Western-style democracy on Iraq at this specific juncture is off their rocker in my view. Such people can't be serious about winning the war on terrorism.
What Drudge linked to is definitely a major story. It's just not a major scandal.
As long as there is genuinely good reason to believe that these people supported the insurgency, then this PM seems to be the right man at the right time.
Oh yeah, it's not a conspiracy. Here's what is on Drudge tonight (I hate pulling the whole thing but he moves those links):
NYT PAGE ONE THURS: BUSH TO DROP CHENEY GOSSIP Wed Jul 14 2004 18:21:14 ETThe latest theory about Vice President Dick Cheney's future on the Republican ticket, advanced privately by prominent Democrats, including members of Congress, holds that Cheney recently dropped his personal doctor because of drug addiction so that he could hire a new one, who will conveniently tell him in August that his heart problems have made him unfit to run with Bush!
So reports the NEW YORK TIMES, in a planned Front Page story on Thursday.
Reporter Elisabeth Bumiller is set to kick the gossip into high gear with a 1,600-word speculative, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.
Developing...
The New York Times on July 15? How about Calblog on July 4? Ok I had a different spin but I knew it was part of a plan.
UPDATE: When Fox News ran the story this morning, their graphic read CONSPIRACY THEORY?
Here's a cool article sent to me by Clark.
Washington sources tell NewsMax that for the moment, Bush has no plan to make the change. But the situation is fluid and during this most volatile of campaigns, that decision is not final.The Republican National Convention won’t take place in New York City until Aug. 30 -- the drop date to make a normal transition
Clark has blogging privileges now but doesn't want to blog this cool article. What's up with that? But he gets a spot in that mythical blog-equivalent of a heart place.
On the sidebar to the article this middle of the night is a link to this gem:
Vice President Dick Cheney has destroyed himself and is creating a mess for President Bush, says one of the nation’s premier political analysts.Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, offered the cutting assessment in his online analysis "Crystal Ball."
Even though John Kerry hasn't received the usual bounce after naming his running mate, Sabato writes in his latest newsletter, the Democrat campaign "has put George W. Bush in a box with the selection of John Edwards. And there is probably no way for Bush to win this part of the presidential battle."
Crystal Ball, Schmystal Ball. Boifromtroy and I have been on this for two weeks and we didn't even check with each other at the start.
Legal XXX pointed me to the latest outright denial by Cheney. Hey, I have a really good idea. Let's ask Edwards if he's stepping down and get him to deny it. Every day.
This looks both fun and important.
I'm going out to buy myself a Barbie doll and a few marginally obscene items in order to participate...
Well, we heard that Bush lied. Then we learned that Joe Wilson did. Who fingered Wilson? The Washington Post, not known for being part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. The news made it through the blogosphere. Check out the trackbacks to the story on Blogs for Bush. Patterico kept watch on whether the LA Times gave it the same attention as Wilson's original claims (go on, guess the answer before you click). On this blog, Justin Levine pointed you to the cream of the coverage.
How is the loyal opposition reacting. They don't believe Wilson lied. Check out the comments to this post at blogcritics.
I usually refrain from linking to well known nationally popular sites that most people have no trouble discovering on their own without suggested links from blogs, but National Review's article on Joe Wilson is just too good to pass up.
Legal XXX has joined the mighty BFL.
Frequent commenter Clark has moved up to guestblogger.
As you may have noticed, I have a few select pet peeves against those who choose to comment on my postings.
For instance, trying to correct spelling errors that I admittedly make from tme to time- not for the sake of educating my grammar skills mind you (the way XRLQ thankfully does on occasion), but rather as a cheap way of thinking that they are undermining my credibility on substantive issues by pointing to spelling mistakes, rather than debating the issues themselves.
However, my biggest pet peeve of all is those who
anonymously send comments to my private e-mail account rather than post it for everyone to see and dissect on their own. If the message contains truly private or confidential information, then fine. If it contains information regarding social invites or items that are off the topic of my posts, then also fine. But please don’t e-mail me your general comments about a post hoping to engage in an extended debate/discussion about a topic through my personal e-mail account.
One person can’t seem to take the hint despite my explicit request.
Hence, I am posting our exchanges over this issue for you to comment on for yourself. And since he keeps insisting on e-mail me personally rather than post his comments to this blog, he found me in one of my rather testy moods.
Even though this guy even went so far as to look up my listing at the California Bar website to confirm that I was indeed a lawyer, he still seems to afraid to identify himself.
Oh well. It’s irrelevant to the issues at hand as you will be able to read for yourself. The exchange is in regard to a previous blog posting found here.
Perhaps the person e-mailing me is somehow connected to the case? Who knows? He still won't reveal himself. But again, I admit this is ultimately irrelevant to the issues presented.
To my mind, the fact that Jennifer Lopez makes a music video that pays homage to Flashdance does not mean that she should be hauled into court by a woman who claims to have served as an inspiration for the film under any sort of intellectual property or publicity claim.
Although this strikes me as common sense, I have been rather amazed by the number of people who think otherwise, without putting forth new facts or cogent arguments on the matter.
This anonymous e-mail's first note stated as follows:
Subj: re: Judge throws out lawsuit against J-Lo
Date: 7/10/2004 9:46:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Hi. I'd like to help clarify a few things for you:
#1. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Hatter dismissed the lawsuit (not hatcher)
#2. The motion to dismiss is the earliest point at which the judge can dismiss a case, unless it has been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
#3. The full name of the motion to dismiss was 'motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim'. The case was dismissed because it failed to state a claim.
#4. The lawsuit was not frivolous, but it was misguided. Marder wanted to be declared an author of Flashdance for her contributions.
#5. The 1st amendment does not save things like music videos when it comes to 'right of publicity' trademark violations.
#6. This case was actually quite complicated.
Regards,
an IP student who read the motion papers.
My initial response was as follows -
Subj: re: Judge throws out lawsuit against J-Lo
Date: 7/11/2004 11:39:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Levine2001
Hi. I'd like to help clarify a few things for you:
#1. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Hatter dismissed the lawsuit (not hatcher).
I'll assume that this was just a typo or just a simple mistake in communication somewhere down the line. It is obviously irrelevant to the issues of course.
#2. The motion to dismiss is the earliest point at which the judge can dismiss a case, unless it has been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
I know. I'm a lawyer who has had extensive experience with such motions.
#3. The full name of the motion to dismiss was 'motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim'. The case was dismissed because it failed to state a claim.
But this begs the question - WHY did it fail to state a claim? Because the plaintiff obviously had no cause of action against Jennifer Lopez....If the plaintiff had such a claim, then she can simply amend her complaint and re-file it since a complaint that "fails to state a claim" is almost never dismissed with prejudice and is allowed to be re-filed when additional facts are alleged in order to state a valid claim.
#4. The lawsuit was not frivolous, but it was misguided. Marder wanted to be declared an author of Flashdance for her contributions.
And how does this involve Jennifer Lopez exactly?? If she has evidence to show that she is an author of the Flashdance movie, she needs to be suing the creators of the film - NOT someone making a music video that pays homage to it.
#5. The 1st amendment does not save things like music videos when it comes to 'right of publicity' trademark violations.
I know. I'm a lawyer who has had extensive dealings with such issues. While I always felt as a matter of opinion that the right of publicity should be declared unconstitutional and that current interpretations of trademark protections are overly broad, my arguments obviously differ from many court opinions. The point is that publicity rights SHOULDN'T trump the 1st Amendment as a matter of preferred policy (if you are serious about free speech at least). My comments were not meant to suggest that there isn't a large body of court cases that ignore such free speech concerns. There is always a difference between debates on what Constitutional interpretations should be, versus the various court rulings on such issues.
#6. This case was actually quite complicated.
Regards,
an IP student who read the motion papers
This statement is an attempt to seem like you are debating the issue when it is in fact merely a ruse to avoid them. HOW is it complicated exactly? If was so complicated, then why on earth did the judge dismiss the case for failing to state a claim? Do we need to make sure that the judge is thrown off the bench for incompetence perhaps??
Regards,
Justin Levine - An IP attorney who likely knows much more about such matters than most students, even though I appreciate their opinions.
P.S. - any future comments should be posted in the "Comments" section of the blog so that they may be subjected to public scrutiny. I am always suspicious of anonymous people who are afraid to make their challenges public.
[end of initial response]
Simply ignoring my request about posting in the Comments section, the anonymous e-mailer sent me another response. His second e-mail and my responses are reprinted here:
Subj: Re: Judge throws out lawsuit against J-Lo
Date: 7/11/2004 1:50:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
"the plaintiff obviously had no cause of action against Jennifer Lopez"
Plaintiff was trying to be declared a co-author of FLASHDANCE. If she succeded, as a co-author she had rights against Lopez's derivative work "I'm Glad".
But she wasn’t declared a co-author of Flashdance, was she? And why was that? Did she allege to have a hand in actually writing the script? Did she have a contract with the distributing studio that she would be considered a co-author of the finished film? If she didn’t allege either of those things then her claim as a co-author is frivolous and unfounded.
But let’s say these facts did occur and that she should be considered a co-author of Flashdance. How does give her rights in regards to Lopez’s music video exactly? To suggest that an homage is a “derivative work” under copyright law is simply staggering and would have broad implications in depriving untold numbers of works from free speech protections. So because Lopez recreates some dance moves first featured in Flashdance, this means that Marder is entitled to money from her? This doesn’t even begin to pass the laugh test. And if any lawyer thinks otherwise, it is simply proof of the shoddy state of legal culture in this country.
"she can simply amend her complaint and re-file it since a complaint that "fails to state a claim" is almost never dismissed with prejudice and is allowed to be re-filed when additional facts are alleged in order to state a valid claim."
Nearly every 12b6 I worked on that was granted resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. My experience is in federal court, so maybe things work differently in state court, but if the claims could never succeed as a matter of law assuming all facts in the complaint are true, it gets dismissed with prejudice.
We must live in two parallel legal universes. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to give you some free and invaluable legal advice for you to read in regards to legal Civil Procedure that was passed down to me by a mentor and has ended up serving me well over the years. You can thank me later. But for now, I’ll simply ask that continue reading and then let you decide who is right in regards to this question….(though anyone with extensive litigation experience will already know of course.)
First, let’s start off with basic terminology. For a court to dismiss “with prejudice” means that a plaintiff cannot re-file a claim in the future regarding the same circumstances and events alleged in her complaint. It essentially closes the case once and for all.
To dismiss “without prejudice” on the other hand means that the court has tossed a plaintiff’s case out, but she is then allowed to re-file her complaint at a later date assuming that certain defects in the complaint are cured (i.e., perhaps she filed the claim in the wrong court/venue, perhaps she accidentally left out a fact in her complaint that is critical in alleging a claim).
A federal 12(b)(6) Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is the federal equivalent of a demurrer in state courts. It essentially says, “Let’s assume everything the plaintiff is saying is true. So what? She doesn’t state a legal claim in her complaint.” The court can only look at the complaint itself in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion and cannot consider any other supplemental evidence.
Despite what this posting attorney claims, courts will almost always grant a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint when tossed out on a 12(b)(6) motion.
For instance, let’s say Marder’s complaint simply stated, “Plaintiff is a blue-collar factory worker who pursued dreams of becoming a dancer. Defendant Paramount made a film Flashdance about a blue-color factory worker who aspires to become a dancer. Therefore Defendant Paramount violated Plaintiff’s copyright. Furthermore, Defendant Lopez made a music video recreating specific dance steps found in the film Flashdance. Therefore, Defendant Lopez violated Plaintiff’s copyright.”
Such a complaint would not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, even if the court assumes the stated facts are true. Such facts alone do not constitute copyright violations in regards to Plaintiff Marder.
But now let’s say that in the 12(b)(6) hearing, Marder tells the court, “Oh. I forgot to include in the complaint a line that stated, ‘Plaintiff wrote the Flashdance script with Paramount producers and reached an explicit oral contract that she would be considered a co-author of the finished film. Furthermore, Plaintiff had a written contract with Lopez that she would share revenues from her music and any video featuring works inspired by Flashdance.’ I meant to include that line your honor, but it somehow must have gotten deleted in the word processor accidentally….”
Do you think a judge will say, “Too bad! You’re out of luck! I’ve already ruled on this case.”?
Think again. Almost all judges will say, “Ok. I’ll have to toss this complaint. But you go ahead and put the new facts you are alleging in an Amended Complaint and re-file it. You will have to pay a re-filing fee of course, but I’m not going to deprive you of your day in court due to a slip-up like that.”
Facts that can’t succeed as a matter of law will result in dismissal with prejudice under the rules if it is determined that all the facts have been laid out on the table. But a 12(b)(6) motion does not prevent a Plaintiff from alleging new facts in an amended complaint that can succeed as a matter of law. That is the key issue here that this attorney poster seems to be ignorant of.
Based on the news reports of Marder’s complaint against Lopez, I justifiably concluded that her complaint as to Lopez was indeed frivolous. If she alleges new facts that weren’t contained in her complaint (and thus not reported in the media) which suggests a legitimate claim against Lopez, I’ll be happy to address the issue separately when that occurs with a new and fresh look at things. But the fact that Marder hasn’t done that so far speaks volumes.
Baring strange and unusual circumstances, there are only a few select instances when a 12(b)(6) motion will be dismissed with prejudice:
1. The Plaintiff has already filed so many amended complaints in regards to a claim that a court will determine that the entire enterprise is a frivolous fishing expedition which wastes the court’s time and resources.
2. A statute of limitations bars a claim, or facts conclusively bar a court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Beyond that, courts will almost always let Plaintiff’s state additional facts in an amended complaint if it will allow the case to then be heard on the merits. Oftentimes, they won’t say “dismissed with prejudice” or “dismissed without prejudice”. They will simply say “dismissed”. It is often up to the lawyer to figure out that one can then file a leave to amend.
Any other lawyers out there wish to chime in on this? Maybe my challenger is right. Maybe I am living in the Twilight Zone here and am simply recalling phantom hallucinogenic thoughts on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that have no basis in reality.
While I’m on the subject, here’s my advice regarding Demurrers and 12(b)(6) motions. As a general rule – don’t do them. You heard me right – don’t do them.
Why do you ask? Simple….It’s a waste of time and money for your client. By filing one of these motions, all you are doing is highlighting to Plaintiff what is wrong with his/her complaint. Then the Plaintiff will merely correct the error by filing an amended complaint while you the defense lawyer charges your client for the time spent constructing a motion that accomplishes nothing in the end (unless your lucky enough to go up against an attorney/plaintiff who is unaware that once can simply file a motion to amend the complaint).
It is far better to file an ANSWER to the complaint. This then locks in the Plaintiff’s pleadings with all of its deficiencies for the rest of the proceedings. The court can ultimately allow an amended complaint to be filed after your answer, but the bar for granting such a request is often much higher and it tends to make the judge rather annoyed at the one asking for such a favor.
As with all general rules, there are of course exceptions. There are only 3 good reasons to file a Demurrer/12(b)(6):
1. As discussed above – a statute of limitations or jurisdictional issues bar a claim from being heard.
2. You are absolutely certain that a Plaintiff will not be able to allege new alleged facts in the future that would survive a motion to dismiss (no matter how hard they might be able to prove). (Maybe this was the case in Marder’s complaint – in which case it strengthens my argument in criticizing her allegations of so-called “claims” against Jennifer Lopez.) Or perhaps they can allege new facts but you are quite certain that they don’t have temerity to go through the filing process again.
3. What is called by some attorneys as the “Orphan Elephant Syndrome” wherein you suspect that Plaintiff may have a viable claim but is being strategically vague in the Complaint and you wish to force them to show more of their hand. (i.e., let’s say a cause of action has 4 elements to it, but facts in the complaint only speak to 3 of the 4 elements, or the facts alleged are too vague. There may be situations where you wish to force the Plaintiff to show more of their hand in the case upfront, so you would file a 12(b)(6) motion, wait for them to file an amended complaint if you succeed on the motion, then ANSWER the amended complaint, locking in the pleadings.
Also bear in mind that filing a 12(b)(6) motion with a declaration of facts can convert it into a Rule 56 motion for Summary Judgment. A successful ruling on summary judgment will dismiss a case with prejudice since that is essentially a ruling on the substantive merits of a case. You will not be able to re-file your case in such an event. So it is important to keep in mind the difference between as Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a Rule 56 motion. If the posting attorney still maintains that it was a 12(b)(6) motion (versus a Rule 56 motion), then I remain confident in my comments regarding Marder’s case in regards to civil procedure.
This is valuable advice that you don’t get in most Civil Procedure classes folks. You can thank me later….Right now, I need to get back to Fisking the comments of this poster.
"she needs to be suing the creators of the film - NOT someone making a music video that pays homage to it"
Marder was suing the makers of the film, sony, AND lopez. Paramount and Sony/Lopez filed seperate 12b6 motions.
Good to know. But since my post was about Marder’s lawsuit against Lopez (not the studios), I don’t see how this is relevant to my arguments as to why Marder’s lawsuit vis-à-vis Lopez was frivolous.
"This statement is an attempt to seem like you are debating the issue when it is in fact merely a ruse to avoid them. HOW is it complicated exactly?"
Because if you read the complaint, Marder alleged... I think it was 6 or 8 causes of action. Part of the complaint was against Paramount to be declared a co-author and for an accounting. The other claims were against Sony and Lopez for state law claims of right to privacy, trademark 'right of publicity', copyright infringement, and a few others I can't recall. The issues were complicated because the various issues between Paramount/Marder would have to be resolved first to determine Marder's rights in FLASHDANCE, and then once that was determined, then Marder's claims against Sony/Lopez could be. Of course copyright was only one of those claims, so a seperate analysis would be needed to determine why each state law claim should also be dismissed.
As a side note, Marder’s claims against the studios would also be frivolous unless she claimed that she actually helped write the script or direct the film herself. Did she make such allegations? If not, then she has no claim. Her life story might have inspired Flashdance, but that doesn’t give her any legal claims to it since authors are allowed to use inspiration and ideas from various sources without getting permission from them in order to create their works. What is it that Marder created (i.e., “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”) that the studios and J-Lo copied exactly??
If you can’t answer that simple question – then there is no legitimate copyright claim.
As to a right of publicity. How was her image/name used in either Flashdance or J-Lo’s music video exactly??? The character’s name in the film is “Alex Ownes”, not “Maureen Marder”. So how does Marder’s recognizable personality fit into this film exactly? Did the actress Jennifer Beals look just like Marder in the film? Did Jennifer Lopez in her music video?? Since Marder isn’t a celebrity, should this even matter under a “publicity” claim?
Obviously no legitimate “publicity” claim here against any defendant.
As to trademark claims – what goods or services did Marder make that was causing consumer confusion when people went to see Flashdance or Jennifer Lopez’s music video? If the answer is “none” – then that is also telling about the worth of Marder’s complaint.
And by the way – why Marder wait close to 20 years before filing this lawsuit? Flashdance was made in 1983 after all.
If she did not have a hand in writing the actual script or creating the film, then at best, she only has a contract claim against the film’s producers a la “Buchwald v. Paramount”. I don’t know the specific facts in this regard, so it is possible that she had such an explicit contract. But if she merely provided inspiration for the story without a contract – she is out of luck. And even if she did have such a contract, any obligation under it would not extend to Jennifer Lopez since there is no privity with her.
But frivolous lawsuits such as Marder’s are unfortunately all too common when people think that they can copyright mere ideas that might have served as inspiration to others.
"the right of publicity should be declared unconstitutional"
Let us say you are Shaq. You hate Coco Puffs cereal. Coco Puffs starts to feature the faces of prominent black atheletes on their cereal boxes, eating Coco Puffs. You publicy call this racist, because you think the word "Coco Puff" is slang derogatory to black atheletes. Finally, Coco Puffs is released with a big photoshopped picture of Shaq (you) eating Coco Puffs and smiling. But for 'right of publicity', you have no claim and no way to stop this. Celebrity endorsements would largely disappear because you could use famous person's likeness to endorse your products and help your sales without paying those people a dime. Nike would love to sell Air Jordans without paying MJ tens of millions of dollars.
My views on the right of publicity have been well parsed out elsewhere in this and other blogs. As I have stated previously, I would allow a claim in the narrow instance when it is clear that a product is alleging that someone officially endorses their product when it is in fact not the case. So I would allow a claim to go forth under your hypothetical. But I have always maintained that it should be brought under common law “false light” claims – not the statutory right of publicity which goes well beyond such scenarios (By the way – your claim of “but for the ‘right of publicity’ you have no claim and no way to stop this” is ridiculous. False light claims have been around much longer than statutory “publicity” rights. It is also interesting to note that few states have such publicity statutes.).
So now let me give you a hypothetical. A bobble-head doll maker makes an image of Arnold Schwarzenegger holding a machine gun. Arnold (and his wife) doesn’t want him to be associated with guns, so he threatens to sue the doll maker under a right of publicity claim. Does this hypothe….ooops! I forgot. This isn’t a hypothetical. This actually happened!
Do you maintain that the doll-maker doesn’t have a free speech right in this regard? If you believe in the right of publicity, then surely you would agree with Arnold here right? And if you do, then it should be clear to everyone that you have no regards to the First Amendment. That simple. I don’t think it so radical to suggest that this unconstitutionally infringes free speech. Others agree – even if you don’t.
To summarize – the clear and unmistakable implication of a product endorsement should be actionable when the person whose image was used does not in fact endorse or use the product. But there mere unauthorized use of another’s image in a work should not be actionable, even if the work has some commercial properties to it.
So let’s now bring this back to Marder’s case. Was Jennifer Lopez suggesting that Marder was endorsing a product??? Didn’t think so.
Was Jennifer Lopez using Marder’s image or likeness at all??? Nope. At best, she made an homage reference to the actress Jennifer Beals who played a character named Alex Owens, who Marder claims was loosely inspired by her since both characters were blue-collar workers who moonlighted as dancers.
And for this Marder is claiming a violation of a right of publicity???? You’ve got to be kidding me!
This is the equivalent of a singer making a music video which pays homage to the film the Sandlot and then having Michael Sandavol sue the singer! If you don't get the reference here - check out this case which is directly on point with the current discussion.
If you can’t see how this isn’t a clear indication of the First Amendment chilling effects from the “right of publicity”, then I just don’t know what else to say to you beyond, “I hope the Kool-Aid tastes good.”
p.s. Given your comments in that post I actually did not believe you were an attorney, let alone an IP attorney. Maybe you just spoke rashly. The 'i.p. student' was not literal, I have graduated from law school, I merely have a particular interest in ip matters. I did not email you to argue, instead it was to inform you. I have read the complaint and the motion papers and you have not, so I don't see any room for argument. Many of your opinions regarding this case, without having read the motion papers, are just assumptions. The law firm that represented Marder is a prominent, respected IP firm in los angeles. They likely know much more about such matter than both of us combined. ;)
So now let’s address the most arrogant and ignorant comments that you have stated.
“Given your comments in that post I actually did not believe you were an attorney, let alone an IP attorney. Maybe you just spoke rashly.”
What exactly was it in my post that caused you to not believe that I am an attorney? Can you quote a specific passage in the post for me that you feel is “rash”???
“I did not email you to argue, instead it was to inform you.”
But you obviously wish to “inform” me in order to take issue with my comments. So this statement is pure sophistry on your part. All “arguments” aim to “inform” the other side.
“I have read the complaint and the motion papers and you have not, so I don't see any room for argument. Many of your opinions regarding this case, without having read the motion papers, are just assumptions.”
This statement is just too silly for words. But unfortunately, many people with advanced degrees fall into this trap (especially lawyers). The trap is this – you think that you can use some experience or schooling in order to shut off a debate rather than contribute to it. Rather than using your extra knowledge to suggest why I might be mistaken, you essentially take the attitude of “Well, you should just take my word that I know about more this subject than you do, so you can just shut up right now and not even bother debating me.” This is a tactic that is often used by a variety of professionals that are very insecure about the positions they hold. The reason you feel that there is “no room for argument” is that you can’t back up your own arguments, so you try and find a cheap way of shutting down the whole discussion.
The fact is that our status as lawyers is irrelevant to our ability to judge and comment on these issues. The only reason I wrote the line about my being an attorney is to throw back in your face the technique of claiming to be an “IP student who read the motion papers” as a substitute for credibility in this debate rather than establishing credibility based on arguments. Anyone can debate these issues knowledgeably and credibly. Not just lawyers. So I usually leave my “credentials” as a lawyer out of the equation unless someone seems to mistakenly suggest that it is somehow important.
Of course there is room for argument in this matter (contrary to your assertion). And I am perfectly willing to let the blog community read this and make their own decision.
I am making assumptions about this case – true. I feel perfectly justified in doing so because I have read media accounts of the case from a respected news source. That is how most people form opinions on most issues since they don’t have access to original documents – only media accounts of the documents.
Have you actually seen Jennifer Lopez's music video that helped to spawn this case? Under your rationale, even someone who read the court papers shouldn't be able to comment on the case if they haven't seen the video in question.
If you have read the actual motion papers and judgment decision, then it should be very easy for you to cite, or at least paraphrase any stated facts about the case that the media failed to report on that would in turn challenge my assumptions and conclusions.
Since you haven’t done that – it only strengthens my opinions about this case and tells me that my assumptions are quite justified.
So I will again put the question to you directly: What are the facts in this case that I don’t know about that would lead me to conclude that Marder’s claims against Jennifer Lopez are not entirely frivolous?
If there are such facts, then why did the judge grant the 12(b)(6) motion in the first place? Did he simply not read the complaint?? Do we need to remove him from the bench for incompetence???
This is the whole crux of my argument that you seem to have absolutely no response to: I declared Marder’s lawsuit regarding Jennifer Lopez to be frivolous. A judge granted Lopez’s motion to dismiss “for failing to state a claim” which certainly backs up my contention. But instead of acknowledging this, you try and clumsily defend the indefensible by suggesting that its “more complex” than I suggest and that she it isn’t really frivolous, just “misguided” (even though the very reason that it was “misguided” was because it was in fact frivolous, so I don’t know what you meant by that comment), then you say that you doubted the fact that I am an attorney because I spoke “rashly” about the case without stating a single passage in either my posting or Marder’s complaint to back up your contention.
I continue to be utterly astounded by the people defending this lawsuit even after it was thrown out by a judge.
If there is one minor point that you may have helped to clarify, it is simply to confirm that the case was indeed thrown out at the earliest possible point and did not go through a lengthy discovery culminating in a summary judgment as the California News Service account mistakenly reported and I originally commented on. For this I thank you. But the tone of your other comments is frankly inexplicable.
“The law firm that represented Marder is a prominent, respected IP firm in los angeles. They likely know much more about such matter than both of us combined.”
I can’t speak to the firm as a whole that you fail to name, but I feel confident in knowing that I know more about IP law than the individual who filed the case since I could have warned him/her ahead of time that any claims by Marder against Lopez would be thrown out. Just like I feel confident in knowing that I know more about libel law than USC Professor Erwin Chemerinsky. If they knew more than I do about such subjects, then they wouldn’t go around making silly statements to the press or filing motions that can’t get past a simple 12(b)(6) ruling regarding Jennifer Lopez that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of IP law would have foreseen.
It has been my experience that a mere association with a law firm has little to do with knowledge of a subject. On the contrary, attorneys who work for law firms are often biased advocates that need to make monetary quotas which often distorts clear and objective thinking on issues. So I don’t think much for your declaration in this regard either.
Legal debates can quickly become convoluted because sometimes people argue (a) what the law should be as a matter of policy, while other times they try to argue (b) what the current state of the law objectively is. The fact that many aspects of law are murky allows people to argue (a) and (b) essentially at the same time without giving notice to people which category they are addressing during any given section of the argument. I have sometimes been guilty of such in certain instances (unintentional as it may have been).
But sometimes, (a) & (b) converge in such a way that legal precedent manages to coincide with one's personal policy views.
My various postings hopefully will convince people that I am right under (a), while the rulings of others also happen to prove me right under (b) in this particular instance.
Please note that any future comments directed to my e-mail account will simply be reposted on this site. Since I am copying your words to me and reposting them here without your permission, perhaps you feel that you have claims against me for copyright and privacy violations? If you actually believe that Marder had legitimate claims against Jennifer Lopez, then the notion shouldn’t sound so far fetched.
I look forward to being served and answering the Complaint…
His own wife publicly disagreeing with him on policy.
UPDATE: Boifromtroy has the polling data that gives motivation to my theory that this is all one long setup to replace Cheney without disgracing him.
No doubt, that line comes from one of my favorite movies, and many politically inclined individuals, Mr. Smith goes to Washington. The interaction between the press corps and Senator Smith is classic seeing as the truth is given such low regard. Well, I begin with a Caveat, I do not know the truth of the situation here or abroad completely, but like many things I make a reasonable estimation of the current situation and believe, like many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. That being said, let us begin.
For quite a while now, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the Bush administration as incompetent, dishonest, and/or dishonorable. Consistently, however, we find, like with the Plame Affair, or Michael Moore's "documentary," or "reporting" on events in Iraq, that there are significant elements of the population seeking to tarnish the administration for political purposes. Yet often enough, things sort themselves out, and in the administrations favor. Really, to those who are on the fence or voting for Kerry, (See e.g. Jacob Levy, Dan Drezner, Tyler Cowen, and others.) Isn't there a strong concern that you're being played by a media that distorts and corrupts the truth? Some question the administration ability, but seriously, do we seriously expect that Iraq would be completely rebuilt before even the foundation was laid for the Freedom Tower, nothing is built in a day, and everything takes time, and I think there is little doubt that much is improving.
This revolting story , it now appears, was faked.
To my and many others' chagrin, the subject of this story faked the attack. However, in the face of the news that this attack was faked, French government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope had this to say:
"The explosion in the number of racist and anti-Semitic acts committed in our country these past few years is a reality that we must fight,"
The article that quotes Monsieur Cope also states that,
"The number of such incidents recorded in France -- home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities -- soared in the first half of the year, according to interior ministry figures."
While I officially retract the original story alleging an attack by French Muslims, I still wish to call attention to what is still a very real problem facing the French government: An alarming rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks during this, and recent, years.
Mark D. Firestone
From the SF Chronicle comes this interesting news:
"Democratic Party stalwarts intent on producing a party platform with broad appeal turned aside one attempt after another Saturday to move the presidential campaign document -- and the party -- leftward.
The party's Platform Committee approved a document, 16 days before the Democratic National Convention in Boston, that walks away from proposed language calling the war in Iraq a mistake and seeking a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces."
The article goes on to state that:
"They (Democratic party leaders) began the day facing 207 amendments to a draft platform completed a week ago. Nearly every amendment was withdrawn or incorporated in modified language accepted by Kerry's representatives and other party leaders. For example, a proposal to denounce key elements of the Patriot Act, the foundation of the Bush administration's domestic crusade against terrorism, was rejected."
And all this time I thought supporters of the Democratic hopeful were trying to convince us that the Kerry campaign is all about being opposed to the horrific, extra-judicial war on Iraq that has resulted in the senseless slaughter of the Iraqi people at the hands of a shameless, colony-seeking dictatorial Republican regime. I guess it's true: Being a Democrat doesn't mean you have to have your head up your ass when it comes to national security issues. I guess nobody bothered to send Michael Moore the memo.
Update (7:29 PM, PST) Kerry, in a 60 Minutes interview, has just told Leslie Stahl that ""I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong." I'm having a little trouble with all of this. It's one thing to disagree with the way our current administration brought us into the war in Iraq. It is quite another to state unequivocably, as Kerry did to Stahl, that he is against the war, while those drafting Kerry's platform back away from language stating that the war in Iraq is a mistake. Is it, or isn't it?
Later in the interview we hear this: "I know you want to make this black and white, but the difference is - if John Kerry were president of the United States, we would never be in this place," adds Edwards. "He would never have done what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work to build the alliances and the support system."
"Why build an alliance if they didn't have weapons of mass destruction," asks Stahl.
"We would have found out, that's the point," says Edwards.
So we see that Kerry's Platform Committee thinks that condemning the war is wrong, but Edwards and Kerry have absolutely no problem with condemning the war simply because, allegedly, no WMD's have been found to date. Never mind the graves of mass destruction.
With a straight face, Edwards says to Stahl, about Kerry: "Second, flip-flopper? You gotta be kidding me. I mean, a guy who put his life on the line for the men who served with him in Vietnam every day?"
And I thought we were talking about the war in Iraq. This is so confusing.....
Of alll of the propositions, this one is likely to receive the most press. Dubbed the "open primary" proposition, it would allow every voter to vote for any candidate in the primary and the top two candidates would be on the general ballot. Presidential elections would be excepted
The Sacramento Bee has opinion pieces for and against. Look for many more such discussions.
Another summer, another round of Big Brother. We're up to Big rother 5 already. Amazing. CBS promised another twist this summer in Project DNA, Do Not Assume. They delivered.
Two of the houseguests are related and didn't know it upon arriving. The related guests are Michael, a 23 year old cowboy-garbed young man who appears to be a redneck and Jennifer, a 21-year-old heavily tattooed woman with blue hair. They share a father.
Michael's mother told him the name of his father and stories about the man she knew. She never told Michael's father she was pregnant. Michael's father did not know he had another son and therefore, could not share the information with his five known children, including his daughter, Jennifer.
Sitting around introducing themselves, the houseguests shared last names. Michael started asking questions and quickly figured out that this is indeed his half-sister. Despite what is a watershed moment for him, he kept calm and did not say anything to anyone else right away.
What followed is a series of poignent vignettes in which Michael asks Jennifer questions and learns about his father and learns that she has always wished for an older brother. This is not a Lifetime movie, or a reenactment or a moment staged for some TV newsmagazine. By this point, the awareness of the cameras has faded and we watch a young man grapple with a big moment with quiet grace.
It turned weird for a while after that. After one of the competitions and the installation of the Head of Household, Michael decides to go to the winner and the winner's ally first with the news. It's unclear why he did that. He acknowledged later that it was a mistake. My only guess is that he hoped that the newly installed leaders of the house would lead the group through this process.
The young guns in the power seat reacted by not believing Michael and suspecting him of having some very creative gameplay going on. Even after the truth is revealed by Big Brother, along with the typical tears and hugs, the young guns are suspicious. That suspicion seems to have faded, although the way the show was edited, it is unclear why.
Jennifer is now on the block for eviction. She took $10,000 and made the house eat PB & J for a week. That will get you nominated even if you have just found your long-lost brother. So it remains to be seen whether we have more story developing from this situation.
Big Brother has more "twists' ahead. Two of the houseguests have identical twins who will be switching places with their twins. It is unlikely that will produce the emotional draw that we had in the first two shows but I thought the long-lost sibling angle would disappoint so I approach the rest of it with an open mind.
[cross-posted to blogcritics.org]
This is an interesting story that I expect will build. Perhaps I am at the tail end though since I don't read much of the left end of the blogoshphere.
Some would-be Democratic National Convention bloggers got a nasty surprise this week: They were disinvited after being told they were in.
* * *Wilhide said the DNC-approved bloggers included the Democratic-leaning Burnt Orange Report, Daily Kos, Pandagon.net and TalkLeft.
One question that arises is whether the private sector can or will do anything good if government does not force them to. I believe they can but it gets overlooked. How many of you saw news of this move by Pfizer, announced 3 days ago:
With enrollment beginning in August, Pfizer will provide millions of working families without drug coverage access to Pfizer medicines at an average savings of 37 percent. Pfizer’s medicines treat many common medical conditions, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, depression and diabetes.America’s uninsured suffer because they can’t afford to see doctors as well as get preventive care, needed medical tests and prescription medicines. The uninsured also lack the purchasing power of large-volume buyers like health maintenance organizations and large employers. Many of their treatable medical conditions go undetected for years until expensive medical interventions, often in America’s already overloaded emergency rooms, are required.
In response, Pfizer will offer uninsured families earning less than $45,000 a year the ability to buy medicines at prices similar to those paid by large purchasers. Families without drug coverage making more than $45,000 will be eligible for average savings of 15 percent off retail prices if they do not have drug coverage.
I could blog extensively about the latest Drudge Headline touting the most recent cable wars between Fox News and its rivals.
I could write at length about
how Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film is inspiring an entire new front in the political/information wars now sweeping this country.
I could tell you about how notions of "fair use" and "copyright" will now be used by political opponents to try and monopolize political debate and the use of media hit-pieces to try and influence entire elections.
About how one party can potentially use copyright laws to prevent another party from accurately informing the public about allegations against them by utilizing the sanctioned monopoly on information expression.
About scenarios where Moore will successfully use unauthorized footage under the banner of "fair use" - but when right-leaning filmmakers use the same techniques, they will be hit with a flurry of lawsuits touting copyright and right of publicity violations.
I could tell you about how most people who care about political issues (Drudge obviously included), might think that such issues are important and need to addressed and re-addressed at length since this is ultimately a long term battle that goes against the entire grain of the legal culture in regards to these issues.
I could tell you all of that. But then again, we've certainly "had enough threads on 'intellectual property rights' 'copyright laws' and 'patents' " on this site. Wouldn't you agree? Hmmm??? ;-)
Boifromtroy has the Cheney Watch post of the day, including a link to this MSNBC article:
“I take the president at face va