This news "analysis" appears on the front page today.
Two years ago, as the U.S. planned to march into Baghdad, many in the Bush administration had a vision for Iraq's first freely elected government in decades. It would be a pro-U.S. regime that would support American military bases, embrace U.S. businesses and serve as a model for democracy in the region.Now as Ibrahim Jafari seems certain to become Iraq's new prime minister, the U.S. faces the prospect of dealing with a government whose views may be closer to Tehran's than to Washington's. And U.S. officials are left wondering how many of their assumptions will prove true.
Apparently the L.A. TImes really does not understand the words "free elections" and "democracy." The Iraqis elected who they wanted, not what we wanted (or at least the LA Times believes we want). That is a victory in my book and Exhibit 1 that we were not being imperialists.
If the LA Times, now suddenly worried about the possible ties to Iran, wants reassurance, Allawi is engaging in the political process to form an alliance to retain his position. However, we do not control the government. (I thought that was a good thing).
BTW, pretty quick jump on those "connections" in the LA Times. Call me when they get to Saddam-terrorism links.
I was surprised the LA Times thought Iran was a concern.
Unless there is further action, my reading of the court documents shows that once again, Terri Schindler's husband has court authority to start starving her to death at 10 am Pacific Time, today, February 22.
I blogged about Schindler-Schiavo about a year ago. I was thrilled when Jeb Bush intervened to stop her starvation. As with most adversarial cases, what might have been a resolution was just another battle. The law allowing the Governor to keep her alive was struck down and the US Supreme Court did not step in. I wondered if there was any hope. Well, I still wonder that but others are stilll waging the good fight.
I got an email invitation to Blogs for Terri a couple of days ago. Tongiht I see both Dean and xrlq are still in the trenches. There are few if any bloggers I respect more than those two.
So we're in. Start with the interview of Bobby Schindler. Here's an excerpt:
Lastly, state agencies that are in place to protect people like my sister are grossly failing their responsibilities to protect vulnerable adults like my sister.There has never been an investigation conducted to see if Michael Schiavo attacked Terri the night she collapsed, despite the overwhelming evidence that has been gathered the last two years suggesting that something horrible happened to Terri that night (Please visit www.zimp.org/stuff). For example, there exists a bone scan taken in 1991, illustrating broken bones throughout Terri's body, but only was recently discovered in November 2002, and no agency in the state of Florida seems to care how this occurred, and that Terri's husband might be the reason Terri's in the condition that she is in today.
These state agencies are also permitting the abuse/neglect of my sister regardless of numerous Florida Statutes that are clearly being violated. These agency have a responsibility and a duty to protect vulnerable adults, but for some unexplained reason they will not intervene in my sister situation
The list of action items are at the main website -- Terri's Fight.
Blogsforterri is planning a fullpage ad in the St Petersburg Times. The logic is that most of the news that Terri was and is a vegetable comes from there.
UPDATE: Judge Greer has issued a stay and feeding cannot be removed until 5 pm EST the 23rd and he will hear the emergency motion and consider the appellate court decision, apparently by then.
In the last few months, as the topic of a papal resignation came up frequently in conversation, I realized I was opposed. At first, I'd just shake my head and dismiss the idea. Then, I'd voice a general objection. Eventually, I tried to put rational discourse behind my gut reactions. In the LA Times today, there is an excellent summary of the reasons in that rational discourse.
Of all of them, the one that triggered my initial wordless rejection is this:
Being the successor of Peter is more akin to being a father than being the chief executive of a multinational corporation. As Pope Paul VI said, one cannot renounce paternity
When I hit more rational reactions, I am swayed by this reason:
many observers believe that John Paul II is providing precious testimony about the inherent value of human life, from beginning to end.
For those of you needing less visceral reactions, the article walks you through all of them. It is worth reading as a basis for discussion regardless of where you fall on the issue.
Patterico notes that Susan Estrich has joined the L.A. Times bias watch with a new blog.
What some readers might not realize is that Estrich's site seems to be a salvo in an increasingly personal war between Estrich and LA Times' editor Michael Kinsley.
This is why I predict that Estrich's site won't amount to much. It pretends to be railing against an institution, but it is probably just a temporary niche-blog that was likely created as a way to gripe about a personal spat over Kinsley's decision not to run specific pieces/authors that Estrich champions.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
Just when you thought Calblog's "Cheney Conspiracy Files" were cooling off, WorldNetDaily reports stunning news from an unnamed source:
[Cheney] has an unfortunate history of heart trouble. So let's just say none of us will be surprised if, sometime next year, he will step down from the vice presidency due to his health. Should this happen ... It is quite clear to us whom the president would choose should he need to: Condoleezza Rice.
Ok, so the announcement probably hasn't convinced the skeptics out there. So?; when has that ever stopped The Cheney Conspiracy FilesTM before? ;-)
Anyway, it never hurts a Calblog contributor to endear the mythic blog-heart whenever possible. Heh. :-)
(* Includes all Calblog posts highlighting Cheney's ever-impending resignation/removal)
This has proved too upsetting for me to write about. Take a look at the documentation yourself. Check out especially this. You'd think even a five-minute cursory glance would give some nit-wit judge a clue.
Poor woman. May God grant her—on this earth, or the great hereafter—vengeance on her abuser and (quite possibly) would-be murderer.
The following exchange, between President Bush and a reporter identified only as "Norah", makes it pretty clear to me that Social Security reform will only be initiated if it is the will of the people and as indicated by the people to their elected representatives:
Q Mr. President, you've made clear that Social Security reform is your top legislative priority. The top Republican leader in the House has said you cannot jam change down people's throats. And in your interviews with the regional newspapers, you made very clear that you would not rule out raising the cap on payroll taxes. If you were to do that, why would that not be seen as going back on your pledge not to raise taxes?THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- a couple of questions there. One, I agree, you can't cram an issue down people's throats. As a matter of fact, the best way to get this issue addressed in the halls of Congress is for the American people to say, why don't we come together and do something. And so the first priority of mine is to convince the people we have a problem. And I'm going to do that a lot. As a matter of fact, I enjoy traveling the country, and I hope you do, too, because I'm going to be doing a lot of it. I fully understand, Norah, that nothing will happen if the members of Congress don't believe there's a problem that needs to be solved. And so you'll see a lot of travel.
And the problem is plain to me: You've got baby boomers getting ready to retire -- they've been promised greater benefits than the current generation, they're living longer, and there's fewer people paying into the system. And the system goes negative starting in 2018 and continues to do so. There's the problem. Nothing will happen, I repeat, unless the Congress thinks there's a problem.
Once the Congress -- once the people say to Congress, there's a problem, fix it, then I have a duty to say to members of Congress, bring forth your ideas. And I clarified a variety of ideas that people should be encouraged to bring forth, without political retribution. It used to be, in the past, people would step and say, well, here's an interesting idea, and then they would take that idea and clobber the person politically.
What I'm saying to members of Congress is that we have a problem -- come together and let's fix it, and bring your ideas forward, and I'm willing to discuss them with you. And so that's why I said what I said, and will continue to say it. And it's not -- I've got some ideas of my own. Obviously, I think personal accounts are an important part of the mix and want to continue working with members of Congress to understand the wisdom of why personal accounts makes sense for the long-term, to be a part of a long-term solution for Social Security.
The following exchange, between President Bush and a reporter identified only as "Norah", makes it pretty clear to me that Social Security reform will only be inititated if it is the will of the people and as indicated by the people to their elected representatives.
Q Mr. President, you've made clear that Social Security reform is your top legislative priority. The top Republican leader in the House has said you cannot jam change down people's throats. And in your interviews with the regional newspapers, you made very clear that you would not rule out raising the cap on payroll taxes. If you were to do that, why would that not be seen as going back on your pledge not to raise taxes?THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- a couple of questions there. One, I agree, you can't cram an issue down people's throats. As a matter of fact, the best way to get this issue addressed in the halls of Congress is for the American people to say, why don't we come together and do something. And so the first priority of mine is to convince the people we have a problem. And I'm going to do that a lot. As a matter of fact, I enjoy traveling the country, and I hope you do, too, because I'm going to be doing a lot of it. I fully understand, Norah, that nothing will happen if the members of Congress don't believe there's a problem that needs to be solved. And so you'll see a lot of travel.
And the problem is plain to me: You've got baby boomers getting ready to retire -- they've been promised greater benefits than the current generation, they're living longer, and there's fewer people paying into the system. And the system goes negative starting in 2018 and continues to do so. There's the problem. Nothing will happen, I repeat, unless the Congress thinks there's a problem.
Once the Congress -- once the people say to Congress, there's a problem, fix it, then I have a duty to say to members of Congress, bring forth your ideas. And I clarified a variety of ideas that people should be encouraged to bring forth, without political retribution. It used to be, in the past, people would step and say, well, here's an interesting idea, and then they would take that idea and clobber the person politically.
What I'm saying to members of Congress is that we have a problem -- come together and let's fix it, and bring your ideas forward, and I'm willing to discuss them with you. And so that's why I said what I said, and will continue to say it. And it's not -- I've got some ideas of my own. Obviously, I think personal accounts are an important part of the mix and want to continue working with members of Congress to understand the wisdom of why personal accounts makes sense for the long-term, to be a part of a long-term solution for Social Security.
This is one instance where I really will hate being right.
Remember right after 9/11 when people said that "All the 'dots' were there. People just refused to connect them...."?
Justin is doing a series of posts on legal action against bloggers. No comments so I wil have to post later to respond to them. First, the update on the company that tossed me into a legal fray -- Infotel Publications. According to The Telegram, Infotel has changed its name to Vericom and changed its phone number. This info came up in my comment threads but the reliability of comments have been less than perfect (though more right than wrong).
Vericom/Infotel appears to be targeting the UK now although an acquaintance called me a couple of months ago to tell me that his sister was being harassed now in the US.
The blog site in question that is currently under siege can be found here.
The lawsuit in question can be found here.
As I predicted in my original post, copyright claims are figuring much more prominently in the anti-blogging arsenal than are libel lawsuits.
The coming legal superstorm against bloggers continues to gather....
Exhibit 2 (hat-tip: Instapundit)
Exhibit 3 (good commentary on this one here)
Longtime Calblog readers will no doubt remember Exhibit 4.
(Exhibit 1 from the archives here).
As Calblog already reported in its comprehensive Condit blog-post, the first deposition of Gary Condit contained a jaw-dropping lie followed by a lawyer-induced obfuscation:
In the deposition, when asked by Dunne lawyer Paul LiCalsi to describe his relationship with Levy in general terms, Condit replied, "We were friends. …It wasn't a romantic relationship."
LiCalsi pressed on, asking what Condit understands the words "'romantic relationship' to mean."
Condit replied, "One of unusual affection, where you pay attention to people and so on and so forth.
"Was there any physical intimacy of any kind in your relationship?" LiCalsi wanted to know.
"I instruct Mr. Condit not to answer the question," Condit's attorney, L. Lin Wood, interjected at that point.
Condit was scheduled to submit to another deposition where he would no doubt be called on the carpet for his lying under oath. But wouldn't ya know it? Condit just so happened to be feeling under the weather right before his scheduled appearance. Gee, what are the odds?
Meanwhile, Condit's stepford-children are speaking out again.
I was in my early teens when Watergate exploded and I have to admit that it was way over my head. Several of my classmates were really interested and I don't know if they were smarter, had parents who talked about it, or just bluffed better. Still, I grew up with Watergate as the watershed (no pun intended) political event. I was far too young for the JFK assasination and even the assasinations of 68 were a blur.
I have waited a long time to learn who Deep Throat is, often wondering if Woodward and Bernstein would really release the info on DT's death. According to Caltechgirl, it's going to happen and maybe soon.
The odds-on favorite seems to be Rehnquist due to his illness. Wouldn't he have already been on the Supreme Court then? Doesn't that bother anyone besides me?
I have thought it was Kissinger for about 25 years and I can no longer tell you why. He doesn't seem likely but a long time ago, I heard something in passing that made me think "ah so he's Deep Throat." So I am sticking with that conclusion.
Chalk up another win (h/t) for Big Media; not that anyone needed a crystal ball to see that the video of an unhinged CNN honcho, spouting the ludicrous slander that the American military assassinates journalists, would never be allowed to see the light of day.
Sisyphus laments:
The rock rolled down the hill.
Don't blame yourself, Sisyphus, Atlas himself couldn't roll that rock up the hill if Big Media wants it to roll down.
I agree with Vanderleun (h/t); now that CNN is secure in the quashing of the video tape, the story will never gain critical mass. The b'tards win again; just business as usual in Big Media-land.
UPDATE:
Everyone's linking to a must-read, on fire post from Rony Abovitz, who's righteously ticked about CNN and the deeply corrupted state of the Mainstream Media. Check it out.
Via Meryl comes an article by Jonah Goldberg, in which he quotes from an article in the Atlantic, written by Kenneth Pollack, that itemizes the countries which, prior to our invasion of Iraq, all felt that Hussein’s Iraq was a serious threat as an uncontrollable country in probable possession of WMD’s. Chief among them: Germany, France, Britain and the United States. Given the oil-for-dollars scandal that recently surfaced and the dim view I have had of the UN and EU for years, I am not having a hard time believing (nor have I all along) that the US was not alone or unreasonable in determining that Hussein was a serious threat, and that major potential players were forced to abandon any idea of going up against Saddam as they were profiting from a cozy relationship with tyrant’s corrupt government. The fact that we found no WMD's does not preclude that we had good reason to believe that they existed, and Saddam's attitude with regard to UN weapons inspections did much to convince us of that fact as well.
In addition, the voter turnout in the recent election is reportedly doing much to turn the tide with the insurgency, according to this item from Gail at Crossing The Rubicon 2. All in all, I am even more convinced that the continual bleating of "No WMD's were found" will eventually fade into oblivion as we connect the dots to find that the vast majority of the Iraqi people do indeed want what the US has to offer and what we ourselves enjoy: Nothing less than Democracy and the right to live without fear and repression.
One of the problems that I see today is that we are so polarized as a nation and have heard so much rhetoric (from both sides) we have lost sight of the fact that we were not alone in assessing the potential danger that Saddam posed post 9/11 but prior to our invasion and ouster of a brutal dictator who had no regard for his own people, let alone the rest of the world.
Copyright Stalinists are out in force this week:
Scuttling Google's great plans to create a virtual library. (Hat-tip: How Appealing)
Harry Potter author fears that the U.S. Army is going to cut in to her profits with a competing publication.
More instances of people not being allowed to even photograph a sculpture in a public park. (Very similar to the efforts to prevent people from photographing the Eiffel Tower).
Bloggers also going copyright crazy. (Hat-tip: Legal XXX)
But hey, we can't have all of these instances of "theft" now can we?
Anyone who has spent anytime dealing with their city government, as I have, (or any other government entity, for that matter), will appreciate the sardonic humor to be found at this website for HUH? Consultants. The scary part is, it pretty much sums up exactly what I have been thinking about consulting firms for some time. From the opening lines under the heading, "Strategies",
Our main consulting strategy is to convince clients that we do stuff they can't do themselves, and that we deserve lots of money for it. The best way to do this is to always look good, and always sound like we know something you don't. Because we do.
to this blatant ambiguity under "Clients",
Our marketing and consultant clients are numerous and prestigious. Far too numerous and prestigious to name, in fact. You'll just have to take our word on this.
this parody mirrors all too well the reality of consulting firms hired at the taxpayers' expense for the most mundane of public works projects. The sad part is that too few taxpayers are involved in any given situation to realize how widespread the unnecessary use of "consultants" really is, and the amount of tax dollars that are wasted annually by municipalities that have bought the consultants' schtick hook, line and sinker. Ethics seem to have taken a backseat to milking the cash cow that is the taxpaying public, both on the part of city officials and consulting firms.
Oh man, would I love to go up against John H. Lavely, Jr. in a courtroom libel case. How the hell do these people even graduate college?
Gotta love that last paragraph where he writes: "This is a confidential legal notice and is not for publication. Any publication, dissemination or broadcast of any portion of this letter will constitute a breach of confidence and a violation of the Copyright Act."
Is this man on crack?!!? He thinks that a confidential relationship exists between a lawyer and the person he threatens to sue???? (And don't even get me started on the copyright reference...)
What is particularly sad is that many attorneys actually think they are doing their clients a favor by striking such over-the-top postures. This makes Lohan look bad, even though she probably had nothing to do with the specific tone of this letter.
The Smoking Gun sees through the charade when it notes:
The Lohan legal threat--a copy of which you'll find below, sans the name/address of the recipient--recounts Michael Lohan's rap sheet and his history of violating restraining orders. Lavely also points out "oft-repeated reports" of Michael's psychological problems, drug and alcohol abuse, and how he once was thrown into a "mental home." But Lavely warned that journalists risked legal troubles if they mentioned Michael's claims that his wife and daughter were "emotionally unsound" or that Dina purportedly had substance abuse problems.
Yet another embarrassment to the legal profession....
Maybe this was all prodded by Lohan's stress over other lawsuits. Note to the AP: tread lightly when reporting this...
Instapundit chimes in on what your humble blogger rails against on a near daily basis.
Particularly strange to note that there are apparently no royalties needed for German WWII aircraft designs, but payment is required for American designs. Further proof of the absolute racket that copyrights have become.
But I know there are still many who read this blog that think that model makers are somehow "stealing" from the corporations that originally built the actual full-scale military aircraft and vehicles.
Not enough for you? Then how about the outrageous "theft" being perpetrated by those taking pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night.
Any notions of fair use and public domain
have become a complete joke under the jack-boots of modern copyright laws.
Tyranny of Copyright - Part II
Tyranny of Copyright - Part III
(Note - I orignally mislabeled the heading of this current post "Part III". It is actually Part IV and I have relabled it accordingly.)
Finally, somebody is saying what needs to be said.
Give that Ann Bartow a medal!
Levine's Second Rule of Law: "Clarity and consistency in judicial opinions are paramount above all else."
The Supreme Court seems to be ignoring Levine's Second Rule of Law at nearly every turn these days. It has been a disaster for the country and can only help to breed judicial tyranny. Clarity and consistency should be valued even over specific results that might favor conservative legal thought.
Fuzzy results-based Justices such as O'Connor and Kennedy are the biggest offenders of this particular Rule.
Exhibit 1 for Levine's Second Rule of Law.
Exhibit 2 for Levine's Second Rule of Law, with related links here and here.
(Levine's First Rule of Law here.)
A few important observations from the must read Newsweek article regarding the terrorist insurgency/insurgencies that aren't getting their due attention from other news outlets yet:
1. It looks like Iraqi police might have had Zarqawi in custody and let him go (Ugh!).
2. Newsweek confirms what those who have had their eyes open these past few years have known for some time - Al-Queda was setting up shop in Iraq after being pushed out of Afghanistan (but before the invasion of Iraq). Therefore, although people can still disagree over specific tactics, anyone opposed to the war in Iraq should at least be asked if they are willing to fight Al-Queda at all in a post-9/11 world. If not, then what should our response be? If so, then why not in Iraq?? If not Iraq, then where???
From pg. 3 of the article:
Saddam was not the only one preparing for a cataclysmic battle. After the United States crushed Afghanistan's Taliban regime and tore up Al Qaeda's infrastructure in the winter of 2001-02, would-be holy warriors started eying Iraq as a place where they could make a new stand. One of them was Zarqawi. Working with a group of Kurdish Islamic radicals known as Ansar Al-Islam, he established an underground railroad, bringing zealots to northern Iraq through Europe, Turkey and Syria. Other would-be holy warriors started finding their own way to Baghdad. As the American invasion approached, Osama bin Laden's head of military operations, a former Egyptian commando known as Saif al-Adel, laid out a detailed strategy for jihad in Iraq. Bin Laden himself called on holy warriors to join the fight in March and April.
3. Newsweek also confirms another point that has been obvious to those who have had their eyes open these past few years - Syria is providing safe haven for those coordinating the insurgency in Iraq. Thus this can only be looked upon as a regional war. We won't achieve victory in Iraq until regime change comes to Syria and a few other places in the area.
Somehow, without much effort, but with the passage of time, blogging has given me access to good help in my law practice. I have gotten quick, good help when I have been in a spot from Roscoe's Blog (who made an appearance for me when all my usual folk had conflicts). Confessions of a Political Junkie (whose firm in Georgia is doing research for me) and So Cal Law Blog who has connected me to a contract lawyer whom I will meet today (I am desperate for assistance these days).
In addition, Lex Communis has let me make appearances for his partner.
Other people I have met also read the blog, including my Loislaw representative (if you are in business for yourself I can't say enough good things about Loislaw over Westlaw and Lexis.).
I have probably forgotten many but I wanted to give some acknowledgement.
I'm not talking about the holiday (which, like many, I have never really "gotten"). I'm talking about the film.
A diverse group of people are speaking up about what more and more people have concluded in recent years.
A film that stands the test of time and speaks to multiple generations? A film that is beloved by people across the social-political spectrum? That is the definition of a true classic...
