Po-Po No-No

Andrew Meyer is a student in Florida. Yesterday, he was at a campus forum featuring Senator John Kerry, and apparently went over his allotted time to ask questions. He was removed by the police officers of his school, although the Senator said he would answer the student's questions. As the scene escalated minimally, in that Meyer resisted being led away, the campus police apparently thought it appropriate to use a Taser; that is, the police used a stun gun on the student. A stun gun.

"Meyer was arrested on charges of resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records, but the State Attorney's Office had yet to make the formal charging decision. Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor."

OK. The police use a stun gun because four of them are having a hard time controlling a student at a campus forum, and now they recommend he be charged with a felony offense.

I was just having a conversation with someone this very day about the need for checks and balances on police power because of the possibility of abuse inherent in that power. This is exactly the kind of situation I was thinking about, the kind where the person in question is not a threat, not breaking the law, but is treated as a violent offender anyway. Leaving out entirely that it doesn't help the image of the police (or the many security personnel at campuses all over who have a very difficult and thankless task), it's a waste of police and court resources (read: your tax dollars) to prosecute this "criminal."

*Edited to say that having seen the video, the only comment I can add to what I've already written here is that Kerry, who drones on and on while this whole thing goes down, once again is left looking totally ineffective.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/student_arrested_kerry

A Boy Named Hsu

Norman Hsu. Sigh. Making my side look bad. But here at Trogvision we struggle for parity (cough), so he's gotta get talked about. Who is he? A convicted fugitive who gives big bucks to Democrats. Yes, it's true there are plenty of money-giving crooks out there. (See the deceased Kenneth Lay, for example.) What makes this case different?

In the wake of such scandals, er, misguided decisions, fundraisers have had to figure out how to deal. It's embarrassing to take money from bad guys. It could make the nonprofit look like it approves of said bad guy's actions. And might keep other donors from giving.

Sometimes the fundraisers feel the need to give the money back. Sometimes the donor wants the fundraiser to give the money back. (See the deceased Kenneth Lay v. Mizzoo.) But sometimes, as here, the fundraiser doesn't want to give the money back but really should. The others to whom Hsu had given money had gotten rid of it. Governor Rendell, who I generally believe does a great job, was the lone holdout. This was a bad move. But today he decided to get rid of his Hsu moo.

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, having defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell latex gloves. He remained a fugitive for 15 years until last week when he turned himself in to California authorities. Apparently this went unknown until some time last month, when receivers of Hsu's largesse began giving it back or giving it to charity. Last night Hsu, who had skipped town on $2 million bail for a grand theft conviction on Wednesday, was arrested in Grand Junction, Colo. (Grand Junction is a mere two hours from Aspen, which is where Kenny Boy went for a vacation and never came back.)

Sources:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/9636722.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1197912,00.html

Incoming Mindset

Every year, Benoit College puts together a list to show the mindset of incoming freshmen. It's useful. I remember once when I was in grad school, I had to take an undergraduate course and the professor made a comment about Yul Gibbons. Yul Gibbons, as you might recall, was a naturalist who ate things like pinecones, and hawked natural cereals. I might be simplifying things a bit, but the point here is that none of the students in the class (except for me because I was a little bit older) knew who he was, so whatever reference the professor was making was lost on the class. Hence the value of such a list.

This year's list has some of the kinds of things you'd expect: the Class of 2011 has always had bottled water, for example. The one that struck me is this: Nelson Mandela has always been free and a force in South Africa.

Mandela: author, Nobel-prize winner, first democratically elected president of South Africa, activist. Jailed from 1962 to 1990. Most people think of Mandela as a promoter of peace, but in frustration, it was his view that the African National Congress should have a military wing, because it "would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force." He became an enduring symbol when he refused to compromise his position to gain a quicker freedom. Since being freed, he has continued as a tour de force for peace. Did I mention he was trained as a lawyer?

I remember the day Mandela was released in February of 1990. I had been boycotting all products of manufacturers that had a presence in South Africa for a long time, and continued to do so until everyone in that country, no matter their color, got the right to vote. I remember reading all the accounts of his leaving jail in all the newspapers, and I can clearly remember feeling very hopeful and happy, sure that we were on the brink of something big. Something right. Something just.

In a way I'm sorry for the incoming freshmen, that they missed such a joyful moment, the amen of a prayer for humanity. More broadly, I wonder if those who haven't known a particular struggle can ensure that it doesn't happen again. Santayana said that those who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. He didn't elaborate on whether they had to understand it.



Sources:
http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/mindset/2011.php
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/mandela-bio.html
http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html

One Bitch to Another

I remember that when Leona Helmsley was in some deep poo in the 1980s, Newsweek had a picture of her on its cover with the phrase "Rhymes With Rich." This was before she was hauled off to the big house for a while.

Today I learned that Helmsley, who died about 10 days ago, instructed in her will that her dog Trouble will receive $12 million. The media are making a big deal that the dog gets money and some grandkids don't. Big deal: the testator has the right to do anything she wants, including not including particular descendants. So the grandkids have no leg to stand on, unless they can prove she was mentally incompetent when she signed the will, and that's long and messy. They'd be better off attending to other business, especially because Grandma did leave money to some other grandkids, who presumably would rather believe Helmsley was coherent when she signed her will.

Let's remember, as some professor told me in law school: Money+family=litigation.

My questions here are: What could possibly cost a dog $12 million over its life? How the hell much does kibble cost? Does this dog take vacations? Cruises? Does it regularly bathe in 14-karat gold? Does it live better than most American families?

Other than that, Helmsley planned and executed a thoughtful will, unlike, say, Anna Nicole Smith. But I wonder who the remaindermen are (those who stand to take if there's anything left after all claims and gifts are made), and whether they're plotting the unfortunate demise of Trouble right this moment.

The Gonzales Exit

Blogging: It's a timely sport. Meaning if you've spaced your password, you can't be all timely on the Gonzales thing. But some things are better on the second day. Pizza. Kugel. Who the next attorney general will be.

First of all, better late than never. President Bush, who takes loyalty to a high art form (even when it's totally unwarranted) got to put it all out there b/c the Gonzales Goodbye didn't come from his direction. Cough.

Secondly, Paul Clement, who is the current Solicitor General, will be the interim AG. He's a conservative. He's bright as hell. He clerked for Scalia. He's argued cases in lower courts on the Administration's approach to terrorism(1).

Third, from the peanut gallery, the speculation is delicious. Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security? That will be held against him (see Katrina)(2) but actually Chertoff has a credible legal background, and served as United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals(3).

Theodore Olson was the Solicitor General for a while(4), and his wife Barbara was killed on the Pentagon plane on 9/11, which automatically imbues him with a no-shit approach regarding terrorists. He's also legally credible, and every case I ever read involving him was sound. (In a bit of unrelated weirdness, 9/11 is also his birthday. However, I'm glad to report he's now happily remarried, to his fourth wife.)

The other choices are less noteworthy to me, but the interesting choice I saw bandied about yesterday (though not today) was Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah. Extremely conservative guy but also, almost inexplicably, good friends with across-the-aisle Ted Kennedy(5). I can't recall Senator Hatch ever seeming like the Great Bridge of the Diametrically Opposed, and I don't imagine he would be in this role either. I further don't imagine any serious Democrat would take Senator Hatch's candidacy as some kind of appeasement.

I am personally very glad to see Gonzales gone, not because of his bungling of the judges being fired, but because of his involvement in 2002, while working in the Department of Justice, in narrowing the definition of torture(6). I believed and still do believe that anyone so bogged down in technically defining the extent to which pain needs to be present in the life of a detainee before the detainee is allowed to so much as visit with his own human rights has probably long since lost the forest for the trees and thus, he wasn't a suitable candidate to be upholding justice.


Sources, I got your sources right here:
1. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/paul_d_clementbio.htm
2. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294911,00.html
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/chertoff-bio.html
4. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/t_olson_bio.htm
5. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/edwardmkennedy.html
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48446-2005Jan4.html

A word on the miners

There is something about the plight of miners that touches me. It's hard to believe there are still people who do abnormally dangerous work in substantially similar circumstance as was done in the early 1900s. And it's also hard to believe that in that span of over one hundred years, there are not better, safer methods in place for the quick return of people trapped in the mines. The mine at issue here has apparently had more than 300 violations since 2004. As recently as last month, it was cited for inadequate escape passages.

In the law when someone engages in abnormally dangerous activity that harms the interests of others, we don't use negligence or recklessness as the tort theory. We use strict liability, meaning it's of no issue whatsoever how many precautions the wrongdoer tried to take.

I have no illusions that any of the miners are alive, and I feel terribly for their families. As I say, miner incidents just seem particularly tragic to me. But this incident leaves me with some questions:
1. How the hell many violations does a mining company get to have before it gets shut down? Why bother with a sanction mechanism if its enforcement is a joke?
2. If a company routinely blows off citations, and doesn't make a mine as safe as it can be under the circumstances, is it held to a strict liability standard, responsible for absolutely everything that flows from the actions of its business? And if not, why not?
3. Who's paying for all this? Who are the people lowering microphones and drilling and rethinking how to throw more light for the camera? Are they donating their time? Is Murray paying for all of it?
4. Would it have been so hard to get a couple of translators in place for the families of several of the miners, whose first language is not English?


Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec07/miners_08-08.html

Oh where have you been my blue eyed son

The Bar exam: she do take a bite. The Trog has had no time to post. The Trog has had no time to fix herself a Boca burger and has not seen the Trogettes in weeks. The state of the Trog's house is contemptible.

But the Trog nevertheless notes with joy that there is some karmic justice in this world.

It's a bad idea on principle to tell someone you work with to go f*ck himself. Graceless to then say afterwards how much better it made you feel. Delicious when that someone then legally calls for your head a couple years later.

When does the Executive branch admit they're not village idiots and truly do understand that Executive Privilege is reserved for exactly one person who is not named Harriet Miers?

It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall. Yep. Delicious.

Administrative State

So the Bush Administration has had six gaffes in a row, in a short period of time. Barrie Dunsmore authored this article (Source 1 below) and seems to believe that somehow this will turn the tide, once we realize Dick Cheney is the Great Satan.

First of all, I can knock that 6 down to 4 in no time: 9 servicepeople being killed in Iraq is no longer novel enough to register in the conscience of America and dead Iraqis, Shiite or otherwise, never registered in the first place.

Second, the idea that there is anywhere lower to sink is the fundamental flaw here. No one expects greatness from this Administration. No one demands accountability. We've been taught that both ideas are futile. The only thing that can happen now is that further crap ideas might not get implemented. No one is getting impeached. No one from the Administration, Chuck Schumer's idea to the contrary (see Source 2), is getting canned. No one is coming home en masse from Iraq.

All this to say: who cares how much bad news occurred? It won't help. Myriad violations of civil rights that have occurred during the last six years will take decades to remedy. The social programs that have been getting robbed ever since faith-based initiatives took over aren't ever getting it back. All by itself, our approach in Guantanamo has ensured generations of terrorists who hate us. The schools that don't have enough money so that we can put a war on (but not outfit our soldiers correctly) will stay forever poor. We stand for this every day. We've come to accept it as the norm. We're trogs, slogging back into the cave.

Someone tell me what 4 newsworthy items does for you when your country is already at the bottom of the piddle puddle.

Sources:
1.http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/11/bush-administration-takes-six-blows-in-a-row/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rutlandherald.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D%2F20070311%2FFEATURES15%2F703110301%2F-1%2FHSSPORTS&frame=true
2.http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/16885353.htm

Glass Houses

Today's NYT contains an article about Condi & Co's assessment of human rights in the world. The State Department has come to the conclusion that freedoms are "eroding" in its annual survey of human rights practices. (TrogDigression: Has no one in the State Department taken a grammar class? Freedoms are not active doers, thus must take a passive stance. Freedoms have been eroded.)

Apparently in the report, lots of countries were examined. 193, to be exact. But guess which country's human rights practices weren't examined? Can you guess? Us! Can you believe that? You'd think we'd be right up there, as a model. Maybe not. Maybe Condi et al also had a hard time justifying our practice while simultaneously dunning everybody else.

Source #3 tells some stories that might make you sick. If you read them, you should feel very proud that you aren't being represented by those other, terrible, 193 countries with human rights violations. Yessirree.


Sources:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Human-Rights.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2007/03/01/truth-in-prints

Ann Coulter

annoys the living hell out of me. Why can't John Kerry make a valid point about the quality of military personnel without it being blown back in his face in under 4 seconds, but Ann Coulter can use derogatory, defamatory language and it's all good?

The fact that she posits herself a Deadhead is sheer lunacy. She's just. not. kind. I can't believe she and I were ever at a show together, but apparently we were: Sandstone Amphitheater in Lawrence, Kansas on July 4th, 1990. It was over 100 degrees that day and the Dead opened with Cold Rain & Snow. Ice was a commodity more precious than gold that day. Strangers brought each other drinks because there was no other choice. That's how hot it was, and the seats were plastic to boot and had been heated up good by the sun, so sitting wasn't an option.

But Coulter, in her description of the show, never mentions the weather. This leads me to conclude she either didn't go or sat in an air-conditioned car in the parking lot the whole time. Nor can she tell when her first show was or her last. These are details no Head forgets.

I think she's a poser and I'm done paying attention to her.

Here's what Elizabeth Edwards had to say about Coulter calling her husband a faggot:

Hate words and you
Elizabeth Edwards
3/03/2007 at 1:32 PM EST


When Miss Coulter spoke about John at the conservative convention in Washington yesterday, she used a word that she intended as a nasty and derogatory suggestion. John and I have long ago shrugged off the vile words of this person. When she made a joke about the exact moment of death of Charlie Dean (Howard's brother and a schoolmate of mine), and when she attacked the courageous 9-11 widows, she told you all you need to know about what she is made of: her compassion -- or lack thereof. Now we need to find out about you.

Although her words did not hurt us, they may have hurt some in the gay community. We are all sick and tired of anyone supporting or applauding or introducing hate words into the national dialogue, tired of people thinking that words that cause others pain are fair game. And we are sick and tired of people like Miss Coulter thinking that her use of loaded words about the homosexual community in this country is remotely humorous or appropriate.

John gave a graduation speech at NC State several years ago, and in it he said that none of us can stand by when words of bigotry and division are used. It is only when the rest of us stand up and say that this is not acceptable that we drum out the hate-mongers from amongst us.

The first reaction in the room at the conservative convention yesterday was a gasp -- a horrified gasp, even -- but it did not last. In a few seconds, those who were not horrified started clapping and drowned out the gasps.

Now it is our turn to drown out the hate. Find a way -- whether it is contribution here that sends a message to Miss Coulter and those who applauded her (which, of course, I prefer) or whether it is a statement on this blog or others or all of the above -- but please find a way not to sit silent in acceptance.

It doesn't change until we say we will not be silent when this happens.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070302/cm_thenation/45171092
http://www.jambands.com/Features/content_2006_06_23.06.phtml

Afrikaners

In today's NYT is a very interesting article about the future direction of Afrikaners, the Dutch-descended people of South Africa who brought apartheid with them and profited from it for decades. On surface the story is about a song and the feelings it produced. Under that is a more important story about Afrikaners trying to find their place in a new South Africa.

What's interesting is that they're asking this question so soon after the end of apartheid. Nelson Mandela was freed in 1990, so even using that early date as an end of sorts, it's been 17 years. (Apartheid ended in 1994.) By contrast, Germany has been asking questions of itself and trying to make sense of its history for the last 60-odd years.

What does this mean? Does it mean Afrikaners were more willing more quickly to come to terms with their past? Is it an indication of how speeded-up the world is today? It's true that questions in Germany were not raised for quite some time after the end of WWII but even considering that time lag, it's still a long time to come to terms. Is it a different outcome when there are many different ethnicities living in the country? My white wealthy South African friends seemed to think it was all much ado about nothing, in the late 1980s, and that has me wondering whether this quick understanding has to do with a lacking sense of the depth of the damage created, something German people who struggle with the issue have no trouble understanding.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?hp

Intelligence

Why is it newsworthy that this woman shaved off her hair?

I get my hair cut all the time. No cameras ever flash in my face as a result. She's not the only shaver. Plenty of women just like it, and there is also a large group who can't take clumps of hair falling out due to chemotherapy and feel like they're exerting control over their suddenly chaotic lives by shaving it off. No one follows them around taking pictures.

All this leads me to believe that the argument on the appropriate spot of the political spectrum for American media completely misses the point. The question is not whether media are liberal or regressive. It's that American media are largely so unintelligent. Given whether Brittany Spears cut her hair off or whether we're going to war with Iran real soon and why, I choose the latter. I need the latter. So if it's really just a response to customer demand, I say: give us a real choice, and see what we choose.

To wit: bars in Philly were quite concerned that they'd lose money when smoking was banned. It's been a little while now and people are realizing it's nice to come home from a night out and not reek of smoke. Now when I have a choice b/w bars that don't have smoke and bars in the county right next door, where smoking is still allowed, I'm not likely to go to the smoker bars.

Hey, here's a thought: how about if we just stop assuming everyone is a complete cretin and start treating consumers as if they're intelligent people?

Anna Nicole *shakes head*

I have heard that Anna Nicole Smith was interesting to watch in the same way that watching a train wreck was interesting. You're ashamed of yourself for watching but you can't tear your eyes away. I had no actual interest in Anna Nicole Smith. I bumped into stories about her from time to time in connection with various litigation in which she was involved. But in her death, she has become interesting to me, because her will is a hellacious mess.

The point of a will is to dispense with the dead person's assets, and figure out what to do with stuff or people they cared for based on their intent, which, it is presumed, will be laid out neatly and clearly in a will. However, I read cases all the time in which this ideal simply has not panned out. Either it's the testator's misunderstanding of the law or poor writing, or the lawyer's ambiguity or whatever, but it isn't clear what the testator wanted, yet that intent is what the court looks to for clarity.

Miss Smith, whose boyfriend was an attorney (who is in fact named as executor of her will), has a will from 2001. In 2006 she had another child (possibly by said attorney) but apparently never updated her will to include said child. Far from it, her 2001 will actually clearly indicates her intent that the will only be construed to include her then-living (now dead) son and no future issue.

I'm not going to speculate on whether or not her attorney/possible co-parent will wind up in the next edition of Trusts & Estates over this. But it speaks to just what was distasteful to me about Smith in the first place. Maybe she wasn't well educated and came from a hard-scrabble life. That's no reason not to take care of her own, and at least in the five months since her baby was born, she should have done just that.

I found her sort of amusing in life. I find her unforgiveable in death.

Source:
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/gen/ap/Anna_Nicole_Smith_Optional.html

Mighty Stones

Milton "It's not for sure I live in Philadelphia and yes I'm up against fraud charges" Street has announced he is running for mayor. You gotta give props for chutzpah. But that's all you have to do.


Source:
http://kyw1060.com/pages/235113.php?contentType=4&contentId=326704

See me, feel me, touch me, heal me

The Trog almost never discusses her personal life and with good reason. But today is different. Today I had an experience that I feel I should advocate your having too. Having turned 40, it's time for me to have a mammogram. Or Ma'am-o-gram, as I think of it. As my hero Molly Ivins said, Get. The. Damn. Test. Here's what I know: a machine is going to feel me up sometime soon, and it's going to hurt.

So here is a transcript of the conversation today as I went to sign up for this thing:
Me: Hi my name is Miss Trog and I'm here for my very first mammogram.
Schedule Lady: Uh-huh.
Me: (looking around) So where's my tiara?
SL: (smiles) What?
Me: The tiara, where's the tiara?
SL: (somewhat apologetic) No tiara.
Me: What? What kind of second-rate shoddy outfit is this?
SL: (giggles)

Ladies, get it going on. Sign up. The people in your life love you and depend on you and rely on your ongoing presence. Go get squeezed by a machine that apparently hasn't dated much. It could save you.

But I'm thinking you best bring your own tiara.

And like a good neighbor...

State Farm has decided not to issue any more policies in Mississippi, due to the litigation it faced re: Katrina. The reason for the litigation was that State Farm didn't pay on the policies of its customers, yet continued to take their money. The thing about insurers is, they're trying to manage risk. But "managing" risk really means making decisions as to profitability.

One could argue that based on risk alone, a place like California is simply uninsurable, given its four seasons of: mudslides, earthquakes, fire and, I don't know, pestilence. The insurance costs for living there are very high, particularly on the coast. One could argue that FEMA should stop ministering to California altogether. That if you want to live there, you can. But it's inherently unsafe and so no one is going to help you when some natural deadly phenomenon occurs. The same could be said of coastal Florida, or any number of other non-coastal areas, like Colorado, where people want to live next to nature and thus run a risk.

And yet, we don't make that argument to them. We insure them. We may make them pay more, but we insure them. The Mississippi issue is different. Here, State Farm is saying, "While it was our business to know that levees were incompetent and that a massive flood was likely, we nevertheless took your money and then refused to pay up. Then when you rightfully sued us every which way, we were forced to pay up and now we refuse to insure you further." The actual quote from State Farm's VP of public affairs was "We're just not in a position to accept any additional risk in this homeowners' market."

So the question here is: at what point does it become unprofitable to insure an unsafe place? Is it the point at which you know it's dangerous but keep taking money (while charging high prices)? I don't think so. Or is it at the point where your money-grubbing tendency comes back to bite you in the ass? It makes me wonder how State Farm defines risk. Is it insuring people who live in a flood plain? Or is it getting busted trying to keep from having to pay out?

If State Farm isn't in a position to accept any additional risk b/c of crappy management decisions that involved ripping off thousands of policy-holders at arguably the worst time in their lives, it's probably better for the citizens of Mississippi to no longer have to deal with it. I would love to know what the Mississippi Insurance Department is doing about it.

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2007-02-14-state-farm-katrina_x.htm?csp=24

Fight: Update

Sorry to be slow on the uptake. The Trog has been busy writing French to people who can't read it.

Watada got a mistrial.

Source:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

The Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi. That's the #3 power position in this country. Harvard is about to hire Drew Gilpin Faust, the first female president in its 371-year history. That will make four Ivy League institutions (of 8) that have women presidents (Penn, Princeton, Brown and now Harvard).

I want to celebrate that women are getting over on that damn glass ceiling. Which is why it's such a kick in the collective ass (assii? Call Safire.) to hear that Donatella Versace is dissing Hilary Clinton for wearing pantsuits. Here's why this is lame on several levels.

The Silvery Shiny Spinning Wheel of Lame:
1. We are still worried about what Hillary looks like, her pants, her butt, her wrinkles, whatever? Did anyone ever tell Kerry to fix those brows? Anyone tell Bill Clinton to go deal with those eyebags? No. Ni una palabra.
2. I think Hillary Clinton should be judged on her presidential ability alone. If every one of the flyover states hates her, that's fine, so long as it's not b/c she wears pants.
3. It's friggin 18 degrees, Donatella.
4. If Clinton did wear skirts, she'd likely garner attention for trying to play up the very thing she's dissed on for: being a woman. This is the woman who is damned whatever she does, so I think while she's busy getting reamed, she should at least be comfortable.
5. Has anyone taken a look at the utterer of the comment? Holy hell.






Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/business/08cnd-harvard.html?hp&ex=1171083600&en=d8e54ea3b5fb0fa1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-02-08T135217Z_01_L08322504_RTRUKOC_0_US-FASHION-CLINTON-VERSACE.xml

Booyeah

Yes, it's true that Wal-Mart was able to squid out of its Maryland requirement of the law by claiming it was the only company so affected. (See my very first entry.) But in truth, it wasn't the only company, there were three others. It was just the only company that refused to follow the law.

However, it's not all sweetness and halos for Wal-Mart today, because today a federal court ruled that Wal-Mart has to suck it up and deal with a massive class-action suit regarding sex discrimination. What great drama: the biggest corporation ever, an assault on mighty Title VII, and an order from easily the most pro-employee circuit in the land, the 9th. Can't wait, will keep you posted.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_discrimination

Fight

Lt. Ehren Watada is being court-martialed for refusing to go fight in Iraq, believing it's an illegal war. Conduct unbecoming an officer is the charge, as well as refusing to ship out with his unit. He did ask if he could go to Afghanistan instead, and was refused.

I guess it's a significant problem when those in the military begin to think for themselves. I realize there's a certain efficiency to the herd mentality, but for my money (and it is my money, BTW, and yours), I'd really like to have someone with an IQ in the plus column in a combat situation.

The thing is, Watada is right. The war in Iraq has been an occupation in clear violation of international law since Day One. His lawyer has been banned from debating the legality of the war. Watada could get four years of jail and a dishonorable discharge if convicted.

Prosecutors are arguing that Watada's behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq. My understanding is that the morale of the soldiers is at an all-time low, whether Watada stays home or not. I can't imagine how it's dangerous to the mission or at least not more dangerous than this Administration's lack of plan, lack of decent protection of the soldiers who are on the ground, whose parents have to routinely send them armor and Silly String (which is used to detect trip wires that could be connected to bombs and are otherwise invisible to the naked eye) and other supplies.

If my choice were to go to a God-forgotten country with inadequate everything (including plan to get me the hell out of there), or face four years in an American prison system, I know I'd take the latter, due to the greater likelihood of coming home alive.

Sources:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/treaties.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_re_us/war_objector
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06deploy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_341070731.html