Tuesday, November 26, 2002

The Clinton Legacy

My Corporations professor was commenting on a case where a litigant contended that when it said that it had "no present intention to purchase company A" it was not technically lying because it didn't intend to purchase the company at that moment, but rather intended to purchase it in the future. In suggesting that the litigant's position was not convincing, my Professor said that its preferred interpretation was just too "Clintonian."

Much to my surprise, the class laughed.

Sunday, November 24, 2002

Has anyone thought about looking for Usama bin Laden (UBL) at the next IMF protest?

London's Observer newspaper published the full text of a "Call to Arms" recently circulated on the Internet that was allegedly written by bin Laden.

Here are some excepts:

You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.

Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

If I'm not mistaken, UBL has basically described the platform of the IMF protest folks. FBI, you might want to be on the lookout for a tall man with 1 arm hooked up to a dialysis machine wandering around at the next IMF protest.

I was pointed to an article in the Washington Times about how the Republicans would be pushing judicial confirmations through after they take control of the Senate in January.

It quotes Ralph Neas, of the People for the American Way (a liberal activist group) as saying:

Mr. Neas said a filibuster of a judicial nominee is "certainly not unprecedented." He pointed to the successful 1968 filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be the high court's chief justice and a number of attempted filibusters against lower court nominees. Mr. Neas said what is unprecedented is that, by the end of 2004, all circuit courts could be controlled by conservative Republican nominees, which could be "devastating" to abortion rights, the environment and other issues.

Hey Ralph, did it by chance occur to you that when the country keeps voting Republican candiates into office, presumably it's because the voters agree with the judicial nominees set forth by those Republican office holders? The reason that by the end of 2004 all circuit courts could be controlled by conservative Republican nominees is because (a) more people (53% to 47%) agree with Republicans over Democrats, which results in (b) Republicans being elected President (5 out of 8 times since 1972), and since (c) the President appoints judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, and (d) the Senate is controlled by Republicans (see point (a)), it very clearly follows that (e) at some point there will be more judges that agree with Republicans than Democracts.

This is what the far left fails to see. America has rejected your failed policies and ideas.

Saturday, November 23, 2002

Thoughts on the Roger Ailes/NYT tussle.

I've just spent a few minutes reading the Wall Street Journal editorial about the Roger Ailes flap. Something occurred to me when I finished. The Democrats, or rather the American liberal establishment is so desparate right now that their actions border on pathetic. If you step back and look at the Democrat's response to the elections, it almost becomes funny.

1. The New York Times and CNN report that Fox News president Roger Ailes sent a note to President Bush in the days subsequent to 9/11. This, according to CNN and the NYT, conclusively proves that Fox News is full of conserviative bias.

2. Now you have Tom Dasche accusing Rush Limbaugh of inciting death threats against him and his family.

The WSJ and Ann Coulter correctly point out that the New York Times never made a stink out of liberal journalists giving advice to the President or otherwise behaving politically. In fact, the WSJ notes that the former Editor-in-Chief of the NYT considered himself a "presidential adviser" to Kennedy.

Here's the funny part. The left has finally realized that their deathgrip on the message that reaches the American public through the mainstream media is losing its effect. And they don't like it. We've heard Democrats talk about how they "didn't get their message out this election" as one of the reasons for the big loss. I see it differently. This election marks the first time in a very long time that the Republicans were on even ground in terms of getting their message out through the free media. Unlike 1996-2000, Fox News is now the undisputed champion of cable news. More people get their cable news from Fox News than anywhere else (I sound like a commercial, don't I). Thus, the message they are receiving is not dripping with liberal bias as it used to.

In the past, most Americans watched Rather, Jennings, Brockaw or CNN. The stories that were presented on the network newscasts typically were beneficial to the Democrats' message. Rarely would stories receive coverage if they fully fleshed out and were supportive of the Republican message. For example, you'd never get a story on NBC Nightly news about how a legally registered concealed weapon was used defensively by a woman, saving her from being raped or murdered (as happened in Pittsburgh recently, but was reported only on Fox News and in the Washington Times). But Tom, Peter and Dan would surely be happy to tell you the story about how the NRA blocked the passage of some gun control law that might have saved a life somewhere.

This election was different. Americans tuned into Rush, Sean Hannity, and other sources to get the conservative viewpoint. They also watched Fox News to get both sides of the story. (By the way, when did it become conserviative bias to present both sides of a story. I mean, rarely do I see a story on Fox News that doesn't at least get a quotation from a liberal point of view. I see stories on CNN, however, all the time that quote only liberals and do not even mention the conservative point of view. I wish I could give some tangible evidence that shows that, but I'm too lazy to write down when I see it.)

The Democrats and liberals have realized that the American public is fed up with the liberal bias of establishment news outlets like the NYT and CNN. Americans are going elsewhere to get the whole story. Thus, it's time to fight back. Tom Daschle is attacking the talk radio. The NYT and CNN are attacking non-liberal news outlet on television. The libs have decided that they need to discredit the competition. Pretty soon, they'll decide that they need to attack the Blogospere. Such a feeble response is almost comical.

It's funny, the folks at CNN and the NYT are probably sitting around congratulating themselves for "exposing" the conservative bias. The tone of these stories has been "gotcha! We also knew you were biased, and now we have proof!" They don't realize that folks like Fox News, Andrew Sullivan, Ira Stoll, James Taranto and countless other bloggers have already pointed out hundreds if not thousands of instances of their own liberal bias.

I doubt NYT readership is down very much, even though their liberal bias has been demonstrated time and time again. Why on earth would they think that pointing out a single incident would draw viewers away from Fox?

I composed a brilliant post last night on the Eddie Dean article in the Washington City Paper that presented the sniper prosecutor Paul Ebert as a "Proven Killer" and sniper John Muhammad as an "Alleged Killer".

I finished the post (which was somewhat lengthy) and clicked on the "Post & Publish" button. Something happened, and the post did not take, and I lost it. So, I'll try to rethink it later today and repost it. In the meantime, have you read the Ann Coulter column this week? It's hilarious.

I'm one of those people that thinks that Ann's opinions are sometimes a little over the top, but still, you've gotta respect her strength in the face of vitriolic hatred from the American left. That having been said, I rarely take offense to anything she writes because the "offensive" parts are typically said either for shock effect or are simply biting sarcasm. But anyway, let's get back to the article:

The title: Great Gray Lady in spat with saloon hussy. That's a good start.

Although my description does not do it justice, the crux of the piece is about how the New York Times has made a big deal out of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes sending a note to President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 suggesting that he kick some terrorist ass. The Times it seems believes that this constitutes conclusive evidence that Fox News is biased.

My favorite line: I assume it's superfluous to mention that there is nothing illegal about Ailes giving advice to the president – though admittedly, I have not consulted the "living Constitution" in the past 24 hours to see if a new penumbra specifically about Fox News has sprouted. But the Times was a monument of self-righteous indignation because hard news men are supposed to stay neutral between America and terrorism.

Anyway, go read it, you'll enjoy...

Thursday, November 21, 2002

Want to give a shout out to the Dope.

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

From Best of the Web:

In Long Hill, a ban on tag was part of a code of conduct signed by pupils at one of the Morris County district's elementary schools this year. Instead, a modified version of the game is played indoors with plenty of supervision.

"The idea of loosely running around and chasing each other is not safe," Long Hill Superintendent Arthur DiBenedetto told The Star-Ledger of Newark for Monday's editions.

OK, so I hate to be crude, but we are now officially becoming a nation of total pussies.

UPDATE: Yeah, yeah, kind of a kneejerk reaction to the article. But, having thought about it a little more, I have one question: Can you think of a better example of why tort reform is necessary? The only reason that these policies exist is because of plaintiffs' attorneys that are willing to sue a school because little Johnny fell down and hurt himself.

Also, another thing. Who was the genius that decided that elementary students should be signing a "Code of Conduct?" Could such document even be binding? They do not even have the legal capacity to contract at their age.

Got this from DesignFlea.

Have you checked out MyWay.com, Google's attempt to take portal market share away from Yahoo!? Basically, it's Yahoo without annoying Banner ads.

I'm not sure how they plan on making this thing succeed financially (remember, you can't make it up in volume).

It rules. And, another other cool thing, plenty of normal usernames and passwords are still available.

Monday, November 18, 2002

Segway scooters on sale to public

If you've got $5,000 burning a hole in your pocket and you're looking for a fancy way to get to work, Amazon.com has a Segway for you.
On Monday, the high-tech scooter was made available for sale to the public through Amazon.com's Web store. Previously, the scooter has been tested primarily by government agencies and companies interested in increasing worker productivity.

Customers can put in an order today--but for no more than two--for a "first-come, first-served" delivery starting next March.

I can pretty much tell you right now where a sizable chunk of my summer stipend is going.

Sunday, November 17, 2002

I've noticed over recent days the attempt by Al Gore to make a political comeback of sorts. He endorsed the single-payer health care system in a recent speech, and has come out swinging against every aspect of the Bush agenda.

One thing I've noticed some of the "human interest" stories written about him is the assertion that it he was one Supreme Court vote from the presidency.

For example, in the last edition of Time:

That wasn't an option, in Gore's view, what with Bush promising at every campaign stop to restore honor and dignity to the White House. Gore concedes he might have been more adept at pointing out the difference between "a single personal mistake on the part of the President and one of the greatest records of success that any Administration had ever compiled." But had the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the other way, Gore says ruefully, some of his critics might be saying, "You threaded the needle pretty skillfully on that."

Also, in an interesting piece in the Sunday Washington Post Magazine says, "A gavel stroke away from being the world's most powerful human, he becomes someone's suburban neighbor instead. What is that like? Al Gore wasn't telling...until now."

My question: What is all of this nonsense about being one judge's vote away from the presidency? Last time I checked, he was actually 524 or so (Floridian) votes away. Each media recount conducted subsequent to the election has confirmed that even if the recount had continued, Gore would have lost.

Is this some sort of quiet campaign to add a sense of entitlement or legitimacy to a future Gore run?

I report, you decide (actually, I've alrady decided).

Friday, November 15, 2002

OK, so I just caught up some TIVO watching.

Buffy rules. This season is so much better than the last two that it is almost as if it's an entirely new show. Thanks Joss Whedon. I'm not sure if its better than seasons 2 and 3, but it is damn good.

Oh, and Firefly is pretty good too.

Thursday, November 14, 2002


Rep. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, said yesterday he will not seek a recount in his U.S. Senate race against Democratic incumbent Tim Johnson, who won by 524 votes.
The margin, set in the official state canvass Tuesday, was well within the 0.25 percent margin that entitles the loser to a recount. However, Mr. Thune told reporters it was in the best interest of the state for him to accept the results.
Mr. Thune said last week he would not call for a recount unless there was evidence of major irregularities or the official vote changed significantly from the unofficial tally, which had given Mr. Johnson a 527-vote edge.
He said yesterday he believes there were some irregularities, but that resolution of them would not change the outcome, the Associated Press reports.
Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine said it was nearly impossible that a recount would change the result. Three counties had slight discrepancies, but they amounted to fewer than 100 votes, she said.


Some folks in Alabama are growing tired of the standoff between Democratic Gov. Donald Siegelman and Republican Rep. Bob Riley.
The official tally shows Mr. Riley leading by 3,115 votes out of 1.3 million cast, but Mr. Siegelman is demanding a statewide recount and complaining about the accuracy of the optical scanners used to read ballots. Since Election Day, each man has acted as if he is Alabama's next governor.
Mr. Riley took the lead on election night when Baldwin County officials reduced Mr. Siegelman's total from the early, unofficial returns by nearly 7,000 votes, saying a computer glitch had overstated his numbers — a point supported by an Associated Press analysis of the vote-total numbers from Baldwin County.
The Birmingham News, Alabama's largest newspaper, wants a quick resolution.
"If the governor believes he was shorted votes in Baldwin County, he should pursue a court order to unseal the ballots there and get a machine recount. Otherwise, Siegelman should start practicing his concession speech," the newspaper said in an editorial.

Monday, November 11, 2002

My theory on a significant factor in the election victory for the Republicans: New Jersey.

The bs that the Dems pulled with getting Lautenberg on the ballot highlighted to Republicans and Independents across the country just what kind of people the Democratic leadership are: Win at any cost; Sell our souls for a Senate seat.

Their strategy may have worked in NJ, but I believe that watch them get away with it motivated so many outside of New Jersey to vote against the donkeys that the manuever cost the Dems far more than it helped.

Then again, maybe not.

Saturday, November 09, 2002

Ok, I've been gone a couple of days. Had Moot Court competition this weekend, so I was busy preparing for oral argument.

Anyway, here is why I voted for Tony Williams rather than his Republican opponent Carol Schwartz.

Carol Schwartz is a Republican who ran for mayor against Tony Williams. I voted against her and will never vote for her as long as I live in DC. Last year, she pushed a law through the DC Council that exempts Council Members (and only DC Council members) from having to pay parking ticket fines in DC. Mayor Williams did not support the effort, but it passed into law anyway.

If you've been to DC with a car, or lived in DC with a car, you probably understand why I'm so pissed. This city derives so much revenue from parking tickets that it is almost sickening. The rules are draconian, and enforced in the most heavy-handed manner imaginable. At least 4 times since I've moved back to DC (two years ago), I've found tickets on my car that were completly unjustified. My guess is that there is a quota that each ticket writer must meet, and they figure that most people won't bother fighting a $20.00 ticket anyway. They're correct. It is a total pain in the ass to do so. The burden is on you to "prove" your innocence. They require photographic evidence and the like.

To top it all of, in addition to exempting themselves from paying the parking tickets, they have tripled the size of the the parking ticket writing force in the next two budget years. So, in addition to exempting themselves from the onerous law that they make the rest of us live under, they go ahead and make the laws even more difficult.

So, that she is a Republican does not matter to me. I will never vote for this abusive woman as long as I live in DC.

Wednesday, November 06, 2002

BTW, I voted for my first Democrat yesterday: Mayor Tony Williams.

I'll tell you why a little later.
It looks like S.D. actually went to Johnson. I'm not surprised. Late last night Fox News quoted Republican sources as saying that since the uncounted votes were in the western part of the state, Thune was definitely in. I checked the South Dakota web site for a county-by-county breakdown, however, and found that the remaining counties appeared to be heavily Democratic. The last country that came in was Shannon, and it went 92% to Johnson. Thus, the 500+ vote margin of apparent victory for Johnson.

My guess, its a reservation county. My next guess: Fraud allegations, a recount (which is automatic according to AP).
Now I'm looking forward to see if my lawsuit predictions hold up.
Well, I wasn't too far off. Let's see how I did:

1. New Hampshire (Incorrect) - I guessed wrong on NH. Probably should have recognized that Smith voters would return to the fold.
2. Arkansas (Correct) - Overestimated Hutchinson. Wouldn't you know it, now Arkansas gives a shit about extra-marital relations.
3. Iowa (Correct) - I think I was pretty close on this one.
4. South Dakota (Don't know yet) - Still waiting, but I think I'll end up being right on...
5. Georgia (Correct) - Can I call an upset, or can I call an upset?
6. Minnesota (Don't know yet) - I think I'll end up being correct here as well...
7. Missouri (Correct) - I thought Talent would win by a couple more, but who's complaining?
8. Texas (Correct) - Overestimated Kirk, but I think Perry had some coattails.
9. New Jersey (Correct) - In NJ, cheaters do in fact prosper.
10. North Carolina (Correct) - Go Liddy, go Liddy go! I was hoping she'd thank the fine folks over at Pfizer in her acceptance speech.
11. South Carolina (Correct) - I saw Alex Sanders on a Meet the Press debate. What a jackass. He did not give a single specific answer to any question. I figured South Carolinians would eventually see through his good ol' boy schtick.
12. Tennessee (Correct) - Lamar!

4 out of 4 on governors races (I would have gotten Largent in OK wrong, though.) Also, I did not see Sonny Perdue winning.

So, to sum up: I picked 15 out of 16 correct. Hey CNN, you need a replacement for that Mark Shields dope?

Monday, November 04, 2002

Hello World [again].

Well, I think I'm going to start blogging on a semi-regular basis. I'll start with my election predictions:

U.S. House of Representatives: Republican - 228; Democrat - 205; Independent - 2.

United States Senate: Republican - 51; Democrat - 48; Independent - 1. (This is post Jan. 3 swear-in.)

Local House Race: Connie Morella (R) 50.9%; Chris Van Hollen (D) 48.9%.

Key Senate Races:

1. New Hampshire: Shaheen (D) 49.7%; Sununu (R) 47.2% (1.5% Smith write-ins).
2. Arkansas: Prior (D) 51.2%; Hutchinson (R) 48.3%.
3. Iowa: Harkin (D) 54.6%; Ganske (R) 45.1%.
4. South Dakota: Thune (R) 50.1%; Johnson (D) 49.5% (will be challenged in court by Dems).
5. Georgia: Chambliss (R) 50.2%; Cleland (D) 48.6% (so will this one).
6. Minnesota: Coleman (R) 54.6%; Mondale (D) 44.5% (this one too probably).
7. Missouri: Talent (R) 51.2%; Carnahan (D) 47.7%.
8. Texas: Cornyn (R) 52.3%; Kirk (D) 47.5%.
9. New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) 54.1%; Forrester (R) 45.3%.
10. North Carolina: Dole (R) 52.0%; Bowles (D) 47.7%.
11. South Carolina: Graham (R) 54.8%; Sanders (D) 44.6%.
12.Tennessee: Alexander (R) 51.7%; Clement (D) 48.0%.

Key Governors Races:

California: Davis (D) 46%; Simon (R) 45%; None of the above 9%.
Texas: Perry (R) 54%; Sanchez (D) 45%.
New York: Pataki (RINO) 51.5%; Golisano (I) 24%; McCall (D) 23.9% (I know, wishful thinking.)
Florida: Bush (R) 54.4%; McBride (D) 45.3% (prediction: If within 2%, Dems will sue.)

Any questions?