On the ground again/ Just can't wait to get on the ground again

Happily settled after a long day in the air, I'm pleased to report that everything went quite smoothly. A bit of turbulence here and there, but connections were on time and TSA personnel throughout were approximately 23% less self-parodying in their efforts than the last time I made this trip. In fact, I'm quite relieved that the most bizarre thing I encountered today was the strangely inappropriate use of parquet-patterned flooring in a 737 latrine cubicle. Wha? Not since the simulated woodgrain printed onto the sides of my first microwave have I seen a less necessary use of faux wood.

Everything You Need De Novo

Finally on the ground again after a long day of air travel, I've had an ooportunity to glance through the forty-sixth edition of Blawg Review, hosted this week by Sean Sirrine at the De Novo site. It may be De Novo, but Sirrine is not De Novice when it comes to industriously collecting and succinctly summarizing the best law-related blogging of the past week. Blawg Review #47 will appear next week at the Unused and Probably Unusable site; if history is any guide, each week's host rises to the occasion, but if the proprietor of Unused and Probably Unusable, Eh Nonymous, does not . . . well, we can't say we weren't warned by the title.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (53)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Monday, February 20; link good at time of posting):

A 52-year-old man from the German town of Darmstadt tried in vain to get a refund for 400 euros ($475) worth of what he said was "bad marijuana" from his dealer before turning to the police for help, according to authorities.

The police then charged the man with violating drugs possession laws and confiscated the 200 grams of marijuana he brought with him to the police station, according to a report in Bild am Sonntag newspaper Sunday.

"It is un-usable," the man told police in the hope they would help him get his money back.

[Previous TGIS]

Muttrimony

To paraphrase Buck Laughlin from Best in Show, "And to think that in some countries these dogs are married!" From the Associated Press:

A seven-year-old girl wed a stray dog as part of a ritual to ward off the "evil eye" on her and her family in eastern India, a news agency reported on Wednesday.

Shivam Munda's upper teeth appeared before her lower teeth - considered a bad omen by members of the Santhal ethnic group to which she belongs, the Press Trust of India said in a report from Dhanbad, a coal mining town in the eastern state of Bihar.

I hadn't considered our family dog to be marriage material, but having been neutered, he's probably a better prospect than most of us were as single men. He doesn't mind being kept on a short leash and he's not a picky eater. Perhaps it's just his poor keyboard skills which has prevented him from placing a personal ad on craigslist?

In Search of Perfect Blawg Experience

Patrick Lamb hosts the forty-fifth edition of Blawg Review at his In Search of Perfect Client Service site. Although the past week did not produce this generation's Carbolic Smoke Ball case as I had hoped, Blawg Review #45 is nonetheless not to be missed. De Novo, which should not be confused with the similarly-named vehicle, will do the hosting honors next week. You can be a spare part of the action when Blawg Review #46 hits the road by reviewing the submission guidelines and forwarding the best of this coming week's legal blogging.

Yet Another Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name

I suspect cautionary tales of doorknobphilia will not become a regularly-recurring feature of Infamy or Praise, but whenever I come across them, I will be certain to pass them along:

A man who claims he is obsessed with doorknobs faces three years in prison for a burglary spree in which dozens of them were taken from construction sites.

A criminal complaint said Thor Jeffrey Steven Laufer told police he took a variety of items from the construction sites in the Milwaukee suburb of Mequon to disguise his obsession, "so that it would look like a typical burglary rather than someone just stealing doorknobs."

Sedition Revisited

Jim Benton has offered an excellent comment to my earlier post, "You Can't Spell Sedition Without I, D, I, O, T, and S", which I reproduce in full below:

This is late, but I have just begun to read the past "Carnivals of the Blawgs" and have just discovered your 'sedition' post. I have to protest very strongly several of your comments in it. First is your comment about "Bush-as-Hitler/Stalin/Satan vitriol produced on a daily basis by left-leaning blogs." I wish you'd given cites for that. I've read a fair number of left-leaning anti-Gulf War blogs )I am both 'left=leaning' and anti-Gulf War myself") and I haven't seen anything like this except for some statements by some American (and non-American) Muslims, hardly a 'left-leaning" group.

(I'm sure there are such blogs. Prup's First Law states "whatever position you take on any issue, you'll find a number of idiots on your side.")

But most opposition blogs may call Bush a fool, liar, or hypocrite, and some may make the (to my eyes false) claim that 'its all about oil,' but this is hardly the same as the comparisons you make. (You might check out my blog in a couple of days, after I get a chance to explain my own explanation for the war and my opposition to it.)

More important and more insulting - and more incorrect -- were your statements calling anti-war speech "unpatriotic" and describing opponents as those who 'favor our enemies.' (That last ascends into pure fantasy when it refers to the Iraq Wars. Both had substantial opposition, but none of that opposition that I know of -- even the Muslim opposition -- could be described as 'favoring' Saddam Hussein, or the insurgent bombers in this extension of the War. And while I know of no domestic opposition to our Afghan War, I doubt if any that did exist was pro-Taliban.)

I could examine the opposition to each of the seven major wars of the last century -- and I should state that, as a 59 year old who is a damn good amateur historian, I would have supported or did support all but Vietnam and the current War. But let's put your two statements up against 'the Good War,' WWII.

There was plenty of opposition to our entering the War before we did, and even some after we were in. (Some of the latter was based on the 'we should be fighting Stalin, not Hitler' argument.)

Even here, while there was some pro-Nazi involvement in the opposition, the vast majority of the opponents opposed the war -- wrongly, of course -- not because they were UNpatriotic, but because they were, in fact patriotic, and thought that America's best interests were served by remaining isolationist -- or in supporting Hitler as a bulwark against Stalin as the 'lesser of two evils.' Few had any liking for Hitler or Nazism.

(Some were in fact both patriotic and anti-Semitic. There is nothing stopping someone from loving his country and also being a bigoted jackass. Look at the Southern Segregationists. Bigoted yes, but still patriotic, still among the first to fight for the country.)

Nor did, to pick the one war whose opposition seems to have shaped your opinions, the majority of Vietnam protestors support the VietCong -- again, except by seeing a native group of bastards as the lesser evil to an unpopular American group. Nor were we unpatriotic. We thought America was wrong, yes, and hurting itself -- and I will insist we were right in both opinions. But we loved the country enough to try and change its mind.

My response, which I will also post in the comments to that post, is as follows:

Yours is a very thoughtful and respectful comment to my earlier post; I appreciate it and will, as you requested, attempt to respond in kind.

I think the "Bush as Hitler" meme is so ingrained in the extreme left that it's hard to read Daily Kos for very long before multiple commenters raise it in justification for their views; indeed, the current state of criticism on the far end of the liberal spectrum is such that the inevitability of Godwin's Law comes to pass in mere seconds and, thanks to the internet, is preserved for all eternity. If you Google a few simple queries along the lines of "bush * hitler" (the words "bush" and "hitler" separated by one or more words), you get a sense of the pervasiveness of the meme for today's left. That query generated "about 574,000 results" when I ran it a few minutes ago (on February 17, 2006), including a Gallery of Bush-Hitler Comparisons, the (I hope you would agree) "mainstream" Democrats.com site, and the Bush/Hitler advertisement (in QuickTime format at the IndyMedia.org site) produced by the influential MoveOn.org group. Granted, a fair number of those Google results are for right-leaning sites highlighting and commenting upon the "Bush as Hitler" meme, but the underlying messages are, of course, solely from the left.

I would agree with you that a current of dissent has been associated with every American military action from the Revolution onwards and that some actions were more broadly or vociferously opposed. With a few regrettable exceptions, however, that current of dissent has become more constructive and less antagonistic to the nation's chosen action once it has been determined (i.e., the decision has been made to go to war and troops have been deployed). I don't believe that that is the case with this war or, frankly, was with the Vietnam War.

To cite to the World War II era as you have, let me point out the example of Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was one of the leaders of the "America First" movement before the war and actively promoted that movement's isolationist and appeasement agenda; his sentiments were misguided, certainly, but were widely-shared in that pre-war era. Following Pearl Harbor, the United States shifted from its undefined position on the war in Europe to one of active involvement both there and in Asia. The nation mobilized and largely abandoned the "America First" agenda, as did Lindbergh himself. Would those former America Firsters have rather stayed out of the war? Probably. Did they embrace the Roosevelt administration's objectives and share its enthusiasm for the mission? Probably not, but they supported the effort as good Americans would. Indeed, they turned on and distanced themselves from Lindbergh, who recognized his mistake and probably did not deserve such scorn.

While the public shaming and punishment of Lindbergh after his renunciation of his former position was unfortunate, what is more unfortunate is the current climate of "dissent" where, despite a clear national position on the war (it is authorized by Congress, after all) and the presence of American troops in combat zones abroad, so many have chosen not to be either supportive or silent. Instead, they have continued to not just protest their nation's actions but to vilify its elected leaders and fighting men and women. As I said in my post, that vilification is their right under our Constitution but it does not make them good Americans.

As with Godwin's observation about the use of Nazi references in debate, the choice of the term "unpatriotic" to describe those individuals and groups who choose to vilify our nation's expressly-chosen mission may sometimes be appropriate, but it is always controversial. I think it's appropriate here as I've used it, but I can appreciate the instictive reaction by some against its use. It's sometimes difficult to define the line where patriotic dissent crosses over to unpatriotic opposition, but the fact that the line is difficult to draw precisely should not prevent us from labeling those actions and actors who are clearly across the line. You offer a defense of your own position, but the first step to a rational defense of the patriotic opposition to the war is to clearly label those opposition elements which are clearly unpatiotic. I think this goes beyond admitting that, in your words, there are "a number of idiots on your side".

You also seem to be arguing that if most extreme denunciations of the disloyal opposition are not motivated by heartfelt support of Saddam, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, then those denunciations are excusable; frankly, that's dead wrong. Is enlisting in the Taliban army to fight the Americans wrong? Sure. Is sending money and otherwise actively supporting those anti-American forces wrong? Sure. But also wrong is publicly and loudly undermining your nation in time of war and thereby making your views useful to those forces and regimes who oppose our nation. Whether you seek to strengthen our opposition or seek to weaken us, the effect is the same, as is the culpability. Anti-Americanism doesn't need to be motivated by pro-Saddam, pro-Taliban, or pro-Al Qaeda sentiments to be wrong in this time of war; as Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Thanks again for your comments.

Colin

[Update]

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (52)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Tuesday, February 14; link good at time of posting):

A man staged his own disappearance in the Bighorn Mountains after losing $40,000 on a Super Bowl bet, police said Monday.

Marvin Hackworth, 46, of Gillette, was reported missing on Feb. 6, the day after the Super Bowl, according to the Big Horn County Sheriff's Office.

. . . .

The search was suspended Wednesday evening due to lack of clues or any evidence of where he might have been.

On Friday, police received a call from a person identifying herself as Hackworth's daughter, saying she had received a voice mail message from her father saying he was OK, police said.

Police traced the call to Chadron, Neb., which is about 200 miles from Gillette, and they found Hackworth.

Turns out Hackworth had stashed a new pick up truck in the mountains before the Super Bowl in order to "disappear for a while" in case he lost the bet, police said.

"Hackworth said he knew he had to do something, because he was getting in so deep financially due to gambling losses. If he won on the Super Bowl game, it would have all worked out, but if he lost, he had everything in place now to disappear," Big Horn County Sheriff Dave Mattis told the Northern Wyoming Daily News.

. . . .

Mattis said he has not decided whether he will seek restitution for the expense of the search and rescue operation.

[Previous TGIS]

I think that I shall never see a mascot tipsy as this tree

James Taranto's Best of the Web Today column regularly features a "Zero Tolerance Watch", highlighting a few of the many ridiculous outcomes prompted by schools' "zero tolerance" policies. Today, however, the Deadspin sports blog reports an incident where Stanford University's zero tolerance policy worked as intended and took down an alcohol-fueled maniac before she could do serious damage to herself or others:

According to a story first run in the San Jose Mercury News, the Stanford University band’s famous tree mascot was fired for being completely shit-faced during last week’s UC-Irvine/Stanford game. Erin Lashnits, who served as the rowdy tree blew a .157 BAC during the game,the story said.

. . . .

[Band spokesman Sam] Urmy added that the university had previously placed the band on "alcohol suspension," which requires a zero-tolerance policy toward drunkenness. So Lashnits had to go. And finally, to put a neat little cap on the story, Urmy said this:

"We don’t want to risk our core mission of rocking out and bringing funk to the funkless."

Thankfully, this problem was nipped in the bud and, since everyone seems to agree Lashnits deserved to get the ax, there does not appear to be any legal fallout from the University's decision. Still, considering today's litigious society, if Lashnits had not complied when she was asked to leaf, one wonders what wood Stanford have done?

You Know I Loves Me a Good Cat-Huntin' Story

Yes, it's been far too long since I've been able to report on any developments in the noble field of cat-hunting. In April of last year, Wisconsinites were poised to enter cat-hunting nirvana before those fat cat bureaucrats down in . . . er, the Holiday Inn in Manitowoc deep-sixed the plan:

Steve Oestreicher, chairman of the [Wisconsin Conservation] Congress Executive Committee, disagreed.

"We certainly have received not only national attention but worldwide attention," Oestreicher said, addressing the delegation at the Holiday Inn in Manitowoc. "There comes a time when leadership must make a difficult decision."

Oestreicher said the issue has gone on long enough, that he and others have received enough calls, e-mails, letters and threats, and that "no further action will be taken at this time. Next question."

The delegation, represented by all 72 counties, sat momentarily stunned, before a small group began a lukewarm applause in support of Oestreicher’s action.

. . . .

Prior to Oestreicher’s announcement, a delegate from Vilas County asked to table the motion indefinitely; that motion failed miserably.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, who had vowed to veto any proposal to legalize cat-hunting and had said that he didn’t "think Wisconsin should become known as a state where we shoot cats", welcomed his new feline overlords.

Now, the right-minded administrators of the Avenal (California) State Prison are raising the banner of cat-hunting so ingloriously abandoned a year ago by the leaders of Wisconsin:

Administrators at Avenal State Prison said they will have to kill more than 100 cats that have sneaked in and reproduced inside the facility.

The felines have become a health nuisance for the prison. The state has cited the prison for unsafe working conditions because of cat urine and feces.

Prison officials said they do not know how the animals got in.

. . . .

There are still about 100 more roaming the facility, prison officials said.

Prison workers are trying to trap the animals.

Perhaps we can kill two cats with one stone and also address the high costs associated with feeding state prisoners. We know there are more ways than one to skin a cat, but has anyone yet determined how many filets each cat will produce once it is skinned?

Monday Strangeness

In composing my weekly "Go Read Blawg Review" post this morning, I mentioned the Carbolic Smoke Ball case in passing. That celebrated case is near and dear to the hearts of lawyers and law students everywhere. That's "near and dear" in the sense that mentioning it will generally prompt some murmur of recognition and perhaps a grin, not that said lawyers and law students would purchase framed pictures of the plaintiff in Carbolic Smoke Ball.

Or so I thought. When I Googled "carbolic smoke ball case" to find a representative link for the post, I discovered that there is a ready market for Carbolic Smoke Ball portraiture.

I was so surprised by that revelation that I toppled backward in my chair, knocking to the floor a package someone had left in my office, causing that package (which contained fireworks for some reason) to explode, and injuring a woman on the other side of the building. No, I'm joking about that, of course; please just disregard this entire Palsgraf.

Saturday Strangeness

The wife and her visiting friend visited a couple of local wineries Saturday and came home with a few choice bottles. The label of one bottle, a chardonnay from the Retzlaff Winery, caught my eye.

As a semi-literate person probably judges a book by its cover, I, as a non-drinker, tend to judge wines by their labels. Most wine labels go for the elegant -- flowing script -- or the artistic -- fine or pop art paintings -- but this label was more utilitarian, noting various details about the vintage, harvest date, and so on. Interesting but not compelling, so it took me a second to figure out why it was so holding my attention:

Vintage: 2001
Harvest Date: September 11

Oh.

Bob Review No. 44

Bob Coffield notes the Ever-Mysterious Blawg Review Editor's "Freudian Slip" description of his site as a "Health Care Law Bob" in his edition of "Bob" Review this week, but rest assured, this issue is no Microsoft Bob. Most importantly, Coffield includes coverage of last week's most important legal development -- the verdict in the "Flying Shrimp" case, a Palsgraf for the twenty-first century. Surely this week will bring us this generation's Carbolic Smoke Ball case and you could be the one to spot it for the legions of Blawg Review denizens; review the submission guidelines and share your discovery with the class next week when Patrick Lamb hosts the carnival at his In Search of Perfect Client Service blog.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (51)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Thursday, February 9; link good at time of posting):

Detectives in Germany were dumbstruck after a man they had just booked for burglary walked out of the police station and drove off in one of their cars, authorities said Wednesday.

"It's not just unusual, it's embarrassing," said a spokesman for police in the central town of Eschwege.

. . . .

After he was charged and released, officers were stunned to see the man easing out of the station in the unmarked vehicle and immediately gave chase.

Three cars, including the stolen vehicle, were damaged in the ensuing pursuit.

[Previous TGIS]

American Idolatry

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." —Groucho Marx


I don't count mayself a fan of American Idol, but my four-years-old daughter is and I'm a fan of hers. What's more, I admire her insight into the basis for the program's ongoing success.

As she dawdled before her bath so as to catch a few more minutes of last night's show, she gleefully admitted that she just watched for "the bad singing and people who cry". Her excitement every time someone would mangle an audition — "Daddy, he's a bad singer!" — or would burst into tears after a scolding from the judges was contagious. Still, that she so loves to cackle at and mock those on television who fail spectacularly and are despondent afterwards makes me glad that I watched the Super Bowl without her.

Seahawks XS, Zebras XXS

Mike Tanier at the always-excellent Football Outsiders site comments on the officiating fiasco (via Deadspin):

So what do Ben Roethlisberger and Mike Tanier have in common? Neither of us crossed the goal line in the first half.

I try to not to complain about calls, but c’mon.

. . . .

Absolutely, viciously terrible officiating. I hate putting the game on the ref’s shoulders, but I could not believe what I was watching on several plays. I really have a hard time writing about what the Steelers did well or what the Seahawks did poorly. Yes, the Steelers made big plays on offense and shut down the run fairly well on defense. But I know if I was a Seahawks fan this would ruin my spring and summer. I watched the Eagles get beat last year. The Seahawks … I just hate to use the term “robbed”. But …

In all fairness, this isn't the first time someone's been robbed in Detroit, is it?

Super Bowl XL, Seahawks XS

Well, after that masterful NFC Championship game, the Super Bowl was the Seahawks' to lose, and they did. There were a couple of bullshit calls which actually or effectively took points off the board, but it was susceptibility to big plays, poor clock management, and generally flat play which made the difference. I'm looking forward to next year, but I rue the fact that after a weekend which saw the Seahawks' first-ever Super Bowl appearance, the highlight for me was that I finished my taxes.

[UPDATE]

Forsooth!

I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man.
. . . .
I only speak right on.

Julius Cæsar, Act III, Scene 2.

Diane Levin hosts the Forty-Third edition of Blawg Review at her Online Guide to Mediation blog. Shakespeare provides the theme and structure, which makes an already excellent issue even better this week -- Levin speaks right on. The Bard wrote that "Comparisons are odorous" (Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene 5), but Levin "hath indeed better bettered expectation" (Id., Act I, Scene 1); Bob Coffield at the Health Care Law Blog hosts next week's issue and has a newly-raised standard to meet.

Still Blocked, Apparently

Thanks to the Ambivalent Imbroglio blog for the pointer!

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Idealist 69% Cultural Creative 69% Existentialist 63% Materialist 56% Modernist 50% Postmodernist 50% Fundamentalist 44% Romanticist 25% What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (50)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Thursday, February 2; link good at time of posting):

Two dozen Caltech students wearing Superman capes, tutus and other odd attire as part of a hazing stunt were rescued after getting stranded on the Mount Wilson Toll Road.

Organizers of the California Institute of Technology initiation ritual said they didn't realize the road had been covered last year by a landslide.

"You've got to remember that common sense is not factored into the intelligence quotient," said Deputy Greg Gabriel, who leads the Altadena Search and Rescue team.

. . . .

The students didn't have flashlights, warm clothes or other important supplies, Gabriel said. But the deputy said they were equipped with "distinctive headgear - hats with antennas and horns, that kind of stuff."

[Previous TGIS]

The Last Refuge of a Writers'-Blocked Blogger is to Post a Quiz

Thanks to the Prettier Than Napoleon blog for the pointer!


YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!

You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.

Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Giving New Meaning to the Four-Stroke Engine

From the Associated Press:

A man who was stopped for driving erratically on a divided highway was distracted because he was looking at pornography, authorities said.

. . . .

"When I made contact with the driver of the suspect vehicle, a Mr. David Kennedy, there were several pornographic magazines on the seat next to him," [Rutherford County Deputy Tony] Hall said in his report.

Oh, those Kennedy boys and their driving mishaps! Well, at least he didn't claim he was speeding because the pedal was stuck to the floor.