Bearing It Without Grinning

When I asked "Does a bear shit in the woods?" last week (see here and here), I meant it as a rhetorical question. Nonetheless, I'll pass along an article from today's Washington Post which reports that a) the answer is a definite "yes"; and b) that causes some environmental problems:

Scientists have run high-tech tests on harmful bacteria in local rivers and streams and found that many of the germs -- and in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, a majority of them-- come from wildlife dung. The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers.

Part of the problem lies with the unnaturally high populations of deer, geese and raccoons living in modern suburbs and depositing their waste there. But officials say it would be nearly impossible, and wildly unpopular, to kill or relocate enough animals to make a dent in even that segment of the pollution.

That leaves scientists and environmentalists struggling with a more fundamental question: How clean should we expect nature to be? In certain cases, they say, the water standards themselves might be flawed, if they appear to forbid something as natural as wild animals leaving their dung in the woods.

"You need to go back and say, 'Maybe the standards aren't exactly right' if wildlife are causing the problem," said Thomas Henry, an Environmental Protection Agency official who works on water pollution in the mid-Atlantic.

. . . .

It could be the ultimate irony of people's impact on nature that the entire system has changed so radically that wild animals now degrade their own environment. More animals means more bacteria-laden waste. Some of that is swept by storm water into rivers and streams.

Some of the waste is deposited directly into the currents.

"They're pooping in the water," said Chuck Frederickson, an environmentalist who is keeper of the James River, gazing at geese slurping algae off river rocks one recent day. He said the goose population is an obstacle to improving the river: "Do we want less bacteria in the water, or do we want geese around?"

If you think that it's just the proverbial bear-in-the-woods and his live wildlife colleagues degrading Mother Earth, think again, Pollyanna. Stuffed bears can be an environmental catastrophe as well:

A teddy bear has been implicated in 2,500 deaths — trout deaths, that is.

State officials say a teddy bear that fell into a pool at a Fish and Game Department hatchery earlier this month clogged a drain. The clog blocked the flow of oxygen to the pool and suffocated the fish.

Hatcheries supervisor Robert Fawcett said the bear, dressed in yellow raincoat and hat, is believed to be the first stuffed toy to cause fatalities at the facility.

. . . .

The deaths prompted Fawcett to release a written warning: "RELEASE OF ANY TEDDY BEARS into the fish hatchery water IS NOT PERMITTED."

He said it's not known who dropped the bear, but urged anyone whose bear ends up in a hatchery pool to find a worker to remove it. "They might save your teddy bear, and keep it from becoming a killer," he said.

The bottom line is that, real or stuffed, animals are an environmental menace and, if we're serious about protecting our Hundred Acre Wood, Pooh and his friends must all die.

Although I drive a hybrid vehicle and am therefore qualified to make environmental decisions on everyone's behalf, I can accept that this probably isn't a decision I should make myself. The environmental movement is fond of quoting the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy that we must consider the impact present actions will have on the seventh generation to come. I'll take that to heart and discuss my thoughts with my daughter tonight after her bedtime story.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (83)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Wednesday, September 27; link good at time of posting):

Three men posing as plainclothes police officers stopped a teenage boy on his way home and peppered him with questions about a fictitious robbery while recording their prank in a video that ended up on the Internet, prosecutors said.

. . . .

The boy was walking home in Queens one night last July when a burgundy car pulled alongside him and three men, including Gazi Abura, got out and told him they were police officers, District Attorney Richard Brown said.

The men made the boy stand next to their car and told him there had been a robbery in the area and he matched the description of the suspect, Brown said.

The video shows the teen complying with all the men's requests and offering them his high school identification card.

"Are you lying to me?" a man's voice asks on the video.

"I'm not lying," the frightened boy says. "I swear to everything."

. . . .

An investigation led to Abura, 21, who was being held Tuesday pending arraignment on various charges, including impersonating a police officer and unlawful imprisonment, said Brown, who called the prank dangerous.

"His alleged actions not only damage the reputation of our police officers, who already perform a difficult job, but potentially could have resulted in injury to the victim or even himself," Brown said in a statement.

Abura could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted.

[Previous TGIS]

You don't usually hear an excuse this lame except on "Cops"

Today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports a probably insignificant but nonetheless entertaining wrinkle in the unfolding investigation of Hewlett-Packard:

A Colorado man suspected of surreptitiously obtaining telephone numbers in the Hewlett-Packard Co. leak investigation told an investigator last week that he had destroyed his computer, according to a person familiar with the probe.

The man, identified as Bryan C. Wagner, 29 years old, of Denver, told the investigator he had demolished his computer with a hammer and disposed of it after receiving a tip from a relative that he might be caught up in a criminal probe of the H-P leak case by the California attorney general's office, the person said. "Not erased the hard drive," the person added. "Destroyed it."

. . . .

Mr. Wagner did identify the tipster as his uncle, James Rapp, a convicted Colorado data broker who pleaded guilty to charges of trafficking in confidential information in 1999 in an unrelated matter, the person said.

If you're going to destroy evidence in a major investigation, it's probably worthwhile to put a little thought into your excuse before the investigators come a-knockin'. "I was tipped that I might be implicated, so I destroyed the evidence with a hammer" is probably one to avoid. I'm guessing that the powers-that-be aren't going to just give Mr. Wagner a shrug and an "OK then".

Perhaps going forward, Wagner should take his cues from Steve Martin rather than his uncle, the convicted felon:

How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal." Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"

Move along... nothing to see here...

Today's New York Times offers an interesting op-ed piece by freelance reporter Ismail Wolff, who found himself in the thick of things in Bangkok this past week when the Thai military staged a coup and overthrew the nation's prime minister:

Suddenly, all the public TV stations, by now under the direction of the military, ran a statement from the army and police commanders. They had “taken control of the situation in Bangkok” and politely asked for the public’s cooperation.

“We apologize for any inconvenience,” it signed off. Typical Thai politeness, I thought. Is this really what a coup feels like?

My shock, however, was not shared by the rest of the country.

As journalists sprang into action, Bangkok shut down. It happened like clockwork, almost as if a director yelled “Cut!” and a whole city of six million packed up the set and went home.

Street vendors casually closed up their food carts and wheeled them off to the shadows. Bustling streets slowly emptied as bars and restaurants shut up shop early under orders from the new junta. No signs of panic anywhere.

In the midst of a chaotic event, nearly everyone forms an intial impression of that event which draws heavily on personal experience and expectations. Once events have run their course and we are able to look back with 20/20 hindsight, we reassess and usually see where we got things wrong in the heat of the moment. One of my pet peeves about journalists is that they tend to report every development as if it supports, or at least does not negate, their initial impressions of an event; to hear them tell it, nothing ever proves them wrong.

Wolff's op-ed is somewhat refreshing in that he seems to acknowledge that his visceral reaction to the Thai coup was a marked departure from the lack of reaction of other experiencing the same events. Some journalists would simply ignore that or automatically attribute the difference to the military's effect on the civilians amongst them or those civilians' general cluelessness about larger events. Instead, Wolff is more circumspect and seems to wonder if he's the one who's missing the point:

“Our country will be better for this,” a close friend said to me as we sat smoking cigarettes and staring at troops on the corner by his house. “Today is a better day than yesterday. You may not understand, and may never will, but we needed to create a fresh start, and that is what has happened.”

That attitude prevails nearly a week after the coup. Early yesterday evening, I went to a protest at Thammasat University, where 30 years ago, on Oct. 6, 1976, the military and its henchmen massacred dozens of students at a pro-democracy demonstration, burning many alive, hanging others from trees and mutilating their bodies in front of a large crowd.

Yesterday, though, the mood was calm and there were no soldiers to be seen, even as speakers condemned the new junta’s restrictions on civic and political rights, including holding protests like this one.

But many of the students who stopped to listen as they passed by still said that they believed that the coup was the only way out of a political imbroglio. Nearly everyone I spoke to remained “sabaay jai,” or comfortable at heart with the military takeover. At least on the outside.

We Americans often speak of "spreading democracy" and "supporting elected governments" around the world; it's a curious thing that we tend to take it for granted that these concepts have nearly the same meaning for everyone.

The Athenians long ago demonstrated that unchecked democracy could tend toward opression and every successful democracy since then has relied upon some form of restraint. Our Founding Fathers institutionalized that restraint in our system of checks and balances amongst the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches and that's worked for us. Consequently, we have historically had very little patience with striking and rioting as means of change and virtually no tolerance for military intervention in domestic affairs. The French can more or less set their clocks by the periodic strikes and riots they endure over everything from religious freedom to university fees to social welfare benefits; that seems to work for them. Although they're not enthusiastic for it to occur again anytime soon, the Thais seem quite accepting of some benign military intervention in their political system as a final check on governmental authority. If it works for them, who are we to judge?

Maister of All Trades, Jack of None

This week's seventy-sixth edition of Blawg Review is hosted by business consultant (and non-lawyer) David Maister at his Passion, People and Principles blog.

This issue offers a change-of-pace for regular readers in that it focuses on "themes of work and professional life, firm management, marketing, strategy and careers (rather than legal topics per se)". The result is an eclectic roundup of worthwhile posts on topics of value to practicing attorneys, many of which originate beyond the usual universe of frequently-read legal blogs. Highlights include posts on internal competition, legal disgnosis, and blogging by trainees.


One of my favorite blogs, Patent Baristas, hosts next week's Blawg Review.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (82)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Tuesday, September 19; link good at time of posting):

An Italian thief accidentally turned himself in after losing his cellular phone while robbing an elderly lady, calling his own number to meet the finder -- and unwittingly arranging a date with police.

The 77-year-old victim handed over the phone that the bag snatcher had dropped to police, who lured the thief to a meeting where he was arrested, news agency Agi reported Monday.

. . . .

By the time police were waiting for him at the meeting point, the 35-year-old had already robbed another old lady and was riding a stolen scooter, Agi said.

[Previous TGIS]

When Apple Began to Defy Gravity

New York Times technology columnist (and prolific author of Apple- and Mac-related books) David Pogue takes a certain amount of glee in recapping a few of the wrongheaded predictions about the fate of Apple made ten years (or more) ago when, as he puts it, Apple hit bottom. A few of the highlights:

• Nathan Myhrvold (Microsoft’s chief technology officer, 6/97: “The NeXT purchase is too little too late. Apple is already dead.”
• Wired, “101 Ways to Save Apple,” 6/97: “1. Admit it. You’re out of the hardware game.”

. . . .

• The Economist, 2/23/95: “Apple could hang on for years, gamely trying to slow the decline, but few expect it to make such a mistake. Instead it seems to have two options. The first is to break itself up, selling the hardware side. The second is to sell the company outright.”
• The Financial Times, 7/11/97: “Apple no longer plays a leading role in the $200 billion personal computer industry. ‘The idea that they’re going to go back to the past to hit a big home run…is delusional,’ says Dave Winer, a software developer.”

Screenwriter William Goldman famously remarked that in Hollywood, "Nobody knows anything." It seems that that observation could be made as easily in the offices of the leading business publications or most prominent technology companies. As Pogue sums things up:

In the end, this story really isn’t about Apple–or any one company; they all have ups and downs. This story is about the journalists and commentators. It’s one thing to report what’s happening to a flailing company, and quite another to announce what’s *going* to happen. In the technology business, that’s a fool’s game.

I came late to the Apple party, having only recently switched to the Mac and bought an iPod. On both counts, I'm glad I did. Notwithstanding, what should I make the fact that a resurgent Apple is there for me to discover so long after rumors of the company's death were greatly exaggerated? To me, this tends to indicate that a number of other companies failed to take full advantage of Apple's years in the wilderness. If in those intervening years others had built products as useful and elegant as Apple's are today, Apple would almost certainly have been put out of its misery and I wouldn't have missed them at all.

Harangue-l

How outrageous was Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' "Bush is the devil" speech to the United Nations yesterday? So outrageous that none other than Representative Charles Rangel of New York, no slouch himself when it comes to anti-Bush diatribes, felt the need to respond:

I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.

It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.

George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us.

Were Chavez' comments that offensive? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods?

As gratified as I am to see Rangel put partisanship aside for a moment, I wonder whether his feeling is less that Chavez' UN performance was inappropriate and more that it was counterproductive to the anti-Bush movement of which Rangel is so prominent a member. Perhaps his "extreme displeasure" is more like Uncle Jimbo's discomfort at having the Ku Klux Klan come out in loud support of his position supporting the racist town flag in the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners":

KKK Leader: Hello, brother, we are here to support your noble cause.

Jimbo: Huh? Uh, hey now. We don't want your support. We're not racists; this is about history.

Is the Pope Catholic?

For now at least, he is (pending his next apology), but perhaps not for much longer:

In Libya on Monday, a son of the nation's leader, Colonel Muammar el- Qaddafi, did not accept the apology and suggested instead that the pope convert to Islam.

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute but would convert to Islam immediately," the son, Muhammad el-Qaddafi, said at [sic] awards ceremony.

I guess if the holy father takes Muhammed up on his kind suggestion, I'll have to go back to "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

Conclusive Proof That Boxing Causes Dain Bramage

Boxing has had its share of great nicknames -- consider, for instance, John "The Beast" Mugabi, Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, and Vinnie "The Pazmanian Devil" Pazienza -- but IBF Middleweight champion Arthur "The Smurf" Abraham is unlikely to be counted amongst them. Deadspin reports on this smurf-obsessesed boxer:

He calls himself "The Smurf," and he -- seriously -- actually uses The Smurfs theme song as his ring entrance music, which, without question, is the lamest goddamned entrance humanly possible, save for maybe anything by Creed.

And now The Smurfs are pissed. Those who own the rights to The Smurfs theme song have demaned Abraham to cease-and-desist playing the song before fights, and they'd like him to lose the hat too.

I've long advocated that fans of the Smurfs be beaten, and severely at that, but even I don't think those beatings should be televised regularly on ESPN2. This gentleman doesn't need a title belt; he needs professional counseling.

To put that in terms Abraham might comprehend, "Arthur Smurf, you need to stop smurfing and smurf a CAT scan."

Chutzpah

A man has been convicted for stealing computers from the courthouse where he was then being tried for stealing computers:

''It just amazed me that someone could be in the middle of a jury trial for a burglary involving computers and immediately get involved in another burglary at the Civic Center,'' said sheriff's Sgt. Jerry Niess.

Jon Houston Eipp, 39, of Novato pleaded guilty Monday in three separate cases involving 10 different charges, including burglary, theft, drug possession, attempted auto theft and more.

He could be facing nearly five years in prison when he is sentenced next month.

In an interview Monday night at the county jail, Eipp said he stole the computers ''for personal reasons.''

''I needed help, and I didn't know how to ask for help,'' he said. ''And I guess, in my crazy way, that was my way of asking for help. Help with my drug problems, help with my sanity.''

Via The Legal Reader.

It Probably Means Something Else in English

From today's Guardian Unlimited: "BBC to name names in bung investigation"

Warmed-Over Eggs (on Face) Benedict

Anne Applebaum has an excellent column in this morning's Washington Post concerning the violent Islamic reaction to the Pope's outrageous suggestion that Islam condones violence:

. . . . I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns.

. . . .

[N]othing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?

Maybe it's a pipe dream . . . . But if stray comments by Western leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.

The New Republic's Jacob Levy has also weighed-in on the controversy, suggesting that not only was the Pope not in the wrong but that he should be expected to go this far and further in defense of his theological views:

I don't expect Catholics to take their theology less seriously than Muslims do; I certainly don't expect the Pope to take his theology anything less than wholly seriously. And what is a Catholic, committed to the truth of Catholicism, to think of Mohammed's additions to and transformations of the Christian bible? What is a theologically serious Catholic to think about "what Mohammed brought that was new"? At a minimum he or she will think it false--and, because false, evil in distracting religious believers from an all-important truth. And, since Mohammed's additions were not limited to a different understanding of Jesus and Mary but also included different understandings of conduct on earth, of government and laws and codes of behavior, the theologically-serious believing Catholic can be expected to think that the additions are morally bad for persons on earth, independent of the falsehood of the claims about God. And, since Christians (and Jews) are theologically committed to seeing Mohammed as a false prophet, they're hardly likely to feel themselves obliged to offer him the same respect and reverence as those for whom Mohammed's status as a prophet is central to their declaration of faith do.

Neither do I expect Muslim clerics to take their theology less than seriously, or to pay those who stand in the apostolic succession the same respect that believing Catholics do! And I would find it very odd, a category mistake, for the Pope to insist on apologies from every Muslim cleric who describes Christianity or Catholicism as false, evil, or likely to lead humans into sin.

I agree, as does Stuart Buck. Brad DeLong and Professor Eric Muller disagree. If you also disagree, perhaps the Pope will apologize to you, too; just burn something to get his attention.

Up Next: Top Ten Reasons Professor Balkin Should Expect a Tax Audit

Professor Jack Balkin offers a cynical "Top Ten Reasons President Bush Wants to Limit the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions". Highlights include "9. I'm hoping to try some 'alternative sets of procedures' on Nancy Pelosi" and "7. Americans are sick and tired of us outsourcing our torture jobs to other countries".

Honk if You Concur

The always-outstanding Concurring Opinions blog hosts the seventy-fifth edition of Blawg Review this week. Professors Solove, Wenger, Hoffman, Filler, and Oman collectively produce a straightforward and link-rich edition of the carnival covering topics from the war on terror to the "Boobgate" controversy. Non-lawyer David Maister does the hosting honors next week.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (81)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Monday, September 11; link good at time of posting):

A bungling German thief stole a pair of shoes in two different sizes and was caught when he went back to the shop to fix his mistake -- decked out in the very clothes he had stolen, authorities said Friday.

Police in the western city of Bielefeld said the shop owner recognized the 20-year-old shoplifter because the white shoes and sports jacket he wore were available only in his shop, and had been stolen just two days earlier.

"You have to wonder why he went back into the shop in the stolen get-up," said a spokeswoman for Bielefeld police. "It seems he may not have been the brightest of thieves."

[Previous TGIS]

Asking and telling it like it is

Ed Morrissey, of the Captain's Quarters blog, is one of the best opinion journalists around, online or off. Today, he thoughtfully and concisely exposes the hypocrisy of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:

In fact, gays serve openly in the military now; they do it in Britain. American and British troops have served together in Afghanistan and Iraq without this causing damage to morale and cohesion. They also serve openly in the IDF, one of the finest fighting forces in the world, although their leadership could use a refresher course after Lebanon. Both armies work jointly with American forces, and 22 other nations also allow gays and lesbians to serve without hiding themselves.

. . . .

If gays and lesbians were the cause of degraded morale and unit cohesion, then that damage would occur regardless of whether they kept quiet or not. If the Pentagon argues that the revelation causes the damage, then the problem isn't the gays or lesbians, but the bigots in the ranks that suddenly find out about them. That sounds exactly like the problem that the Pentagon had when it considered desgregating the services after World War II, and they finally rejected the option of coddling the bigots.

So should we now. Perhaps wartime makes for a difficult circumstance for a policy change, but this war will likely be generational, and we need as much support as we can muster.

Britain has allowed gays to serve openly for years, and they still field strong military forces. In fact, the British turn to gay-rights groups to help them recruit for the British Navy. Israel can beat any force except ours and the British that dare fight them in open warfare. Obviously gays have not eroded their combat effectiveness. Why should we continue to keep able and willing men on the sidelines when we can use all of the otherwise-qualified volunteers we can get? Barry Goldwater said it best when he declared that the only consideration that mattered to him was whether soldiers could shoot straight. Let's stop playing hypocritical games and allow patriotic men and women to wear the uniform and defend the nation.

This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.

A few weeks back, I mentioned the strange case against Madin Amin, a man who told a vigilant TSA drone that he had a bomb in order to avoid embarassment over what was, in reality, a penis pump. In addition to the defendant's own statements, the evidence included one credit card receipt for a penis pump signed by Madin Amin, one warranty card for a penis pump filled out by Madin Amin, and one copy of Penis Pumps in My Carry-On Luggage and Me: This Sort of Thing is my Bag, Baby by Madin Amin. Nonetheless, the penis pump prosecution has now gone limp.

Honesty is a violation of FAA regulations

In this week's issue, The Economist offered an entertaining take on those pointless pre-flight airline announcements (subscription required):

At Veritas Airways, your safety is our first priority. Actually, that is not quite true: if it were, our seats would be rear-facing, like those in military aircraft, since they are safer in the event of an emergency landing. But then hardly anybody would buy our tickets and we would go bust.

. . . .

Your life-jacket can be found under your seat, but please do not remove it now. In fact, do not bother to look for it at all. In the event of a landing on water, an unprecedented miracle will have occurred, because in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero. This aircraft is equipped with inflatable slides that detach to form life rafts, not that it makes any difference. Please remove high-heeled shoes before using the slides. We might as well add that space helmets and anti-gravity belts should also be removed, since even to mention the use of the slides as rafts is to enter the realm of science fiction.

Please switch off all mobile phones, since they can interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems. At least, that's what you've always been told. The real reason to switch them off is because they interfere with mobile networks on the ground, but somehow that doesn't sound quite so good. On most flights a few mobile phones are left on by mistake, so if they were really dangerous we would not allow them on board at all, if you think about it. We will have to come clean about this next year, when we introduce in-flight calling across the Veritas fleet. At that point the prospect of taking a cut of the sky-high calling charges will miraculously cause our safety concerns about mobile phones to evaporate.

The FAA regulation requiring an inane pre-flight passenger briefing is available online. I'm going to print it out so that I can better follow along on my next flight. I'll take notes as the attendant recites her scripted statements and shake my head and scowl if she misses anything. I don't see anything in the regulation reserving a period of time for passenger rebuttal, but perhaps I'll ask some questions of her and initiate an illuminating roundtable discussion of the various rules. Afterward, we can all take a field trip to the front of the plane to view the required airline certificate which clearly indicates the name of the country wherein the final assembly of the airplane was completed.

Aye, question the regulations and you may be forcibly disembarked; sit placidly during the announcements and you'll probably reach your destination, probably not more than two or three hours late. And lying in your beds at the Holiday Inn Express many days from now, would you be willin' to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to go back and tell the flight attendants and those TSA bastards that they may take our boarding passes, but they'll never take our freedom!

Bloody Brilliant

The Bletchley Park Trust, which maintains the site of the legendary British Second World War codebreaking facility, has built a working Turing Bombe:

The last time that the rattle of the Turing Bombe was heard, it was the greatest secret of the British Empire.

Yesterday, it was a press event.

With a rumble that turned into a roar, a sound not heard at Bletchley Park for more than half a century, the machine that was at the heart of Britain's wartime code-breaking triumph began to work again.

. . . .

The bombe was the key to cracking the German code known as Enigma, which Hitler's regime believed unbreakable, and in doing so it helped to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 and the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942-43.

Developed by the mathematicians Alan Turing and Gordon Welchman, the first bombe was built by the British Tabulating Machine Company in Letchworth, [Hertfordshire].

. . . .

The rebuilding project involved making almost everything involved from scratch and the engineers estimated that they had used 10 miles of wire alone in constructing the complex machinery.

More than 200 Bombes were created, but all were destroyed after the war to preserve the project's secrecy. Blueprints survived at Bletchley's successor intelligence agencies and painstaking work from those plans produced this amazing device.

This could have been the first two-word opinion in appellate history.

"Well, duh."

That's probably all that needed to be said in response to a motion to enforce a settlement negotiated via e-mail:

An agreement to settle an asbestos-related lawsuit that was worked out between the parties via e-mail is valid and enforceable even before the parties sign a formal settlement agreement, a Washington appeals court has ruled.

. . . .

Following a hearing on Kaiser Gypsum's motion for summary judgment, but before the King County Superior Court ruled, the parties' attorneys began settlement negotiations via e-mail.

LeAnn McDonald of Brayton Purcell in Portland, Ore., represented [plaintiff Richard] Anderson, and Christopher Marks of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs in Seattle represented Kaiser Gypsum.

Marks offered to settle the case for $20,000 or enter into a "high-low" settlement, based on the outcome of the summary judgment motion.

. . . .

McDonald wrote, "We'll take the 20K now."

Marks wrote: "Done and done. 20K for all asbestos claims, past, present and future."

The trial court later denied Kaiser Gypsum's motion for summary judgment. Gil Purcell, a partner in Brayton Purcell, then told Marks there was a mistake and there was no settlement agreement, according to the appeals court.

Kaiser moved to enforce the agreement, and the trial court granted the motion, leading to this appeal.

The Court of Appeals noted that "general principles of contract law govern settlement agreements."

The panel said informal writings can bind parties even when they intend to later formalize the agreement.

The attorneys' informal exchange here satisfied that rule, the appeals court said, affirming the trial court's ruling.

It's always possible that there are some complications in this case which were not alluded to in the foregoing article. If not, though, this is one of those decisions which couldn't go the other way without some truly tortured reasoning. Perhaps the plaintiff had second thoughts after prevailing in the motion for summary judgment, perhaps his attorney exceeded her settlement authority, or perhaps there was something more going on here. Regardless, this effort to disavow the e-mailed settlement seems like grasping at straws.

Not Since Monty Python Summarized Proust...

...has someone so succinctly encapsulated the mass of compromises and idiosyncracies represented in our psyches. James Lileks summarizes his political views and explains why The Bleat is not a political site:

If I really ran a political site I would end up disappointing everyone, since I am a mess of superficially contradictory opinions (hands off regulating cable because of adult content; stop marking slut dolls to my little girl) and old-style liberal notions, like the primacy of individuality over race. I have zero objections to homosexuality but balk at redefining marriage. I recycle and abjure waste and live light as possible and dislike Hummers but I’m unimpressed by environmental scaremongering. I believe women are the intellectual equal of men but emotionally and psychologically different. (I don’t want to outweigh the firefighter who attempts to carry me down the steps, and I don’t want a 37-year old man leading my daughter’s Girl Scout troop. No Harvard jobs for me!) I would rather hang out with Iggy Pop than Frank Sinatra. I love the 50s but, if I lived there as a 20-something I'd be the sort of person who annoys me now, railing against the very symbols of artifice I prize today. I hate the 60s, but know full well I would have been a pretentious stoner antiestablishment wannabee until the pose cost me money. I think light rail is a money pit sinkhole beloved by New Urbanists, but support public subsidies of large-scale bus systems to move inner-city people to wherever the jobs may be. I dearly love the inner city but don’t care if people move to the burbs for nice houses and good schools. (I support the public schools. I support school choice.) For that matter I support the New Urbanists, except when they get high-mindedly pissy about people’s free choices. I believe in God, but I’m not throwing away my Coop books because he had a hot time at a Black Mass. I can’t stand everything Islamicists stand for, despair of the tide that seems to swamp a religion for which I have, despite my efforts, no empathetic connection whatsoever, but I celebrate the first Muslim in space. I dislike most TV, most modern music, and most movies, but love the big messy hot throbbing blob of Western pop culture, partly because I connect with part of it like a dog biting on a live wire, and partly because the loud rude crass mess spells freedom, and that is the root word at the heart of the American experiment. We can always learn ! from others, but they’ve much to learn from us. Unless they have a 200+ year track record of expanding rights and unimaginable prosperity as well.

If only our political candidates would provide us such illuminating thumbnail sketches of their views, we would... well, never elect them, but we would be appreciative.

In Today's Careers Corner: Pentecostal Ministry Pays Well in Nigeria

Also from the BBC:

The $55m estate of Timothy Olufemi Akanni came to the attention of the authorities after his two widows rowed about who should inherit it.

It was only after his death in a plane crash last October that it was discovered he had a secret second wife.

The ex-electoral commission director's assets now pass to the state.

Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) made the seizures through an order it obtained from the High Court in the capital, Abuja.

The BBC's Sola Odunfa in Lagos says the forfeited assets include 23 bank accounts in various names; shares in leading Nigerian banks; houses and land in the most sought-after parts of Lagos and Abuja; schools in Abuja and a variety of motor vehicles.

Our correspondent says Mr Akanni, who was a Pentecostal Church pastor in Abuja, was eulogised at his death for being a patriotic and selfless Nigerian.

Presumably, we should all expect e-mails in coming weeks from the EFCC requesting our assistance in transferring these funds into our personal bank accounts.

The article goes on to note that "The posthumous discovery of his second wife and fortune has shocked many of his friends and family." Yes, it will come as a surprise to mine as well when I go. My secret marriages they'll probably just take in stride, but my secret fortune? No one will see that coming.

In other news, a spade dislikes being called a spade.

From the BBC:

Ex-England coach Sven-Goran Eriksson has had enough of being labelled a failure, according to Uefa president and fellow Swede Lennart Johansson.

Johansson says Eriksson pulled out of being a guest speaker at the Fifa international football symposium in Berlin because of severe criticism.

"He has had enough," said Johansson. "He thinks that people have been saying how incompetent he is.

. . . .

The 58-year-old Swede was castigated in some quarters after earning a reported £25m during his five years at the helm.

Former England skipper Terry Butcher claimed Eriksson left the team "no further forward than when he was appointed".

. . . .

Johansson added: "He has his money and will still try to have his pride, instead of standing here in Berlin with nobody listening to him because he failed to bring the World Cup to England."

Taliban on Trial in New York on 9/11

Is awkwardness sufficient grounds for a one-day continuance? Via The Legal Reader, the Associated Press reports the sad tale of an unfortunately-nicknamed defendant:

It's tough enough facing narcotics charges in federal court. Try being introduced to jurors with the nickname "Taliban" on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

D'Angelo Nunez is due to go on trial Monday in federal court, just a 10-minute walk from the World Trade Center site, on charges listed in an indictment that gives his alias as "Taliban."

"I may be the only attorney in the United States in this particular position," attorney George Goltzer complained to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote last week. "I couldn't think of a worse nickname and I couldn't think of a worse place to try this case with that particular nickname."
The judge agreed to make adjustments in courtroom references to the defendant, whose trial has nothing to do with terrorism.

. . . .

Goltzer blamed the government for his client's plight, telling the judge that its confidential informant began calling Nunez "Taliban" after he "looked at Mr. Nunez who had long hair and a dark expression and said 'You look like an Arab, I'm going to call you Taliban.'"

It's in the indictment. It's in the government's proposed jury questionnaire. It's even in a few of the recorded conversations that are a big part of the evidence against Nunez.

"Keep the nickname out of the case, strike it from the indictment, redact the tapes," Goltzer told the judge.

. . . .

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jillian Berman told the judge she had no objections to telling the jury that the case had no connection to terrorism, but she noted that "his nickname is 'Taliban,' that's how he was known in this case."

However, the judge instructed both sides to try to eliminate all references to the full nickname, though she said it might be all right for him to be called "Tali." She told prosecutors to work with their informant to make sure he does not say "Taliban" when he testifies.

If you don't read Blawg Review this week, the terrorists win.

This week's 9/11-centric seventy-fourth edition of Blawg Review is cross-posted at both the Case School of Law Institute for Global Security Law and Policy blog (note to self: get a longer blog name) and at the Law, Terrorism, and Homeland Security blog.

One post collected by this week's hosts was Ann Althouse's predicting an "especially shabby" 9/11 commemoration this year. I shared her sentiment at the time and am pleased to note that, at least for now, most of what I've seen today has been remarkably . . . er, non-shabby. I had expected that, in lieu of thoughtful work about the victims and heroes of 9/11 and about those fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd see the now-usual CAIR-sourced puff pieces about law-abiding Muslim-Americans fearing for their safety during the undoubtedly-imminent 9/11-inspired retribution attacks by other Americans. Perhaps CAIR has realized after only five years that the general lack of widespread retribution against Muslims in the United States has made their message a bit less credible, or perhaps the heretofore-receptive mainstream press just needed the space for more advertising. Either way, I'm grateful for the respite this 9/11.

Yes, for every defeatist item I've seen today, I've seen three or four more constructive efforts -- amongst many others, the profiles prepared by the blog-based Project 2,996 and Sports Illustrated's profile of Pat Tillman should not be missed. It gives me hope that when my daughter is of an age to understand 9/11, we will still be commemorating the sacrifices made that day and since by so many. Perhaps someday, in addition to commemorating 9/11, we'll be able to celebrate 9/12 -- the day America began to move forward from its national tragedy.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (80)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Monday, September 4; link good at time of posting):

As far as the judge was concerned, the paper he ordered Brandon Dickens to write as punishment for ducking jury duty was plagiarized.

To the 20-year-old Dickens, the report merely contained "quoted" material.

Not surprisingly, Livingston County Circuit Judge David Reader had the last word.

"Really, what I was looking for, Mr. Dickens, was your own work," Reader said last week in upping Dickens' punishment from three days in the courthouse to four days - and ordering him to rewrite the paper.

Dickens, formerly of Tyrone Township, originally landed in Reader's doghouse in June, when he failed to return to jury duty after a lunch break. The judge ordered him to spend three days observing a civil trial and to write a five-page paper on the history of jury service.

When Dickens turned in the paper Aug. 30, a court employee recognized phrases from something else the employee had read previously. An Internet search showed many of the phrases came word for word from "Trials and Tribulations," a story by Seattle writer Matthew Baldwin that appeared in an online magazine, The Morning News.

[Previous TGIS]

Labor Made Easier Than Relaxation

Hosting the Seventy-Third Edition of Blawg Review, the Profs at the Workplace Prof Blog take on the one subject that none of us want to think about on Labor Day -- labor. Their thoughtful post manages to pit "Norma Rae" against "Wall Street" in a manner more entertaining than either Norma Rae or Wall Street.

Five years on from 9/11, the Case School of Law Institute for Global Security Law and Policy hosts next week's Blawg Review, which will focus on "the themes of the global war on terrorism and the impact of post-9/11 laws on business, civil liberties, and the administration of justice." Remember, if you don't recommend the best legal blogging you've read concerning 9/11-related themes, the terrorists win.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (79)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Tuesday, August 29; link good at time of posting):

CNN apologized Tuesday after an open mike transmitted an anchor's bathroom conversation with another woman live over the network as it was carrying President Bush's speech in New Orleans.

"Live From" anchor Kyra Phillips had apparently left the set around 12:48 p.m. EDT Tuesday for a bathroom break while the news channel carried Bush's speech marking the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Phillips' wireless microphone was turned on and picked up about a minute and a half of a muffled conversation she had with an unidentified woman where she apparently talked about her husband, laughed and talked about her brother.

"I've got to be protective of him," she said without being aware that the mic was on. "He's married, three kids, and his wife is just a control freak." CNN anchor Daryn Kagan broke into the telecast immediately afterward updating viewers on what Bush had been saying.

"CNN experienced audio difficulties during the president's speech today in New Orleans," the CNN statement read. "We apologize to our viewers and the president for the disruption."

[Previous TGIS]