i love labor day weekend, as all labor lawyers should. it means the end of summer. i hate summer, and by the end of august i have usually had more than enough. also i often travel in early fall when i can get off-peak season tickets. but best of all, i love labor day because it is the only day of the year when i get off work and my wife does not.
living with an academic is generally a good thing. i get to live on a college campus with all of its facilities (it's like living in a country club), with heavily subsidized rent, and surrounded by intellectuals from all different disciplines. i also get the satisfaction in knowing that while this college once rejected me, i am now living here. they tried to keep me out in the late 80s, but i found a back door in a decade later. bwah ha ha! (actually, if they wanted to be rid of me, they should have just let me in. i would have stayed for only 4 years, never met my wife, and never lived here again. instead, i went elsewhere, married my wife and (assuming she gets tenure and does not dump me) i will be here forever. take that, nasty admissions people!!!) (no, i'm not bitter)
on the other hand. if you have a real job (i.e. a non-academic job) it can sometimes also be annoying, mostly because of all of the time they get off. while my neighbors complain that their 3 week christmas break is not that long this year, i have to remind them that my "christmas break" is exactly one day--december 25th. don't even talk to me about the summer, or spring break, or october break, or my wife's YEAR LONG SABBATICAL (at full pay, of course).
now, if my wife and/or neighbors ever read this, i know what they will do. they will fill up the comments with things like this:
"we do too work when class is not in session. we do our research. it's publish or perish, dude."
fine. i understand. save your comments. but they know as well as i do that when classes end, things definitely get a lot more leisurely around here. research or no, their schedule is many times more flexible during breaks than most non-academic jobs ever are. plus, they can always decide they need to research topics as the social structure of beach bums in french polynesia. then they will get a grant to fly to the south pacific and get paid to hang out on the beach. even with research taken into account, academia is a very good racket.
which brings me back to labor day--a holiday to celebrate the working class folks, not the ivory tower over-achievers who live around here, but those who toil in oppression all year under the cruel yoke of THE MAN. it so happens that the college where my wife teaches does not recognize labor day. indeed, the first day of classes is always on that date. on top of that, the saturday and sunday of labor day weekend is always freshman orientation, which means professors here have to do all kinds of work-related crap for the entire 3-day weekend. labor day weekend is the only time all year when i get to sleep in and goof around but my wife and neighbors have to work. it doesn't make up for the entire summer, those other breaks scattered throughout the year, or sabbaticals, but it sure does make me feel a little better right now.
Saturday, August 30, 2003
afghanistan
remember our first "victory" in the war on terror? well, if it was a victory, why has there been heavy fighting against the taliban in the last 10 days. in fact, 3 americans soldiers died there recently with nary a peep in most domestic news sources:
(full article here)
by my count that means two active guerrilla wars, no missions accomplished.
Dozens of Taliban were killed in fighting as Afghan troops pushed into a deep gorge and along a mountain stream after a night of heavy U.S. bombing in the Chinaran and Larzab mountains of Dai Chupan district, an Afghan official said.
The U.S. military said one of its special operations soldiers died in a fall during a nighttime assault in the rugged mountains of southern Zabul province. His name was not immediately released. No casualties were reported among the Afghan soldiers.
From late Thursday until nearly dawn, U.S. warplanes pounded two suspected Taliban positions in the area, provincial intelligence chief Khalil Hotak told The Associated Press.
Then 500 Afghan soldiers moved in on the Taliban fighters, who had taken up fortified positions. Four Afghan soldiers were wounded in the fighting Thursday.
Hotak described the area as a Taliban stronghold, from which the insurgents direct their operations into the neighboring provinces of Kandahar, Ghazni and Uruzgan.
"The fighting was intense and we have inflicted heavy damage on the Taliban," Hotak said at a command center set up in Qalat, about 45 miles south of the fighting. "Our forces counted 35 Taliban bodies."
It was impossible to verify Hotak's account of the casualties and description of the area as a Taliban stronghold.
The U.S. military, meanwhile, announced the second fatality of a coalition soldier within 10 days in Afghanistan. Some 11,500 U.S.-led forces are helping Afghan troops in hunting down Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the south and east of the country.
"The injuries were sustained during an accidental fall and were not the result of hostile action," the military said in a statement from Bagram Air Base, north of the capital Kabul.
On Aug. 20, a U.S. special operations soldier was killed in action in eastern Paktika province.
This week's fighting follows a surge in military action by the Taliban in recent weeks. Taliban fighters have been staging deadly attacks on Afghan forces, officials and aid workers, in an apparent bid to undermine the government of President Hamid Karzai, who took power soon after the Taliban's ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2001.
(full article here)
by my count that means two active guerrilla wars, no missions accomplished.
cheney lied to congress
remember in the 1990s when pro-impeachment types said "its not about sex, its about perjury"? so now we can find out for sure. we can all expect to see an independent counsel appointed and impeachment hearings in a few months, right?
(via atrios)
(via atrios)
Thursday, August 28, 2003
8 days, not 9
i occurred to me today that i am 8 days away from uzbekistan and i that have never been here before. the magic day was yesterday.
i have waited 2 years to cross the divide from 9 days before to 8. in 2001, i was already to go. i had my plane tickets, visa, and guidebook. i was scheduled to leave on october 5, 2001. on 9/11, concerned friends and family kept asking me if i was still going to uzbekistan. despite their implied suggestion that i stay home, i told them i was going. in fact, when the planes hit the trade center towers, it seemed to have nothing to do with the far-flung country in central asia.
but within a few days focus shifted to afghanistan, a country that borders uzbekistan to the south. the u.s. demanded the taliban hand over bin laden "or else." at first, i thought they would. but bin laden was not produced right away and i began to have my doubts.
every morning when i arrived at work, i checked the state department travelers advisory web site. no warning about uzbekistan appeared as the taliban debated what to do; they seemed to be stalling. i told my wife if the state department issued a warning that said uzbekistan was off-limits to tourists, i would not go.
meanwhile, the news was filled with experts who explained that in central asia (and in many other muslim societies) there is a strong cultural ethic of hospitality. in those countries it is expected that a guests be treated with the utmost hospitality, and protected from danger if necessary. the experts were talking about why the taliban were hesitating to turn over bin laden. but i used their comments to reassure family members. after all, i would be a guest in uzbekistan, so i would be protected. i had no idea if that was true, but i really wanted to go and i needed something to tell them in response to their concerns.
then the taliban decided. they would not give up bin laden. there were still hints that some compromise was possible, but bush and the american public was not in the mood for compromises. the taliban got more belligerent announcing that it would not only fight off the americans, but also attack anyone who aided the americans. within 24 hours uzbekistan offered its airbases to the u.s. military, despite the threat. a series of state department warnings went up the next day telling americans to stay out of pakistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, and iran--i.e. every country bordering afghanistan except china and uzbekistan. the state department did post a warning about uzbekistan, but it merely "strongly advised" against going. it did not rule out travel there altogether. i took that to be a good sign. my friends and relatives did not.
meanwhile, i had been corresponding with a few people living in uzbekistan. one was a friend of a friend of this woman who my brother met at a party in san francisco and whose email address was passed down the line to me. when you tell people you are going to an usual place, distant contacts like that come out of the woodwork.
anyway, the day after the state department warning, my resolve was starting to crumble. it was becoming obvious that my wife would spend the whole time i was away worrying that i would be killed there. as my departure date got closer and closer, it got harder and harder to imagine putting her through that. the straw that broke the camel's back was an email i got from the friend of a friend of the woman my brother met. in the weeks after 9/11. when everyone else was trying to get me not to go, he had encouraging me to come, reassuring me that it was okay there. he was the uzbek, so i figured he knew the situation better than friends and family who couldn't find the country on a map.
then suddenly one day, he wrote me and told me not to come. he wasn't that specific, but he said that military check points had gone up on some of the roads and so traveling between cities would be difficult. because of these road blocks, it wasn't a good time to come if i travel around the country.
i read his message the morning of september 26, 2001, 9 days before my departure date. it also was the anniversary of my first date with my wife. i decided not to go to uzbekistan.
by september 28th, i had a new plane ticket and a new visa in my passport for mali, a country in west africa which was my second choice before i decided to go to uz. i left on october 5th on the same flight to london that was supposed to be the first leg of my uzbekistan trip. i got on a different plane in heathrow--going south rather than east. i had a great time in mali and barely thought about uzbekistan the whole time i was there.
it was only in retrospect that i regretted not going to uzbekistan. the stories of military checkpoints turned out to be somewhat misleading--it turned out to be more of a fear that they might block the roads of the country than reality. it was safe in central asia. it just was hard to see through the uncertain fearful lense of our just-post-9/11 world.
i have waited 2 years to cross the divide from 9 days before to 8. in 2001, i was already to go. i had my plane tickets, visa, and guidebook. i was scheduled to leave on october 5, 2001. on 9/11, concerned friends and family kept asking me if i was still going to uzbekistan. despite their implied suggestion that i stay home, i told them i was going. in fact, when the planes hit the trade center towers, it seemed to have nothing to do with the far-flung country in central asia.
but within a few days focus shifted to afghanistan, a country that borders uzbekistan to the south. the u.s. demanded the taliban hand over bin laden "or else." at first, i thought they would. but bin laden was not produced right away and i began to have my doubts.
every morning when i arrived at work, i checked the state department travelers advisory web site. no warning about uzbekistan appeared as the taliban debated what to do; they seemed to be stalling. i told my wife if the state department issued a warning that said uzbekistan was off-limits to tourists, i would not go.
meanwhile, the news was filled with experts who explained that in central asia (and in many other muslim societies) there is a strong cultural ethic of hospitality. in those countries it is expected that a guests be treated with the utmost hospitality, and protected from danger if necessary. the experts were talking about why the taliban were hesitating to turn over bin laden. but i used their comments to reassure family members. after all, i would be a guest in uzbekistan, so i would be protected. i had no idea if that was true, but i really wanted to go and i needed something to tell them in response to their concerns.
then the taliban decided. they would not give up bin laden. there were still hints that some compromise was possible, but bush and the american public was not in the mood for compromises. the taliban got more belligerent announcing that it would not only fight off the americans, but also attack anyone who aided the americans. within 24 hours uzbekistan offered its airbases to the u.s. military, despite the threat. a series of state department warnings went up the next day telling americans to stay out of pakistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, and iran--i.e. every country bordering afghanistan except china and uzbekistan. the state department did post a warning about uzbekistan, but it merely "strongly advised" against going. it did not rule out travel there altogether. i took that to be a good sign. my friends and relatives did not.
meanwhile, i had been corresponding with a few people living in uzbekistan. one was a friend of a friend of this woman who my brother met at a party in san francisco and whose email address was passed down the line to me. when you tell people you are going to an usual place, distant contacts like that come out of the woodwork.
anyway, the day after the state department warning, my resolve was starting to crumble. it was becoming obvious that my wife would spend the whole time i was away worrying that i would be killed there. as my departure date got closer and closer, it got harder and harder to imagine putting her through that. the straw that broke the camel's back was an email i got from the friend of a friend of the woman my brother met. in the weeks after 9/11. when everyone else was trying to get me not to go, he had encouraging me to come, reassuring me that it was okay there. he was the uzbek, so i figured he knew the situation better than friends and family who couldn't find the country on a map.
then suddenly one day, he wrote me and told me not to come. he wasn't that specific, but he said that military check points had gone up on some of the roads and so traveling between cities would be difficult. because of these road blocks, it wasn't a good time to come if i travel around the country.
i read his message the morning of september 26, 2001, 9 days before my departure date. it also was the anniversary of my first date with my wife. i decided not to go to uzbekistan.
by september 28th, i had a new plane ticket and a new visa in my passport for mali, a country in west africa which was my second choice before i decided to go to uz. i left on october 5th on the same flight to london that was supposed to be the first leg of my uzbekistan trip. i got on a different plane in heathrow--going south rather than east. i had a great time in mali and barely thought about uzbekistan the whole time i was there.
it was only in retrospect that i regretted not going to uzbekistan. the stories of military checkpoints turned out to be somewhat misleading--it turned out to be more of a fear that they might block the roads of the country than reality. it was safe in central asia. it just was hard to see through the uncertain fearful lense of our just-post-9/11 world.
its worse than we thought
from the wapo (via the hamster)
"won" is kind of the wrong word in that first sentence. after all, there were no competitive bids. if there is no contest, no one can "win." considering that dick cheney continues to draw a six-figure annual salary from halliburton even while he serves in as vice president, a better verb would be "bought."
the administration's giveaway to halliburton and its subsidiaries is not only corrupt, its incredibly wasteful and possibly contributes to some of the other problems american troops face in iraq. as riverbend pointed out in today's post, a lot of the work being done by american companies in iraq can be done a lot cheaper if they used iraqis companies. in riverbend's example, an unnamed iraqi company and an unnamed american company each gave an estimate for repairing a bridge in baghdad. the american company's estimate was more than 166 times greater than the iraqi company's ($50,000,000 vs. $300,000), but the americans, not the iraqis got the contract.
some doubt the veracity of what riverbend writes (on some blogs i have seen people question whether she is really an iraqi as she claims). but even if you don't believe her, it seems pretty clear to me that a big factor in both the violence and anti-american sentiment is the huge unemployment rate in this "post-war" period. iraq has long been known in the arab world for its highly educated professional class. there are people there who can do these jobs. to give them the work would be an effective way to help raise ordinate iraqis out of poverty, make them feel like they had a stake in the future of iraq, and generally undermine the widespread suspicion that the whole iraqi invasion is just a scheme to enrich americans at iraq's expense.
although we have no idea who is responsible for the continuing attacks on american soldiers (there is really no evidence that they're all "baathists" as some claim) i suspect that all three of these factors--poverty, the lack of a feeling of ownership, and suspicion about american's intentions--each contribute to the violence.
you would think using iraqi companies to rebuild iraq would appeal to the neo-cons' ethic of improving one's own society through work rather than handouts. perhaps it would; if they weren't so addicted to paying off their corporate sponsors.
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
"won" is kind of the wrong word in that first sentence. after all, there were no competitive bids. if there is no contest, no one can "win." considering that dick cheney continues to draw a six-figure annual salary from halliburton even while he serves in as vice president, a better verb would be "bought."
the administration's giveaway to halliburton and its subsidiaries is not only corrupt, its incredibly wasteful and possibly contributes to some of the other problems american troops face in iraq. as riverbend pointed out in today's post, a lot of the work being done by american companies in iraq can be done a lot cheaper if they used iraqis companies. in riverbend's example, an unnamed iraqi company and an unnamed american company each gave an estimate for repairing a bridge in baghdad. the american company's estimate was more than 166 times greater than the iraqi company's ($50,000,000 vs. $300,000), but the americans, not the iraqis got the contract.
some doubt the veracity of what riverbend writes (on some blogs i have seen people question whether she is really an iraqi as she claims). but even if you don't believe her, it seems pretty clear to me that a big factor in both the violence and anti-american sentiment is the huge unemployment rate in this "post-war" period. iraq has long been known in the arab world for its highly educated professional class. there are people there who can do these jobs. to give them the work would be an effective way to help raise ordinate iraqis out of poverty, make them feel like they had a stake in the future of iraq, and generally undermine the widespread suspicion that the whole iraqi invasion is just a scheme to enrich americans at iraq's expense.
although we have no idea who is responsible for the continuing attacks on american soldiers (there is really no evidence that they're all "baathists" as some claim) i suspect that all three of these factors--poverty, the lack of a feeling of ownership, and suspicion about american's intentions--each contribute to the violence.
you would think using iraqi companies to rebuild iraq would appeal to the neo-cons' ethic of improving one's own society through work rather than handouts. perhaps it would; if they weren't so addicted to paying off their corporate sponsors.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
but wait, they told us that iraq reconstruction would pay for itself through oil revenue
bremer says iraq needs an infusion of tens of billions of dollars from sources outside iraq.
it happened again
my hits spiked. cursor linked to me today. the thing is, i think they meant to link to my flypaper rant, but instead they linked to my maddest saddest thing apology post from a few days ago. at least this time it should be clear who said what.
someone should have a talk with arnold
3 minutes 45 seconds into this radio interview with sean hannity arnold schwarzenegger states "I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
(via defective yeti)
(via defective yeti)
democracy in iraq
in this morning's new york times, thomas friedman argued that the u.s. must put much more of an "iraqi face" on government there. as demosthenes points out, that's almost right, but also misses the real point.
for this reason, i do not think that the bush administration has any interest in having a truly democratic iraq, at least not in the sense that demosthenes is describing. when bush advocated democracy in iraq he assumed that a democratic iraq would be a pro-american iraq. or more specifically, a pro-bush administration iraq. this is certainly wrong. most democracies in the world have deep disagreements with the bush administration. the best example, ironically, is iraq itself. most democracies were against the invasion. the few that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (e.g. britain, spain, italy, etc.) joined despite the fact that a majority of their public was against the invasion. a truly democratic iraq is likely to have its own differences with whoever is in washington. it might, for example, award oil contracts to non-american oil companies, or award construction contracts to companies that are not subsidiaries of halliburton.
There's a fundamental problem here, though. It's not about Iraqi faces, but Iraqi choices- not about the appearance of sovereignty, but the reality of it. What needs to happen is that the Americans must give the Iraqis the choice to do what they see fit, not just to do what the Americans say they "need to learn to do".
Yes, this isn't absolute. There should be allowances for the possibility of a relatively small or extremist group taking control of a more popular process (as happened when the theocrats took over after the Iranian revolution), and the United States should act to prevent that to the extent that Iraqi sovereignty allows.
The important thing here, however, is that Iraqi must find its own path There is absolutely no doubt that said path will not be the path America took or that Americans would take in their place. That doesn't matter. It is not a question of turning the Iraqis into Americans; that would be disastrous. It's about Iraq becoming that rarest of creatures: a state with a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not for Americans. For Iraqis.
for this reason, i do not think that the bush administration has any interest in having a truly democratic iraq, at least not in the sense that demosthenes is describing. when bush advocated democracy in iraq he assumed that a democratic iraq would be a pro-american iraq. or more specifically, a pro-bush administration iraq. this is certainly wrong. most democracies in the world have deep disagreements with the bush administration. the best example, ironically, is iraq itself. most democracies were against the invasion. the few that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (e.g. britain, spain, italy, etc.) joined despite the fact that a majority of their public was against the invasion. a truly democratic iraq is likely to have its own differences with whoever is in washington. it might, for example, award oil contracts to non-american oil companies, or award construction contracts to companies that are not subsidiaries of halliburton.
uzbek blogging
i'm mulling over whether i will even attempt to blog from uzbekistan. i always keep a diary when i travel alone. rewriting each entry, or even just entering the bigger ones into blogger while trying to navigate a foreign keyboard just seems like too much of a drag. on the other hand, it would be fun to post my immediate reaction to things. any thoughts?
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
my growin' blogroll
added suburban guerrilla and defective yeti to my blog list. both i've been meaning to add for a little while now.
another recall
since this california recall thing has become such a total unqualified success--it certainly hasn't made the state a joke or anything--republicans in other states now also want to get into the act. in nevada, they have started a recall effort. but at least that state has a recall procedure in its constitution. pennsylvania does not. but that has not stopped a group of pennsylvania republicans who announced they will draft legislation to create a recall procedure to recall governor rendell. why let california hog the nations mockery?
unlike in california, where davis is not liked by many, rendell is genuinely popular in this state, or at least parts of it (mostly the philadelphia region). he used to be the mayor of philadelphia and is largely considered to be one of the best mayors of that city ever had (though it did not hurt that he followed two of the worst mayors in the city's history). but the california recall vote has lowered the bar considerably for what justifies a recall. my understanding is that the recall procedure was originally conceived to be a sort of "people's impeachment." in other words, if the governor does some crime that deserves removal, the people themselves can do so in a referendum. in california right now i have not heard anyone identify any impeachable offense that justifies davis' recall. the pro-recall people seem to be pro-recall just because they don't like the guy. the recall provisions in that state set the bar so low for triggering a recall election that no one really had to resort to anything like that. it doesn't say he has to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they just need a bunch of signatures. they are attempting to recall davis because they hate him. it's just that simple.
this pennsylvania effort, it seems, would lower the bar even further. stephen miskin, a spokesperson for the pennsylvania republicans who are pushing for the creation of a recall procedure here explained why governor rendell deserves to be recalled as follows:
" The problem with Governor Rendell is his efforts to advance his agenda."
obviously rendell should be advancing the republican's agenda instead.
the pennsylvania effort is particularly stupid because governor rendell is almost certain to veto any recall-establishing procedure that reaches his desk. but maybe proponents have not thought of that. apparently it has also never occurred to them that if they create a recall procedure, that same procedure could be used to knock out a republican governor some day. i mean, presumably these guys think that they might actually get the governorship at some point, right?
this whole thing reminds me of the "line item veto." remember that? it was a darling of the republican party for much of the reagan-bush (the first) era, i.e. when the republican party believed it would control the presidency forever. the pro-line item veto position survived the first two years of the clinton era--it made it into the "contract for america." in fact, it was the only part of the "contract for america" that clinton warmly embraced. it was only then that it dawned on the dim-witted proponents that a line item veto will give more power to the president whoever it is, even (gasp) their political opponents if they happen to hold the office. after that, it was quietly dropped. no one talks about the line item veto much anymore, even now that the republican party has regained control of the white house. eventually perhaps, it will occur to miskin and his ilk that a recall procedure can be used against their people too.
(the links to the nevada and pennsylvania recall efforts via atrios)
unlike in california, where davis is not liked by many, rendell is genuinely popular in this state, or at least parts of it (mostly the philadelphia region). he used to be the mayor of philadelphia and is largely considered to be one of the best mayors of that city ever had (though it did not hurt that he followed two of the worst mayors in the city's history). but the california recall vote has lowered the bar considerably for what justifies a recall. my understanding is that the recall procedure was originally conceived to be a sort of "people's impeachment." in other words, if the governor does some crime that deserves removal, the people themselves can do so in a referendum. in california right now i have not heard anyone identify any impeachable offense that justifies davis' recall. the pro-recall people seem to be pro-recall just because they don't like the guy. the recall provisions in that state set the bar so low for triggering a recall election that no one really had to resort to anything like that. it doesn't say he has to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they just need a bunch of signatures. they are attempting to recall davis because they hate him. it's just that simple.
this pennsylvania effort, it seems, would lower the bar even further. stephen miskin, a spokesperson for the pennsylvania republicans who are pushing for the creation of a recall procedure here explained why governor rendell deserves to be recalled as follows:
" The problem with Governor Rendell is his efforts to advance his agenda."
obviously rendell should be advancing the republican's agenda instead.
the pennsylvania effort is particularly stupid because governor rendell is almost certain to veto any recall-establishing procedure that reaches his desk. but maybe proponents have not thought of that. apparently it has also never occurred to them that if they create a recall procedure, that same procedure could be used to knock out a republican governor some day. i mean, presumably these guys think that they might actually get the governorship at some point, right?
this whole thing reminds me of the "line item veto." remember that? it was a darling of the republican party for much of the reagan-bush (the first) era, i.e. when the republican party believed it would control the presidency forever. the pro-line item veto position survived the first two years of the clinton era--it made it into the "contract for america." in fact, it was the only part of the "contract for america" that clinton warmly embraced. it was only then that it dawned on the dim-witted proponents that a line item veto will give more power to the president whoever it is, even (gasp) their political opponents if they happen to hold the office. after that, it was quietly dropped. no one talks about the line item veto much anymore, even now that the republican party has regained control of the white house. eventually perhaps, it will occur to miskin and his ilk that a recall procedure can be used against their people too.
(the links to the nevada and pennsylvania recall efforts via atrios)
i'm back
i ended up taking more of a hiatus than i thought i would. i should start posting again later today.
meanwhile, in my absence, the court denied fox's motion to enjoin publication of al franken's book calling the motion "wholly without merit both factually and legally." the case has not been dismissed yet, but this is basically its death-knell, as far as i am concerned (the only fun part left in the case would be if franken or penguin (his publisher) go after fox for sanctions under FRCP 11(c)). not surprisingly, fox's coverage of the decision was, well, pretty paltry.
anyway, all i'm trying to get at before i start posting about other things is that now that good has triumphed over evil (at least in one particular courtroom), i am no longer either fair or balanced
UPDATE: i spoke too soon. fox has dropped the lawsuit. although there is still time for a franken and/or penguin to file a certain motion...
meanwhile, in my absence, the court denied fox's motion to enjoin publication of al franken's book calling the motion "wholly without merit both factually and legally." the case has not been dismissed yet, but this is basically its death-knell, as far as i am concerned (the only fun part left in the case would be if franken or penguin (his publisher) go after fox for sanctions under FRCP 11(c)). not surprisingly, fox's coverage of the decision was, well, pretty paltry.
anyway, all i'm trying to get at before i start posting about other things is that now that good has triumphed over evil (at least in one particular courtroom), i am no longer either fair or balanced
UPDATE: i spoke too soon. fox has dropped the lawsuit. although there is still time for a franken and/or penguin to file a certain motion...
Friday, August 22, 2003
going away
i'm going away again this weekend. i'm getting a little tired of it. at least next weekend i will be around (on the other hand, the three weekends after that i will be in central asia) anyway, all i'm trying to say is that blogging opportunities will be fairly limited over the next few days. maybe i can sneak something in, or maybe not.
meanwhile, you must read josh marshall's interview with peter bergen, al qaeda expert and author of holy war, inc.: inside the secret world of osama bin laden. part one of the interview is here and part two is here.
that should keep you busy for a while
meanwhile, you must read josh marshall's interview with peter bergen, al qaeda expert and author of holy war, inc.: inside the secret world of osama bin laden. part one of the interview is here and part two is here.
that should keep you busy for a while
Thursday, August 21, 2003
the maddest saddest thing
tonight when i checked my sitemeter i was surprised to see a big spike in my number of hits. i usually get about 30 a day. i probably know about half of those 30 people. today, however, i got a couple hundred, all in the past few hours.
it turns out i was linked to media whores online (as of this posting it's about 1/4 of the way down the page). there's a block quote attributed to me there along with a link. the problem is, i didn't write the quote.
on july 30th, i wrote a long rant about the so-called flypaper theory, specifically why the whole idea is so stupid. while writing the thing, i found the following quote in a comment to this essay at billmon's whiskey bar:
"The maddest, saddest thing about the neocons is that they believe that 'terrorism'
is an ontological category, not a tactic. So they reckon there is a fixed number of
terrorists, and, once they are all dead, there won't be any more. But it doesn't work
like that. For every civilian you kill, you make another two terrorists. And the more you
kill, the more there will be. The British know this. the French learned it in Algeria.
Even the Israelis know it now. But Bush and his voters are going to have to learn
it all over again, very slowly, very painfully; and the whole damn world will pay
the price this time."
the comment was written by andrew brown, not me. i tried to attribute it in my july 30, 2003 post, but apparently i wasn't clear enough. i just sent MWO an email informing them of the mistake. while i am happy for all of the attention, i don't want to take credit for something that i did not, in fact, write. sorry for the confusion.
it turns out i was linked to media whores online (as of this posting it's about 1/4 of the way down the page). there's a block quote attributed to me there along with a link. the problem is, i didn't write the quote.
on july 30th, i wrote a long rant about the so-called flypaper theory, specifically why the whole idea is so stupid. while writing the thing, i found the following quote in a comment to this essay at billmon's whiskey bar:
"The maddest, saddest thing about the neocons is that they believe that 'terrorism'
is an ontological category, not a tactic. So they reckon there is a fixed number of
terrorists, and, once they are all dead, there won't be any more. But it doesn't work
like that. For every civilian you kill, you make another two terrorists. And the more you
kill, the more there will be. The British know this. the French learned it in Algeria.
Even the Israelis know it now. But Bush and his voters are going to have to learn
it all over again, very slowly, very painfully; and the whole damn world will pay
the price this time."
the comment was written by andrew brown, not me. i tried to attribute it in my july 30, 2003 post, but apparently i wasn't clear enough. i just sent MWO an email informing them of the mistake. while i am happy for all of the attention, i don't want to take credit for something that i did not, in fact, write. sorry for the confusion.
fair and balanced: the revenge
i'm at work. actually, i guess you could say that i am frantically busy right now. i worked through lunch so i haven't left this place all day. part of the problem is that i am covering for another attorney in the office. she has a brief due tomorrow, but is at an arbitration today. because i have been semi-involved with the case that must be briefed, i am writing the brief for her. unfortunately, it came at a time that i had a lot of my own work to do.
so i'm writing this brief, reading various deposition transcripts, and downloading cases hoping to finish up the brief so i can get to my other work. but its hard to work because its so freakin' loud here. the arbitration is being held in the conference room in our office down the hall. the arbitration hearing apparently never started, instead the parties are trying to settle the case. that means that instead of all gathering together in one conference room, they keep spreading out across our law office to huddle in small groups to talk about settlement negotiation strategy. the groups probably should be whispering to each other when they discuss such things, but instead they're really loud. unfortunately, there is an empty desk just outside my office, and it seems to be a favorite place for various factions to gather and argue about what they should do in their settlement discussions. meanwhile, i have read the same page of this deposition transcript 17 times and i still don't know what it says.
i'm starving, so at one point, i get up and wander over to the food they have ordered for the participants in the arbitration. as i'm loading up my plate with illicit sandwiches, i start chatting with these other two guys who are also loitering in the kitchen. i don't recognize them so they're not from our firm or with our union client, they're obviously people from the other side. i realize i have no idea who the other side even is, so i ask.
the other side is fox news. these guys are in-house counsel for fox. they're all around me now. and they're loud. and they're pissing me off.
so i'm writing this brief, reading various deposition transcripts, and downloading cases hoping to finish up the brief so i can get to my other work. but its hard to work because its so freakin' loud here. the arbitration is being held in the conference room in our office down the hall. the arbitration hearing apparently never started, instead the parties are trying to settle the case. that means that instead of all gathering together in one conference room, they keep spreading out across our law office to huddle in small groups to talk about settlement negotiation strategy. the groups probably should be whispering to each other when they discuss such things, but instead they're really loud. unfortunately, there is an empty desk just outside my office, and it seems to be a favorite place for various factions to gather and argue about what they should do in their settlement discussions. meanwhile, i have read the same page of this deposition transcript 17 times and i still don't know what it says.
i'm starving, so at one point, i get up and wander over to the food they have ordered for the participants in the arbitration. as i'm loading up my plate with illicit sandwiches, i start chatting with these other two guys who are also loitering in the kitchen. i don't recognize them so they're not from our firm or with our union client, they're obviously people from the other side. i realize i have no idea who the other side even is, so i ask.
the other side is fox news. these guys are in-house counsel for fox. they're all around me now. and they're loud. and they're pissing me off.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
gender genie
check this out. an anonymous friend of mine has created a site that guesses the gender of the author of whatever text you feed into it based on an algorithm created by moshe koppel, bar-ilan university in israel, and shlomo argamon, illinois institute of technology.
i fed various bits of legal writing that were sitting on my computer at work into the site. half were written by me, and half by a female co-worker. the gender genie said they were all male. then i fed several letters from the new york times into it, and it did much better--guessing correctly on all but one of the 8 or so letters i entered. the genie supposily works best with fiction, which i haven't tried yet.
i'm actually curious if formal writing from fields other than law will also come up as male (i.e. if the algorithm reads all formal writing as male) or if each discipline's writing style will appear to be one gender or another.
i fed various bits of legal writing that were sitting on my computer at work into the site. half were written by me, and half by a female co-worker. the gender genie said they were all male. then i fed several letters from the new york times into it, and it did much better--guessing correctly on all but one of the 8 or so letters i entered. the genie supposily works best with fiction, which i haven't tried yet.
i'm actually curious if formal writing from fields other than law will also come up as male (i.e. if the algorithm reads all formal writing as male) or if each discipline's writing style will appear to be one gender or another.
morass
from this morning's new york times:
Despite the steady loss of American life in Iraq, the continued search for Mr. Hussein and the administration's failure so far to uncover any caches of banned weapons, analysts said the bombing by itself was unlikely to reshape public opinion or the administration's approach.
"I'm not sure this is of a sufficient magnitude to make Americans stop and say, `What are we doing there?' " said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington.
"But if this kind of thing continues, if it seems to be becoming a morass, that could become a problem for the president."
(emphasis added)
i love that first paragraph. sure, every day someone new dies in iraq, saddam and his alleged weapons (the reason we invaded) are no where to be found, but this bombing by itself won't effect public opinion. but wait... doesn't the whole first half of that sentence show that this bombing is not "by itself." in fact, it is yet another of a list of reasons to believe iraq is turning into a major disaster.
if this, combined with all of the other things is not of "sufficient magnitude" to make people wonder why we are there, is there anything that ever will?
"becoming a morass"?!?!? i wonder what mr. alterman thinks a morass is. i submit that a "morass" is something we feel we cannot escape from. how exactly are american troops ever supposed to escape iraq without leaving chaos and hostility in their wake?
on a related noted, i've added baghdad burning to my link list. it's a blog by "riverbend," a 24 year old iraqi woman living in baghdad whose observations salam pax occasionally posted on his blog. well, now she has her own site. check it out.
Despite the steady loss of American life in Iraq, the continued search for Mr. Hussein and the administration's failure so far to uncover any caches of banned weapons, analysts said the bombing by itself was unlikely to reshape public opinion or the administration's approach.
"I'm not sure this is of a sufficient magnitude to make Americans stop and say, `What are we doing there?' " said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington.
"But if this kind of thing continues, if it seems to be becoming a morass, that could become a problem for the president."
(emphasis added)
i love that first paragraph. sure, every day someone new dies in iraq, saddam and his alleged weapons (the reason we invaded) are no where to be found, but this bombing by itself won't effect public opinion. but wait... doesn't the whole first half of that sentence show that this bombing is not "by itself." in fact, it is yet another of a list of reasons to believe iraq is turning into a major disaster.
if this, combined with all of the other things is not of "sufficient magnitude" to make people wonder why we are there, is there anything that ever will?
"becoming a morass"?!?!? i wonder what mr. alterman thinks a morass is. i submit that a "morass" is something we feel we cannot escape from. how exactly are american troops ever supposed to escape iraq without leaving chaos and hostility in their wake?
on a related noted, i've added baghdad burning to my link list. it's a blog by "riverbend," a 24 year old iraqi woman living in baghdad whose observations salam pax occasionally posted on his blog. well, now she has her own site. check it out.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)