Joe whathisname scraping for traction

Remember whathisname?

Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without Congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a Seacoast Media Group forum Thursday, which focused on the Iraq War and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of another war with Iran, he said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the oval office.

“The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, which was followed by a raucous applause.

There. That gets you on Drudge. It must gall the hell out of him — kind of like McCain — that by now, after all these laps around the track — that new guys come in and he’s not a top contender for his party’s nomination. Biden is just not serious, though. Look, more:

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much, and intends to send it to the President.

When resident Joel Carp asked Biden why not impeach now given what has already been done, Biden said it was a valid point but might not be constitutionally valid and potentially counterproductive. A case for impeachment must have clear evidence, he said, and blame should be directed at the right parties.

“If you’re going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach Cheney first,” said Biden, which also received applause.

This is just pathetic. And the real shame of it is there’s evidently a decent guy under there, who is every bit good looking enough to qualify for the office.

UPDATE:  Like I said — pathetic (VIP).

Faith or … poof!

They’re having a freewheeling “God, Truth and Eternity” series of posts and related threads on Dean’s World.  That’s one of that blog’s enduring merits — it doesn’t consider itself too fancy to have Square One debates early, often and wide open.

I wrote the following in response to a comment there, which is quoted in the indented passages here:

[T]he concept of a “God” who demands that I believe things that are logically indistinguishable from fairy tales or else he will punish me eternally… that is a God I find abhorrent, immoral and if not pure evil, then it’s hard to find something more evil than that.

Your logic is inconsistent. If there were such a God he would by your own definition transcend your definition, or ability to define, good and evil. And old argument, of course.

But I think more significant is that it really is a very egotistical formulation. Listen:

the concept of a “God” who demands that I believe things that are logically indistinguishable from fairy tales or else he will punish me eternally…

You are judging good and evil, and indeed divinity, based on your personal analysis of what is “logically indistinguishable from fairy tales”? Do you realize how many people, as smart as you, have so characterized assertions that have turned out to actually be true, in the worlds of science and history?

This is what people mean when they say that a certain kind of purported non-believer worships only himself. That’s what this formulation amounts to: If I — the height of cognitive evolution, and utterly devoid of bias — can’t figure it out, it’s not only impossible. It’s — what was the formulation again?

abhorrent, immoral and if not pure evil, then it’s hard to find something more evil than that



Not so Fein


GLOOM FROM BRUCE FEIN: “The United States culture is decaying, growing steadily less capable of supporting a republican form of government.

He might be right, but Fein isn’t the one to make the argument.  From what I can tell he’s rounded the bend — and no one has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he hasn’t.

A century of law blogging

Feels that way sometimes, eh?

No, I mean a century as in a hunnert — the ABA Journal Blawg 100, “the 100 best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers, as chosen by the editors of the ABA Journal“! And, guess what?

You know what I’m going to say, right?

Almost. This site didn’t make it, but LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® — which really is a law blog — is on the list. A good year for that blog! We have God to thank, Whose blessing we seek in all our endeavors. Here’s what the ABA Journal — where I got my start writing about Internet law, actually — has to say:

Ron Coleman follows copyright and trademark law and often finds humor. This is no dry IP blog limited to links to decisions—Coleman’s two cents are always included.

Of course. Haven’t figured out any other way to monetize this thing.

There’s some votey thing, too. Now, that I say stay away from. No good comes from voting on blogs! Just pain and humiliation!

Hitting below the Mason-Dixon line

Maybe Glenn Reynolds knows the answer to this one — isn’t Tennessee right next to Kentucky?:

What do you want from a school that claims on its website to be devoted to protecting rights through “human sacrifice”? Is human sacrifice legal in Kentucky?

Full, sad story here and here.  It’s not really so much to laugh that people will pay money for an unaccredited law degree — even people with accredited degrees from lower-ranked schools can usually look forward to a very non-legal, or very unsatisfying legal, career.  It is a crime that people’s money is being taken this way; it’s a bigger one, though, that students fork over this magnitude of money on purpose.

The Muslim grip

Unshakable — for some people, anyway.

UPDATE:  The rest of the story.

Attorney Ronald D. Coleman