What hump?

In certain cultures, lying is not an issue.

In most cultures, lying about Israel is not an issue.

But for Palestinian “leaders,” lying about Israel is the default position.

Demogoguing disaster

From Michael Shaw:

This is a message to Anderson Cooper and CNN…

As American citizens concerned about the humanity of the Haitian people, the sensationalist and self-promoting tendencies of American media and the power of pictures, we urge you to: Please stop.

Read the whole thing!

Best of 2009: “Bipartisan? Whew!”

This was first posted on April 21, 2009.

Obama on show trials of CIA employees:

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

Regrets, we have a few.

Regrets, we have a few.

The horror.

I’d like to say this is fundamentally a dodge. It is a dodge — he wants to look ahead, not back, he’s not suggesting, he’s leaving doors open… it is a dodge, and frankly a contemptible one.

But fundamentally it is not a dodge. Fundamentally it is something much more horrible. It is the process by which the United States takes on a practice associated with tyrannies and, far from being an endorsement of the rule of law, elevates the assumption to power to the ability to punish the previous regime for “incorrect” — and hence “criminal” — policies.

It is no different from the argument about the supposedly inevitable impeachment of ex-President Bush, also based on supposed crimes arising from torture. As I wrote on a private list, made up mainly of attorneys, discussing that topic (adapted here), there is a tendency among certain people, and in particular those attracted to a certain pole in political debate, to regard their political choices or philosophical conclusions as the sole “moral” choice. In fact, (a) criminalization of political disagreement, (2) the use of penal power to punish players in the previous regime, and (3) the adaptation of legislative bodies as proxies to loose the necessary political “justice” when the traditional judicial organs refuse to comply, have historically been popular options for playing out this partisan outrage and sating the desire for “moral” vindication on the politically deviant.

Just not in this country.

Read the rest of this entry »

Best of 2009: “Ron Paul: Every bit as bad as we thought”

This was first published on January 6, 2009.

Ron Paul’s wickedness is not a big surprise — it was out there, as I told you, for anyone who wanted to know. But Cold Fury lays out Paul’s latest display of true, Jew-hating colors just so:

“Israel’s preemptive war.” “A few small missiles.” Palestinians “living in concentration camps.” America “rightfully to blame.” It’s all here in this rich, rich vein of vapid isolationism, utter stupidity, and contempt for the only functioning democracy in the Middle East . . . The line between Left and Right isn’t straight; it’s circular, and the ends meet right smack between this moron’s ears.

No, it’s not “merely anti-Israel” — you can’t be that morally blind about Israel’s moral position in this situation and not be an antisemite; and given the track record, this is not exactly a new insight. As blogger Rougman comments at the post, “I guess he doesn’t want to leave that Nazi vote on the table come 2012.” They never do.

So what’s scarier — that this wretched gnome is member of Congress? Or that so many people, otherwise capable of being taken seriously, were so seriously taken with Ron Paul?

Comments here.

Ted Klaudt, “Short Eyes”

“Common law copyright”?

No, that won’t do, Klaudt.  No in a million ways.

That’s so dumb it doesn’t even get onto my copyright blog!

Very dumb.  Very bad.  Are you a bad man, Ted Klaudt?  Or just a dumb one?

Please don’t say “both.”  That’s bad for you, and bad for Creation.

Ted.

Klaudt.

UPDATE: Ted Klaudt, Ted Klaudt, Ted Klaudt.

First, let’s all us lawyers kill ourselves

This advertising campaign is, well, bad.  Very, very bad.

There is a certain irony, though, you know.

The defense representation being offered here is in fact completely legitimate — n0t only to sleazeballs, slime and creeps, who are constitutionally entitled to their defense (just not by me), but to people involved in all sorts of disputes (but typically divorces) who are wrongfully accused of being sleazeballs, slime and creeps.

But the choices made in these ads completely undermines that bona fide prospective, mainly because in the graphic, hyper-realistic and borderline pornographic pictures, the crimes being referred to are really happening.

Guess what, law firm?  People who have been wrongfully accused of these acts, or who desperately want the world (including the justice system) to believe the accusation is wrong, want to be represented by the lawyers who only have innocent clients.

And from these ads, that does not seem to be you.  Get it?

Turn in your wingtips.  Please.

Cross-posted on Right Wing News.

Attorney Ronald D. Coleman