BigBlueBlog

This Could be the Death of the Democratic Party

2004-10-19T17:31:00.000-04:00

If this holds true on election day, this could result in a huge shakeup of the political landscape. Having Bush pull the Black vote at 69-18 would be enough to hand him the election, especially in places like Milwaukee and St. Louis. Our local curmudgeonly columnist, Merlene Davis (who happens to be Black), has decided to vote against Bush because Alfre Woodard told her to. You can take from that whatever you feel. She actually opines she is looking for, "...a president who will listen to all sides of an argument, even those with whom he disagrees, and is willing to be flexible enough to do what's best for all." You and I popularly know that is a waffle, or someone without conviction.

I think she overlooks a HUGE undercurrent within her own community that this poll makes mention of. There is a 48% support for vouchers within the Black community (same as the general population) and a 46% support for bans on gay marriage (a little higher than the general population). This ties in with what I think is the major earthquake waiting to happen under the New Madrid fault on election day. Once it has become evident to so-called Black Leaders that Blacks and Whites are no longer that much different in terms of political views (as it has been for quite some time), they lose the wedge issues they have exploited so well to cultivate 80-90 percent support for their liberal Democratic candidates. If the Kerry wing cannot hold onto this, will some Democrats feel the Clinton's (the first Black President) has abandoned them? The right Republican with the right approach could make huge inroads into this untapped constiuency.

The Colorado Conundrum

2004-10-19T16:17:00.000-04:00

In case you haven't read yet, Colorado is tinkering with the way it goes about helping us elect a President. Currently, most states employ the winner take all method of choosing which electors get to vote for President in the Electoral College. Under this method, a candidate who wins that state by one vote (or by 500 or so in Florida), gets ALL of that state's electors, be it 3 or 53. A few have tried to alter this a bit by letting their electors be decided by congressional district and then having 2 extra go to the overall winner, but these states are small and the difference is somewhat inconsequential.

What Colorado is attempting to do, is to allocate it's 9 electors proportionally according to how it's overall vote for President goes. As it is likely to be close this year (and in the foreseeable future), Colorado would be giving 5 to the winner and 4 to the loser of it's Presidential election should this initiative pass. More importantly, the initiative would be effective for the 2004 election (which is the same day the initiative is on the ballot) making it somewhat retroactive.

Now, I don't have a problem with Colorado taking itself into Presidential election oblivion. Most candidates who do poorly would still eke out 4 electoral votes from Colorado, and thus it would be doubtful that a Presidential candidate would ever set foot in the state again. The impetus for the change was that it appeared as though Bush would win Colorado this time around. The Democrats in Colorado put this on the ballot in the hopes that they could siphon off 4 electors (in what is likely to be a close race to 270) for Kerry. Of course, should it be close and should Kerry win Colorado, this would backfire.

The problem I have with it is a legal one, and it revolves around the fact that the initiative is retroactive. In case you don't know (and I bet most of you don't), the name that appears on your local ballot for President is a fiction. What? Alf Langdon wasn't real? No, he was real (although a fictional candidate may have garnered more votes), but you weren't really voting for him. Most, if not all, states have a statutory provision that the names on the ballot are mere substitutes for a slate of electors that each of the parties has nominated to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot. In Colorado's case, there are actually 9 individuals for each party (probably huge party donors) who are the ones actually running for election. The Statutes just substitute the actual candidates names on the ballot so as to reduce confusion (unlike this posting). Colorado's statute states:

"When presidential electors are to be elected, their names shall not be printed on the ballot, but the names of the candidates of the respective political parties or political organizations for president and vice president of the United States shall be printed together in pairs under the title "presidential electors". The pairs shall be arranged in the alphabetical order of the names of the candidates for president in the manner provided for in section 1-5-404. A vote for any pair of candidates is a vote for the duly nominated presidential electors of the political party or political organization by which the pair of candidates were named."

As you can see, this creates a bit of a problem if the initiative passes. You will have 4 electors who LOST their election being permitted to cast their votes in the electoral college. My guess is, this might violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government, or the Voting Rights Act. Either way, my guess is, this is the legal point that opponents of the initiative will hang their hats on. Wouldn't it be funny if Kerry won Colorado and his own folks were the ones suing over this initiative?

Closing in on the election

2004-10-19T15:15:00.000-04:00

Why Bush should win: One would think that an emotional tug at the heartstrings would offend my pragmatic sensibilities. However, I think it speaks to a more basic component of the Presidency that we often miss. It reminds us that Bush sees the office as a responsibility separate from that of his own desires. I think he genuinely does what he feels is best for the country even if it might offend some of his personal views. That's not to say he will compromise his core convictions, but that by default he will automatically do what he thinks is best regardless of the consequences. It's an admirable quality in any leader.

Why Kerry might win: He is pandering to America's most basic selfish tendencies. Since the last debate, his tone has taken a more populist streak and it's only because his internal polling tells him that resonates with enough people to give him a chance to win. Sadly, American's have the ability to turn selfish when they see themselves in a bit of a tough spot. It happened in 1940, and could very easily happen again. This interesting book, which I haven't yet read, plays on a prevalent line of thought at the time. Charles Lindbergh was outspoken about America remaining isolationist. The novel fantasizes about what might have happened had he played on his enormous popularity and run for President. America was in much worse financial shape in 1940 than it is today and there is reason enough to believe the "take care of ourselves first" crowd would have gladly made a Faustian deal with Hitler just to put an extra chicken or two in the pot.

This is why the November election is the most important of our lifetime. It will fundamentally shape how we prosecute a war on that element of radical Islam which wishes to destroy us. We will either continue on a course that will lead to its destruction, or settle into an uneasy truce and retreat to our comfortable dens hoping another 9/11 doesn't happen (to us).

Stealing Underwear?

2004-10-07T17:12:00.000-04:00

Is underwear more valuable than land? An interesting contrast to the sign stealing story from yesterday. Is allowing a sign on your yard more valuable than a pair of underwear (especially if you can prove it was given to you as a gift from Michael Moore)? Maybe that depends on your particular situation. I've been on week-long fishing trips in the woods when I would have done just about anything for a clean pair of skivvies. I wonder what sign space on Michael Moore's underwear is worth (or if you could compose enough words to fill the space).

This on the heels of a sixteen year old boy being charged with sexual assault after giving his former girlfriend a wedgie. I will ashamedly admit I've been on the receiving end of a nuclear wedgie or two in my misspent youth. I never considered it to be a sexual assault. Of course, this story is slightly different as it's combined with an offensive touching in addition to the wedgie.

Query, would someone be charged with assault and destruction of valuable property if caught giving Michael Moore a wedgie while he was wearing underwear with political signage?

Stealing Speech

2004-10-06T16:29:00.000-04:00

My city, Lexington, Kentucky, is in the midst of a contentious issue as we near election time. The elected officials have decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the privately owned water municipality would be a nice asset for the government's balance sheet. Kentucky American water has been here for decades and by all accounts has done a more than acceptable job of providing the citizens with clean, safe, water at a reasonable cost. However, the parent company was recently sold to a German corporation, and the Old Money contingent in town is furious at the notion this little company will no longer be under their control. I'm not posting today about the rampant abuse of eminent domain proceedings in the U.S. (a frightening trend), but about the fact that this issue has permeated all local council races.

There are two major outfits on the forefront of this battle. F.L.O.W (For Local Ownership of Water) is a consortium of the old money in town who wants the government to own the water company. The Coalition Against the Government Takeover, is just that. They've been accused of being a front for the company itself. Over the last week, accusations are being thrown about questioning whether or not either of these entities is trying to illegally influence the City Council elections (Lexington has 12 geographic based members and 3 at large, all running for new terms this year). However, what happened this last Sunday takes the cake.

It appears that one prominent member of F.L.O.W was taking yard signs put up by Jay McChord, who happens to be running for the council seat in the district in which I live. McChord is basing part of his campaign on keeping the water company privately owned. Chetan Talwalkar has admitted to taking the signs, but argues he was doing McChord a favor because they were illegally placed and he just didn't want Mr. McChord to run afoul of the law. His contention is that some of the properties on which the yard signs were placed were owned by Corporations and that this is illegal. McChord has filed a criminal complaint, and it will be interesting to see how the County Attorney (a Democrat) handles the matter.

The underlying issue likely will be whether or not the government can prohibit a Corporation from engaging in political speech where nothing of value is given to the candidate. After all, what is the value of having a sign in one's yard? The campaigns pay for the signs, and provide the labor to place them. All any landowner is doing is making a political statement about whom they support for a particular office. How would this be any different from a company placing a bumper sticker on it's front window?

Kentucky Revised Statues, section 121.035(1), states:

(1) No corporation organized or authorized to do business in this state or in another state shall, by itself or by or through an officer, agent, attorney, or employee, subscribe, give, procure or furnish, or afterwards reimburse or compensate in any way any person who has subscribed, given, procured, or furnished, any money, privilege, favor, or other thing of value to any political or quasi-political organization, or any officer or member thereof, to be used by such organization for the purpose of aiding, assisting, or advancing any candidate for public office in this state in any way whatever.

I have no idea how this prohibits a corporation from placing a yard sign advocating the election of an individual on a piece of vacant property it owns. It may turn on the definitions of privilege and favor, however I would argue the language "other thing of value" requires that the first two have some tangible value. This will be interesting to watch.

UPDATE: It appears our friend Mr. Talwalkar is in full crawdad retreat. Amazing how fast he resigned. Even more amazing how quickly his allies are backing away from him. He still has a tone of defiance in saying, "In hindsight, it would have been wiser to take the unneighborly route of immediately reporting the violations to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance." Somehow he still thinks he was just trying to do the nice thing.

Could this election be decided in the courts?

2004-10-05T15:28:00.000-04:00

I'm afraid so. It still appears to be as close as the 2000 election. Thanks to the math of Florida's 25 electoral votes, it became the battleground. Similar efforts could have been undertaken in any number of other states (Missouri, Wisconsin, etc.) as the totals were sufficiently close and the rumors of fraud/miscounting were rampant.

Unfortunately, this time around, the accounts of fraud are ringing more loudly. I would highly recommend keeping an eye on Bill Hobbs' voter fraud blog. Stories are pouring in from around the country as to irregularities in the registration process. Much of it is fueled by the efforts of no-gooders like George Soros. The desire to register as many Democrats as possible combined with incredibly lax safeguards (thanks to Motor Voter) as well as the number of local offices still held by old machine partisan Democrats is creating a toxic mix of shenanigans. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled that voters who registered at registration drives run by partisan groups will not be required to show identification when they show up to vote. Of course, they likely didn't show ID when they showed up to register. One can see how badly this could turn out.

Much of the brouhaha surrounds two hot-button issues, namely whether or not convicted felons should be allowed to vote and what sort of documentation/identification should be issued to illegal immigrants.

I don't know that it's helpful to explore the legal/policy issues behind why we (at least some states) don't permit felons or illegals to vote. It should just be enough that these are the rules and they need to be followed. However anyone taking note of actions by the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court regarding election issues knows that bending the rules because they don't seem fair is always an option.

Why gasoline prices suck.

2004-09-27T15:09:00.000-04:00

I paid 192.9 this morning here in Lexington, KY. I got to thinking about why prices were high, and why they were always the subject of such complaint. It's not pleasant when the price of something goes 25 percent higher than it was two or three years ago. But, truthfully, we spend about as much on fuel as we do on cable television and eating out combined. Whereas the latter give us hours of entertainment and pleasure, the former provides the ability to transport a large hunk of metal (and anything else we wish to carry) at high speeds across vast distances. In terms of utility, I'd say we get a bargain even at current prices.

I think what drives people batty is the assumption that demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic (i.e. the same amount is consumed regardless of price). It's not entirely true. People regularly forego vacations, short trips, even change the type of car they drive so as to reduce the amount of gasoline they consume when prices are high. At the same time, everyone thinks demand for gasoline is relatively elastic (i.e., the refiners can produce whatever is needed to meet the demand). This is the bottleneck in the system, and the clue to where our solution lies.

Supply inelasticity is the fault of your government for two different reasons. First, environmental controls from the supply/distribution side of the business have made it incredibly expensive to store refined product. Refiners don't like having much on hand to dump into the market whenever demand requires it. Some argue this is price fixing, but it's just a fact of business. Ashland Oil had a large tank failure near Pittsburgh in 1988 which resulted in a spill of millions of gallons of deisel into the Mon River. It is this type of incident that companies now wish to avoid by NOT keeping large stocks of refined product on hand.

The second government slap in the free-market face is that of Reformulation. In order to increase air quality, the EPA requires oxygenates be added to gasoline in mixtures that are specific to each metropolitan area. As a result, gasoline refined for the Chicago market cannot necessarily be dumped into the Atlanta market should an imbalence occur.

I think the solution is better information. Back when the markets were less restrained, it was reasonable that a Refiner/Marketer would get a 3% markup on refined product. Given that there are approximately 20 gallons of gasoline to be refined from each 42 gallon barrel of crude, and that crude trades at around $50 a barrel right now, one could estimate that the price at the rack should be in the range of $1.22 to $1.24 per gallon. This information should be widely publicized to consumers. Without a doubt, state and Federal gasoline taxes should be clearly identified on the pump as well. There are many sites on the internet (like this one) which list each state's gasoline tax. It ranges from 33 cents (New York) to 8 cents (Alaska) in addition to the Federal tax of 18.4 cents. The average combined state and Federal tax is around 30 cents per gallon. Tack on another 8 to 12 cents for the profit margin of your gasoline store owner and his distributor (this fluctuates wildly but such a low figure is more than generous given the huge boost these stores have had over the last 15 years in inside sales which are marked up greatly). At this point, it is reasonable to assume that based on the cost of crude, a gallon of gasoline should cost $1.64. By my estimation, the additional 25 cents we pay today is due to additional environmental regulation. One of the questions George Bush needs to be asking is whether or not it is worth it.

The Death of Demurrer Practice

2004-09-24T14:08:00.000-04:00

I'll start off by saying I really don't care for this man. Claude Basset was the Recruiting Coordinator for the University of Kentucky Football Program when Hal Mumme coached here. Because of his actions, the NCAA levied heavy penalties on the program and the school and as a result, the team suffers greatly (this year in particular). I love UK football about as much as anything in the world (other than my girlfriend).

That out of the way, so you know my biases, I think it's dreadful that he is suing everyone in sight because of his predicament. He was found to be primarily responsible for the rules infractions at UK, and as a result was banned from participating at any NCAA institution for a period of 8 years. He claims (on behalf of the class consisting of all banned individuals since 1992) that the SEC, the NCAA, UK, and any other deep pocket in the vicinity have conspired to besmirch his good name. More specifically, :

In the suit, Bassett asks the court to find that the three defendants violated federal antitrust laws by banning him from coaching. Bassett also claims that the defendants committed fraud and civil conspiracy against him by encouraging him to take actions depriving him of due process and the NCAA has "intentionally and improperly interfered" with his prospective contract negotiations with NCAA-member institutions.

I remind you, that Claude ADMITS HE CHEATED. In fact, he says he is appalled that he got caught and fired when all the other SEC schools were cheating better than he was. It is ridiculous in this day and age that such a wrongdoer could even find an attorney who would file such a suit. Sadly, all parties involved will have to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to defend allegations as baseless as this. Why? I'll try to explain.

Back in the day (i.e., around the time I was born), the prevalent practice in most Courts was that a complaint would be filed, and then a demurrer action would be taken by the Defendant. When I was in law school, I remember distilling the definition of demurrer down to being the legal equivalent of "so what", and it seemed to work. The demurrer served as a hurdle to any action. In essence, the defendant was saying "Even if you can prove all of your allegations, you still have NO CASE". At this point, the plaintiff would have to convince the judge that there was indeed a chance at victory, and that proving the allegations would result in a verdict (for damages or some specific action) in his favor. Many cases never survived this stage of action. It was difficult, and there were many lawyers who specialized in this particular area of practice alone. But, it meant that you had to have a really really good case to even get to the point of discovery much less trial.

Demurrer still exists in some form or another in many states, and even those who abandoned it still have a similar provision in that you can ask for the Court to issue a judgment on the pleadings as they stand (the complaint and the answer). However, it is now very rare that any case gets dismissed at this point. Most cases proceed, and the very expensive process of discovery (taking witness testimony, requesting and reviewing documents, etc.) is undertaken.

The next opportunity to get a case dismissed is at Summary judgment, which comes at the stage where you have completed all the discovery, and you try to argue to the judge that there are no facts in controversy, everyone agrees what happened, and you just need for the Court to issue a ruling based on how the law should be applied to those facts. In Kentucky (and most other places), it has become very very difficult to obtain a summary judgment. The Courts have held that even the slightest bit of controversy regarding facts must be submitted to a jury (after trial) and that juries seem to know best what to do with a case.

By the time a case gets to the jury, attorneys have spent countless hours going over deposed testimony, written affidavits, business records, etc. Time must then be spent preparing witnesses, opening and closing arguments, exhibits, etc. Putting on a trial is like putting on a show or a play, and you try to have everything lined up so as to not waste any of the jury's time. The rule of thumb is you can expect to spend 3 hours of time preparing for every 1 hour the trial will take. On top of that, there are usually motions which are filed and argued concerning whether or not the other side is cooperating with your discovery and ultimately which evidence will be allowed and excluded. It is easy to see how a defendant would settle with someone like Mr. Basset for $100,000 just to make him go away. It's also easy to see how these expenses of litigation for frivolous cases are driving up the costs of all products (especially health care). Perhaps if we brought back the demurrer, a case like this would get tossed on its ear before it had a chance to run up serious legal bills.

The Oprah Tax

2004-09-23T20:34:00.000-04:00

This story about the unfortunate circumstance that has befallen the lucky members of Oprah's audience who were given cars caught my attention. Seems they are all being informed they will have to pay income tax on the value of their vehicles. It poses an interesting question that I cannot seem to answer. Section 74 of the Internal Revenue Code makes "prizes and awards" part of your gross income for the year. Seems simple enough. But what is a prize or an award? Is it the winnings from a contest you actively entered where you actually competed against others? What makes something a prize and not a gift? Gifts are NOT included in your gross income under Section 102.

An interesting side note on gifts: Gifts are subject to the Gift Tax which is an entirely different concept from income tax. It's more closely related to the Estate tax in that it imposes a levy on a transfer of wealth from one party to another. Under the current Code, you may transfer $11,000 to any individual within each calendar year free of any tax. Any amount above that is subject to the gift tax (which is imposed on the person making the gift and not the person receiving it).

The bottom line is I cannot readily find the answer to the question as to what the difference between a gift and a prize is. If these recipients weren't entered in some sort of contest, I think they might have a pretty solid argument that Oprah/GM was giving them a gift and that any tax liability on the transfer would belong to Pontiac. I'll have to dig deeper and see if anything like this has ever been litigated.

UPDATE: Yes, I dug up my old Taxation casebook and tried to make more sense of the law on this. I found this interesting case, Robertson v. US, 343 U.S. 711 (1952), which dealt with the characterization of a prize awarded to the winner of a musical composition contest. The Court looked at a prize from the standpoint of it being the satisfaction of a contractual obligation by those conducting the contest. The contest holder makes an offer of a prize which is accepted by those contestants who enter. At common law, this creates an enforceable contract. Since the Oprah show was a suprise as to anyone receiving a vehicle (at least I assume it is. If they were told "Come to the Oprah show and you could win a car", then this is a different story alltogether), it could hardly be said there was any contractual obligation on the show's part to give one away. What's more relevant is the Court's discussion of a gift being, "out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses." I believe this situation falls squarely within that language. While Oprah and GM did this for marketing purposes, the selection of individuals was done under the guise of a charitable act for those truly in need of a new car. This could play out quite interestingly.

Connections

2004-09-20T23:58:00.000-04:00

This AP story bothers me. I think it's evidence that the Democrats were using someone at CBS to push this whole GWB/TANG story. It certainly casts into doubt the credibility of ANY story from their news organization. Is what they are telling us true? More importantly, what are they NOT telling us? Ten years ago, this would have gone unchallenged. The internet may actually bring some accountability to journalism.

In other news, I'm still on a high after my beloved football Wildcats demolished the horrid hoosier horde from the north. Next up, the annual trip to the Swamp in Gainesville where the SEC will once again display why it has the worst officials in the NCAA. The ACC and Big 10 get a lot of flack because their errors are so well publicized. The SEC does a Stalin-esque job of keeping it's officiating incompetence hush-hush. Makes one wonder why anyone in Vegas bets on those games at all.

Red Dawn

2004-09-15T19:12:00.000-04:00

In light of last night's AMC film, Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood, I thought I would name this post concerning my views on gun control in honor of Director John Milius' classic homage to American patriotism. I can only imagine what he has suffered over the years being a member of such a minority group in tinseltown. I enjoyed his interview within the documentary immensely.

As most noticed, the "Assault" Weapons ban passed into oblivion this week with much fanfare. I say "good riddance". Not because I disagreed with the law's effectiveness (I think it will be quite some time before we know for sure just how effective it was), but because I disagreed with its premise on constitutional grounds.

The Second Amendment states, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Most anti-gun pundits allege the initial clause is conditional and thus the statement only applies to that which in this day and age we consider to be organized militias. I'm not sure any statement in the legal world has ever been so misunderstood. Few remember that the language has changed over the course of these last 200 years. At the time of our founding, a well-regulated militia was the notion that every able-bodied male could be culled from everyday life at a moments notice, that they would be well equipped, and that they had practiced to the point where they would be of at least some use. Regulated did not mean "under government control" as it means today.

The founders understood that in order to maintain any semblance of freedom, the GENERAL PUBLIC had to maintain the ability to be armed and ready in order to secure the freedoms for which they had risked their lives and fortunes. This notion was codified within the laws of the federal government at 10 U.S.C §311 which states,

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The second clause is quite clear in that it recognizes a right NOT CONFERRED by the document itself? What you say? No, the US Constitution is not in the practice of creating rights but of recognizing the rights that the framers knew to be God-given. The language of the Declaration of Independance gives some insight into their thinking, "endowed by their Creator, certain inalienable rights". This is NATURAL LAW, the thought that some rights and laws have a higher basis than the Government or the people themselves. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," prohibits the Government from curtailing the natrual right of a human being to retain as much physical power as those who govern him.

In any event, that's my view. And the view of many Federalists like myself. I think the government screwed up a long time ago in permitting new weapons to be designed at their behest and not retaining the patent rights to them. The only way I see government effectively controlling who can and cannot own weapons (without amending the Constitution) is through property law. If the government owned the patents on all firearms it helped create, only those developed outside the government defense system would be available to the general public. A patent holder can effectively limit the license it holds in any way it chooses.

By the way, the weapons ban would have done nothing to prevent the senseless deaths of three people where I live. Yesterday, a young lady who works as a cashier in a convenient store was shot down execution style after a robbery. His weapon? A shotgun.

And this piece of work:

Shot and killed his wife and a paramedic who arrived at the scene to provide medical care to her. He used a regular hunting rifle (albeit at the behest of the cobra and panther-lions who told him to do so. He did, after all, control the tribe of the stick.

Cry and you Cry Alone

2004-09-14T11:52:00.000-04:00

My guess is that as a member of the MSM, when Howard Kurtz abandons you, then you should consider taking that retirement cruise you've been putting off.

In today's Washington Post, Howie has an article that lays out all of the discrepancies in the memos. He finds someone to refute CBS's latest (who was trotted out in a release yesterday) expert, who in an article in Time is referred to as a typewriter repairman.

"Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths."

Legally, I don't think CBS has any worries. There isn't much chance of a politician recovering under these circumstances. I do remember a mayoral candidate in Houston, Sylvester Turner, suing an investigative reporter for a local TV station and getting a jury verdict in excess of $5 million. However, the appellate courts in Texas overturned that verdict saying there was an element of "actual malice" on behalf of the defendant which was never established sufficiently to the jury. So, the President would have to prove there was an element of intent by CBS to smear him. That may be obvious to you or I, should these prove to be forgeries, but proving it to a jury is an entirely different matter. We infer malice from our suspicions. A jury will need physical evidence showing it.

UPDATE: Tim Blair has an interesting history of how CBS's new expert took the spotlight.

Kerry After action report found

2004-09-14T02:16:00.000-04:00

Over at itznewstome.

All I can make of it is that it appears Kerry shot a fleeing VC in the back. How can he do that? Well, if you recall, any fleeing Vietnamese was considered VC. Any stationary Vietnamese was considered a well disciplined VC.

The Next RatherGate item

2004-09-14T01:22:00.000-04:00

Was the phrase "Feedback" commonly used before 1975? It's an interesting question I hadn't considered. ACE has an interesting post on it here.

I'm farily well behind what everyone else has been doing. I think the best spot to catch anyone up to date is at indcjournal.

Kickoff

2004-09-13T23:58:00.000-04:00

The power of blogdom became evident this week. Dan Rather railed against an army of pajama pundits who threatened his empire. It looks like the little guys have won this round, and the death of BIG MEDIA may be well at hand. Call it open source journalism or modern day pamphleteering, a new media has been born.

I decided I wanted one of my own. Why not? I am going to post things from a legal perspective (my background) and try to pull some things together from strange corners of the Web. I hope someone is around someday to read and enjoy it.