Monday 7 February 2005
You did what with the who now?
Can somebody please explain this story to me?
Actually I'm more tickled by a story below that, which informs us that a kid named James "Bubba" Taylor avoided being seriously injured by a bullet thanks to being, and I quote, "CHUNKY"! I can't believe that people still nickname their kids 'Bubba'... x
Well first, it takes place in Florida. Second, it takes place in Florida. Third, it takes place in... you get it now?
Any chance of Blair impersonating a free-world leader?
(cymbal)
Monday 31 January 2005
The prosecution has been refocussed
It's a well-known fact that you can guarantee success at anything by employing a focus group. So it's a logical extension to that train of thought for a lawyer to get a focus group in to identify what is most likely to swing the jury. Of course, if the actual jury is the actual focus group, then the likelihood is so much greater.
This profoundly disturbs me. There's an axiom I've had ground into me throughout my years of legal education and practice: 'Justice must be SEEN to be done as well as being done'. Just because something may be legal doesn't make it ethical. I think this paying of former jurors to be consultants crosses the line and any attempt to play down its potential long term ethical implications relies far too much on faith in human nature. I'm SO glad that we can't do things like this in the UK. x
Tuesday 18 January 2005
Fair and Balanced
George Monbiot in today's Guardian, in reaction to the sacking of CBS staff for reporting on how Dubya avoided the Vietnam draft:
How many people have lost their jobs, at CBS or anywhere else, for repeating bogus stories released by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's record in Vietnam? How many were sacked for misreporting the Jessica Lynch affair? Or for claiming that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme in 2003? Or that he was buying uranium from Niger, or using mobile biological weapons labs, or had a hand in 9/11? How many people were sacked, during Clinton's presidency, for broadcasting outright lies about the Whitewater affair? The answer, in all cases, is none.
Friday 14 January 2005
Feeling better?
An interesting article in the American Journal of Public Health, giving an indirect bigup to free healthcare. The overview, not surprisingly, says it all.
"The US health system spends far more on the "technology" of care (e.g., drugs, devices) than on achieving equity in its delivery. For 1991 to 2000, we contrasted the number of lives saved by medical advances with the number of deaths attributable to excess mortality among African Americans. Medical advances averted 176 633 deaths, but equalizing the mortality rates of Whites and African Americans would have averted 886202 deaths. Achieving equity may do more for health than perfecting the technology of care."
In another part of the US, Michigan to be precise, it turns out that if you plead guilty but can't afford a lawyer, you can't appeal. Of course, those wanting to appeal against this ruling would need a lawyer, but if they could afford one then they obviously wouldn't be able to appeal against it. My brain hurts now.
Oh this is just absurd. If the reasoning is that once you've pleaded guilty there's not much point in appealing anyway, what about people who only wish to appeal against their sentence and not the conviction itself? *shakes head* I bet we lawyers end up getting the blame for this one too... x
Friday 7 January 2005
Be the best you can be!
I thought there was nothing today, and then this little gem crossed my browser:
It's easy to laugh. After all, they could have been highly satisfactory.
Mustn't go overboard with the boasting, you know!
Wednesday 5 January 2005
Ironic, Lionic, Zionic
I hate Marmite¡
The above statement is ironic. Those who know me know how much I love that glorious scraping from the bottom of a beer barrel.
But now Americans, famous for their sense of irony and sarcasm¡ are suggesting that it's such a wonderful thing that we need a punctuation mark to indicate when it's being used.
The irony being, of course, that those who know irony don't need one. I for one don't want this private party spoiled. It's yet another attempt to remove something that us Brits can feel superior about. Fight the introduction of the Sarcasm Point! Keep your exclamation marks the right way around!
Of course, he could have been joking.
a sarcasm point? dumb dumb dumb.
You just have to hope he forgot to use one of his sarcasm marks at the end of the sentence in which he proposes their use.
Btw, have you ever considered rebranding yourself as marmiteman? I think it works. (sarcasm mark needed there? I'll leave it to you to decide.) x
Sunday 2 January 2005
Don Rumsfeld in "Actually a Student" shock
He won't do any of the work he's meant to do, but give him the opportunity to nick a roadsign and scrawl all over it, and that's a different story entirely.
Sunday 2 January 2005
Don't be objective
If being objective leads to public statements like this then I shall stop putting it forward as a personal attribute.
Although one has to commend the bravery of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who describes in the Observer today his reaction to the Tsunami. It is, after all, a tough one to explain away given the presence of a compassionate God.
It's from the Ayn Rand Institute. What would you expect?
Sunday 2 January 2005
First Bushpop of the Year
Bush has seen sense and upped the US contribution to Tsunami relief to $350m; it did look a little pathetic that the US contribution for a while was the same as Pfizer (and not to compare with the $500m from Japan government or $100m from UK government). Meanwhile, his inauguration ceremony will cost $40m - can he really justify this in the face of the desperate need?
Meanwhile, it's the first of January. The day that the interesting 30-year-rule stories are published. The UK media seems to be focussing on Princess Anne staving off a kidnap attempt, and the 1974 equivalent of a post-it note on a file suggesting that Idi Amin was a little 'naive'.
However, AFP and the Aussie press are liking the story (as am I) that the Wilson government considered Nixon a bit of a nutter, and made quiet plans to disassociate themselves from any of his activities. I wonder if similar plans are in place currently? Can we find out under our shiny new Freedom of Information laws? I doubt it, somehow.
Heeey...what were you doing weblogging when you could have been drinking in town with me!!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.dustbinman.com/nav-commenters.gif)
