lawfulgal.

Go Go Grokster

2004-12-11T09:49:00.000-08:00

“The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone." –stated in 1983 by Jack Valenti , then-President of the Motion Picture Association of America. The quote was used in an amicus brief to support the entertainment companies that filed suit in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd. and who wish to hold online services like Grokster liable for copyright infringement. The decision should be an easy one for the Supreme Court, who decided to hear the Grokster case on Friday. Might the Justices want to step down from the bench and into the real world for a moment? Recognizing that video sales have turned out to be wildly profitable for the movie industry since Valenti’s keen observation, the Court should acknowledge that downloading is the wave of the future. They would know if they tried it. (...just once, O'Connor, one click is all it takes.) Or, they could turn to their own grandchildren to talk to experts on the matter. File-sharing services are to the American public as Roomba is to the woman home alone. Don't you agree? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Loser Larry And His 9/11 Fight

2004-12-09T09:32:00.000-08:00

Why all the litigation, Larry? Why? Thirty-eight months and $2.2 billion later, developer Larry Silverstein has won his 9/11 battle. Silverstein was insured through nine insurance companies for one of his properties, the World Trade Center. Sure, a great tragedy occurred at his site. Sure, that attack changed millions of lives. But to Silverstein, it was merely a business disaster. Either Silverstein or his brokers got smart. Instead of claiming the $1.1 billion he was entitled to, he spent $125 million in court arguing that because two towers were hit, he was entitled to double the insurance payments. He swallowed up more than three years of court resources to win the funds that would rebuild his property. Way to take advantage of the system, Larry. And boy are those insurance companies angry. One of the dozen that Silverstein fought, Industrial Risk Insurers, will be filing an appeal along with the rest. Funny, though: if you check out their site , they no longer exist. They’ve hidden undercover at GE and now promise to pay commercial property insurance up to a miniscule $125 million. Even funnier? The New York Times reports: “In a separate element of the dispute, the final amount of insurance money is under review by a court-approved panel of three appraisers, who will determine the extent of the damages at the trade center and how much each company must pay.” Extent of the damages? Element in dispute?? Let’s lay it out for them, shall we? 1. Two buildings once stood tall. 2. Then, they fell. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Congratulations, Mr. Karzai.

2004-12-07T09:52:00.000-08:00

Tried to come up with a legal reason why every man at Hamid Karzai’s inauguration was wearing green. Was positive that the Afghani President merely wanted to show respect for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources For Food and Agriculture , the objective of which it is to make sure there is a fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from crops’ use—and since phthalocyanine green is a most expensive pigment used in many industries—dressing himself in a regal-looking and expensive green piece of fabric was not only crucial, but to ensure that the treaty’s support appeared unanimous, it was imperative that the gowns of his cohorts also be green. Then I learned that green is the symbolic color of Islam. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Conundrum Of The Day

2004-12-06T09:50:00.000-08:00

A Kentucky man has just requested that a judge sentence him to death. Marco Allen Chapman is accused of killing two children and stabbing their mother to boot. He has begged the court, in writing, to execute him. Sounds like Chapman wants to commit suicide with the state's help. But, Kentucky is one of those states that has criminalized state-assisted suicide. What's a murderer to do? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Invasion of the Body Hair Snatchers

2004-12-05T09:28:00.000-08:00

Cops may now cut your hair without your permission. The lawful stamp of approval came down from the Third Circuit’s Court of Appeal last month. While the 4th Amendment protects each of us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government agents, shiny locks don't count. Usually, if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a court agrees with you, you are guarded from invasions of that privacy. When you spend those precious moments sitting in a public restroom, the 4th protects you from cameras catching a view of that book you’re enjoying. When you’re hosting that Botox party in your living room, you can expect that the police will leave you alone (and wrinkle-free). But there are exceptions to every rule. The case of Coddington v. Evanko recently revealed a new exception: invading hair space is not a ‘search’ protected by the 4th. And they're not just talking about the hair on your head, baldy. Suddenly, government agents everywhere have been given license to chop. This backwards result smacks of culturally deceased lawmakers. Don’t those judges know about "personal space"? I'm pretty sure that Seinfeld has an episode on it, and a recent Will & Grace episode featured Parker Posey explaining exactly where personal space lies. If a police man now suspects you of drunk driving through the streets of Philadelphia, don’t wig out. He just wants a little evidence for his case. And you shouldn't blame him. It's only human to shave strangers' heads. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Attorney Thinks We're All Idiots

2004-12-04T09:55:00.000-08:00

Are you a sucker for spam ? Virginia's Assistant Attorney General Russell McGuire has brought charges against an internet-savvy con artist. In the country’s first felony trial of a spammer, Jeremy Jaynes, 30, was recently convicted of sending out 10 million spam e-mails a day. In Virginia, where AOL is headquartered, it’s illegal to e-mail unsolicited commercial offers and to lie about the e-mail’s origin. Think McGuire has a microchip on his shoulder? Jaynes honed his skills back in the day by making fraudulent offers via snail mail to grandmothers . (Made mine quite happy, to be honest). But once he figured out how to hook up 16 high-speed lines and spend $50,000 a month on bandwidth, he switched over to a younger crowd. You and me. Jaynes made $40 offers of porn and new software, pitches we pine for when checking our inboxes. There were 10,000 innocent readers a month who went ahead and actually purchased his items. Thanks to those folks, Jaynes is worth $24 million. Funny, I thought that Jaynes violated the law. But the Assistant Attorney General thinks that we’re all just a bunch of sitting ducks. He told CNN : "When you're marketing to the world, there are enough idiots out there who will be suckered in.” Nice try, McGuire. Go ahead, make us look like contributors to Jaynes' fraudulent scheme. Vibrators for under $50? Quicken's Turbo Tax for such a good deal? We are no morons. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

The Jury: Right On

2004-12-02T10:08:00.000-08:00

"[I was] successful in bridging a telepathic link with her. I was doing what I felt she had told me to do telepathically." -Ambrose Kappos, recently acquitted of stalking Sheryl Crow, on why he drinks two gallons of water a day. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

You Put Your Weed In It

2004-11-30T09:15:00.000-08:00

There is a Californian Angel who uses marijuana to ease the pain from her brain tumor. Eight years ago, Californians approved an exception to its drug laws, allowing seriously ill patients like Angel the right to use pot to ease the pain. Since 1996, eleven states have passed similar laws permitting medical marijuana usage. Apparently, the Supreme Court Justices have changed professions. Now they're doctors. This week, CNN headlines read: "The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders." First of all, who isn't sick? "Everybody will say mine is medical," Justice Stephen Breyer said. Oh yeah, Steve? Everyone already says that they need their Paxil to stay happy, their Adderall to stay 'in the zone', their gin & tonics to calm down and their Viagra to keep it up. Why pick on homegrown plants? Justice Antonin Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs." Isn't that for his doctor to decide? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a responsibility to look out for activities that happen between states. But her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, observed that homegrown medical marijuana never actually makes it to the interstate market. This disagreement, which occurred at 4:00 P.M., ended in giggles, followed by the munchies. Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest. Guess what he's doing? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Brilliant Quote of the Day

2004-11-29T09:33:00.000-08:00

"We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay." -Greek lawyer Yannis Varnakos, leader of 25 attorneys suing Warner Brothers and Oliver Stone for suggesting that Greek ruler Alexander was bisexual. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

How To Kick People Out Of Their Homeland In 10 Steps

2004-11-28T09:04:00.000-08:00

1. Make sure the land that you choose is no more than 131 square miles in size. 2. Be positive that even though there are only 7,000 of you living in spacious areas, you want to remove the 1.3 million settlers out of said land. 3. Start a website to aid negotiations with settlers. Make sure it is in a language that most of the settlers do not speak. 4. Offer up to $100,000.00 to cover all U-Haul, meal and gas expenses. 5. Make the evacuation voluntary . Make no alternatives available, and tell no one about what you will do with the settlers who do not evacuate. 6. Review good old American cases like Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823), and remind yourself that American Indian tribes had no rights to their own land because the federal government said so. Hi-five yourself. 7. Be assured that most of your lawmakers, as well as your entire cabinet, disagrees with your plan. 8. Create conflicting news that confuses everyone from around the world about where neighboring allies and enemies stand. 9. Show your pride. Sign up for an e-mail address using the land you will evacuate as your domain name. 10. Be happy , and--if you know it--clap your hands. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Sex Offenders Coming To A Website Near You

2004-11-27T09:45:00.000-08:00

Funny, I thought that once a trial is through, the case is over. When a convict completes his sentence, hasn't he redeemed himself of his evil doings? In Pennsylvania, Governer Rendell has determined otherwise. Sexual offenders in his state were once innocent until proven guilty. Now they are innocent until proven permanently guilty. Certain Salem residents might have wondered the same thing in 1692 as they watched witches burn to death. Talk about permanent punishment. The site of their skin once meant that blacks were full of wrongdoing. So, between 1884 and 1920, more than 3,000 blacks were lynched . Call us whities a sensitive bunch. Washington state residents have been doing it since 1990. Included in their Community Protection Act was our country’s first law permitting public notification when sex offenders are released. But on websites such as this one, Weld County assures us that "the law is not intended to punish the offender." On top of that, most of the sites I’ve scoured never say "sex offender." They always refer to those bastards as "dangerous sex offenders." Love the automatic assumption. In 1996, President Clinton signed Megan’s Law . Named after 7-year old Megan Kanka who was raped and killed by a two-time sex offending neighbor, the federal law requires two things: sex offender registration and community notification. The latter is up to the state’s discretion. Isn’t it interesting how we rationalize away any concern for the human being behind the sex offender label? Check out these rationalizations: "Sex offenders pose a high risk of re-offending after release from custody." "Protecting the public from sex offenders is a primary governmental interest." "The privacy interests of persons convicted of sex offenses are less important than the government’s interest in public safety." It's as though the human being behind the convict is all but erased. Way to go, legal system. Parents for Megans Law even post statements from actual sex offenders. "Know that we will use any way we can to get to children". Notwithstanding the veracity of the statement, if it is true, then posting this guy’s name on a website will really help those children? Clearly not the best way to go. But Pennsylvania’s governor thinks it is. And California is next. By July of 2005, Kaleefournia residents will be able to access detailed information about sex offenders in their neighborhoods. Hide your children. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Don’t Be A Turkey

2004-11-25T08:34:00.000-08:00

Take a hint from past Thanksgivings. Feel free to dive in to the turkey and load up on the pie. Just make sure that you: 1. Do not sue your grandmother for failing to provide you with her stuffing's nutritional information. 2. Try to enjoy that turkey neck . 3. Get your Thanksgiving Guest Liability and Indemnification Agreement from The Center for Consumer Freedom here . Don’t be a lawsuit turkey . Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Catalog + Postage = Wife

2004-11-24T09:16:00.000-08:00

Have lots of cash and nowhere to spend it? Lonely for some lovin'? For only $1,850, you, can mail-order a Ukranian bride. Sign up at Encounters International and owner Natasha Spivack will make your dreams come true. Or so her website will have you believe. Spivack just lost $430,000 in the first lawsuit of its kind. Ukrainian Nataliya Fox sued Spivack and Encounters International for failing to discover her American husband's history of physical abuse. After marrying 257 couples and vicariously producing 103 babies, the jury in a Baltimore federal court found that Spivack violated the Mail-Order Bride (MOB) Act. Yes, we Americans even have a Mail-Order Bride Act. Can't say we're not thorough. In 1996, Congress enacted the MOB Act to require international marriage brokers such as Spivack's company to tell foreigners who experience domestic violence about their rights to immigration benefits. Under MOB, because she was abused, Fox could have self-petitioned to adjust her legal status instead of waiting the usual two years and enduring abuse all the meanwhile. But Spivack never told her. According to Newsday , Spivack testified in court that Fox fabricated stories of verbal abuse and physical beatings to acquire a U.S. visa. The marriage broker said she had “simply introduced two intelligent adults and could not be held responsible for what happened later.” Oh really? Interesting, considering that in a January issue of Legal Affairs, Spivack contradicted her testimony. She claimed then that Fox came to her office, upset. Instead of calling the cops or sheltering her from the violent storm, she sent Fox straight back home. “Who if not him could make her feel better?” Funny, Fox obviously figured out how to use the American legal system to her $430,000 advantage. She filed her lawsuit in 2002, six years after MOB was enacted. On NPR yesterday, Fox's Virginia-based attorney claimed that Fox barely speaks English--the reason she did not ever go to the police. How come she was unable to explain herself to a policeman but her attorney got the full story? A lack of translators at the precinct? Maybe Friendster is the way to go. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

All's Well That's Falwell

2004-11-23T09:31:00.000-08:00

He can’t be serious. Classes at The Reverend Jerry Falwell's Liberty School of Law have commenced. By the look of its website, the law school is surprisingly traditional. Although its mission is to train "ministers of justice," the required reading includes every heathen textbook that my law professors assigned. The academic calendar is so uneventful that I almost fell asleep on my keyboard, just like the good 'ole days. Dean Bruce Green even had his own blog to “repeatedly emphasize…the Christian intellectual tradition.” Considering that this is the first law school of its kind, it's a bit far-fetched to tag it a “tradition” just yet. But the Dean apparently realized his failings in carrying on said tradition. Ten days after the entering class’s orientation began, he announced his retirement from the blogosphere. So much for Christian intellectual stamina. Falwell's law school is all the buzz in major newspapers around the country. If it appears so mundane, why all the commotion? It begins with the professors. "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul," said Prof. Jeffrey C. Tuomala, quoting Psalm 19 in a New York Times interview. "The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” I googled “statutes of the Lord.” Apparently, there is 1) a biblical writing that the statutes are "just right" in Psalm 19 , 2) a song written by James McGranahan called--you guessed it--"Statutes of the Lord", and 3) 426,233 more references to the fact that the statutes of the Lord are right. No legal support. No references to statutory intent or history. They are just right. Period. Then there's the student body. Sixty students (including one Jewish student) and all of six faculty members. Debra Meador, a member of the inaugural class, has said , "I don't believe anyone could be neutral. We're willing to tell you what we believe and to follow that." No neutrality? I thought lawyers were supposed to be zealous advocates for their clients. There is no room for what Ms. Meador believes; in fact, she might have a hard time being taken seriously if she gives her clients their Christian opinions. There is plenty of room for the study of religion and law . But to accuse the Supreme Court of being untrustworthy because they do not follow the right text is absurd. This country was founded on the Constitution, not the bible. Lawyers' differing viewpoints are always encouraged, but not when legal support for those viewpoints is missing. Perhaps the legal community could use a change. But the Falwell Followers are here to turn wrongs into right. And in the law, there is no right. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

From The Minefield

2004-11-22T07:47:00.000-08:00

Do you mind the data that stores collect about you? Or do you prefer your data mined? The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Air Force Secretary James Roche stepped down on Tuesday. His communications with the Boeing Company revealed how hard the Pentagon was working to win a $23.5 billion refueling tanker deal. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was not happy. He released electronic letters on Friday and explained that the secretive deal would have cost taxpayers $6 billion more than just buying the tankers. How was this debacle uncovered? Via e-mail. The New York Times recently reported that Wal-Mart amasses more data about its shoppers’ buying habits than anyone else in the country. Not only do they capture what you’ve bought on which credit card, but they can "find out your mortgage amounts, your court dates, your driving record, your creditworthiness.” How do they collect so much personal information? Electronic mining. The worst of them all? Google’s new e-mail service, Gmail . Before it was launched, Gmail cooked up tons of press as red-hot privacy advocates shouted "Danger!” and internet research groups predicted that the concept of anonymity would soon vanish. Since its launch, the 1-gigabyte storage capacity has attracted everyone who did not read the warnings. And even some who did. Since it's free, Gmail is hard to resist. In the privacy of your own home, your personal computer creates a cozy and alluring invitation to enter into it your innermost thoughts. You know that e-mails are never private, but some days you need to e-mail your best friend about your evil boss. Or you’ll just die. It is that much harder to pick up the phone. Gmail is scary. Google has never been known to delete any data that they have collected since day one. Gmail encourages users to forego the delete button and keep all of the e-mails they’ve ever written. Then, they watch you. And they track you. If you email me, they follow me around too. Gmail’s privacy policy maintains that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from their various services. At least they're honest. And the California Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) requires that Gmail’s privacy policy be “conspicuously” posted on all commercial websites. That's nice. Who reads those? California State Senator Liz Figueroa is thrilled about Gmail. So much so that she sent a letter to Google about Gmail, chastising them for “embarking on a disaster of enormous proportions.” She is working on legislation (Senate Bill 1822) to ban the scanning of e-mail messages for targeted advertising. If it passes, it will be the first law in the country to ensure that consumer dossiers cannot be created. To date, no one has unearthed a reason why we refuse to link our e-mail to its lack of privacy. (We’re waiting, David Brooks). We could stop using email, credit cards, and choose to stay away from invasive corporations. And yet, we trod along the internet highway, leaving behind us a startling trail of public, personal information. We leave it to the legislators, yet again, to create more laws to help us help ourselves. Don't say that I didn't warn you. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

IRS: Gay Anyway?

2004-11-20T03:13:00.000-08:00

The IRS does not recognize gay marriage. Or does it? In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. It provides that states are not required to recognize laws regarding same-sex marriages . "Spouse" remains defined as a person of the opposite sex. "Marriage" continues to be between a man and a woman. It is unclear yet as to how the federal government works transgender and transexual folks into such a liberal and flexible law. Because the federal government will not allow gay couples to file jointly, the IRS, for federal income tax purposes, won’t either. But according to our treaties with other countries who do recognize Couples of Sin, the IRS must tolerate joint filings of homosexuals. Hooray for loopholes. How does it work? We currently have tax treaties with other countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium and South Africa. (*interesting sidenote: South Africa was the first country in the world to recognize gay marriage in its Constitution). In these treaties are non-discrimination provisions that say a country cannot apply a worse tax law to residents of another country than one that they apply to their own citizens. In theory, when two Dutch women get married in Holland and honeymoon in the U.S. by working as waitresses, because their marriage is recognized in The Netherlands, they should be taxed as a married couple by the U.S. government. The Dutch couple’s same-sex legal status, in theory, should not suddenly be revoked when they earn tax dollars in a country whose laws are worse than their own if a treaty between the two countries exists. The United States must recognize gay marriage. Did this loophole appear because we're out of the loop? The legislatures of the Netherlands, in 2001, and Belgium , in 2003, extended full civil marriage to same-sex couples. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia recognize same-sex couples and the Canadian parliament is likely to extend the possibility of same-sex marriage throughout the country within a year. In 1995, Hungary extended the recognition of “common-law” marriages to partners of the same sex. Since then, on the European continent, France , Germany , and Portugal have created forms of registration for same-sex relationships. The list makes us look like a dated, conservative and backwards institution. The rigidity of our rules seems unparalleled. While the IRS is left to negotiate with foreign filers as to whether their gay marriages should be recognized, we stay strong in our convictions not to recognize gay marriage. Does it put a little smile on your face to know that even the International Revenue Service is being outdone by our progressive international community? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Condi Called 'Aunt Jemima'

2004-11-19T09:33:00.000-08:00

This week’s theme in world news seems to shed new light on the U.S.A.— the Unaware Stupidity of America— and who we really are. Now radio hosts are calling Condoleeza Rice “Aunt Jemima." In Madison, Wisconsin, John Sylvester is the program director and morning personality of WTDY-AM . He used the pancake reference on this Wednesday’s show to reveal that blacks only play a subservient role in the Bush administration. Sylvester labeled Colin Powell an “Uncle Tom.” Powell and Rice, according to Sylvester, are subservient blacks in a white administration who have been implemented only for “the illusion of inclusion.” The kicker? After the show received 100 complaints, Sylvester promised not only to have an Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup giveaway, but he guaranteed that he would put in a call to Aunt Jemima to apologize. Have we no decency anymore? Read Dr. Condoleeza’s biography , and then take a look at Powell’s . Tell me if they appear to be submissive types to you. Is Sylvester’s rationale that because they are not both the Presidents of the United States, they have to endure these submissive roles of National Security Advisor and Secretary of State? It is fascinating, really, that in 2004 this racial insensitivity is not only allowed, but is evidently applauded by listeners. The fact that Sylvester was not immediately booted off the air like another talk show host on that station—who referred last week to undocumented immigrants as “wetbacks”—confirms Sylvester’s viewpoints and listener’s distrust of the host. Not only is this news further commentary on the state of racial affairs in our country, but speaks volumes about management of the media. At least a black woman is helping to run our country. John Sylvester only gets to babble about it. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Blake Prosecutor: Courtroom Scuzz

2004-11-17T09:28:00.000-08:00

Scuzz : Slang. Dirt; something disgusting or vulgar. America is obsessing over Robert Blake. Blake, 71, is charged with murder. He allegedly shot his wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley, in a car outside of a restaurant where they had just dined. Prosecutors suspect that Blake wanted out of his marriage to Bakley, a revolting woman who deserved to die. Or so Shellie Samuels thinks. Questioning prospective jurors on Tuesday, Prosecutor Shellie Samuels asked , "If you really thought she was a scuzz, could you still convict him of killing her?" I can’t even make this kind of stuff up. Samuels is the prize-winner for Most Ridiculous Juror Question. That, or she is a disgrace even to the scuzziest scuzz in the courtroom. As a prosecutor, isn’t it her job to prove that the defendant is guilty as best she can? As a criminal lawyer, doesn’t she know that murder is a serious crime? As an American citizen, doesn’t she know that our society does not reward murderers, no matter how “scuzzy” the victim? Funny, I thought that jurors were supposed to remain an unbiased bunch. When jurors are sworn in, they affirm that they will become the judge of all questions of fact and are duty-bound to act fairly and impartially in considering the evidence presented. But even before they have been chosen, these prospective jurors not only get the heads-up that Bakley was an unlikeable gal, but they have been dared. Dared to publicly claim that if they find Bakley truly repulsive, they would let Blake go. If this jury is being prepped to find that Bakley died because she deserved it, we might start getting comfortable with the idea of killing our abhorrent friends and family. Go ahead, laugh at my suggestion. And then watch as the media frenzy takes this notion way outside of the courtroom, into the newspapers and then the minds of angry Americans. The subjectivity of the word 'scuzz' might even change after the Blake trial and could become legal precedent for future scuzzy cases. Let's just hope that Samuels doesn't continue such scuzzy antics. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Blogged Out

2004-11-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

And to think that those forefathers never saw blogs coming. Blogs, or web logs, are quickly becoming the mainstream press’ long-lost twin. You cannot remain wholly informed just reading the New York Times’ election poll results anymore. Now you must also check in with electionlawblog to read Professor Richard Hasen’s astute commentary on the election's results. If you do not read Stuart Hughes’ Beyond Northern Iraq in tandem with the International Herald Tribune , you are bound to miss what is really going on in certain parts of the world. Then why are blogs excluded from First Amendment protection? In its business travel section today, the New York Times reports that a Delta flight attendant has been fired because of her blog . Ellen Simonetti was quietly and confidently the Queen of Sky, drawing nearly 460,000 visitors to her website since January. When she posted a few pictures of herself in suggestive poses—and by suggestive, I mean that the top button of her blouse, undone, showed a tiny portion of her bra strap—Delta handed her the pink slip. Funny, Ms. Simonetti is not alone. Heather B. Armstrong tells her story on her brilliant blog, Dooce . Fortunately for us, her humorous anecdotes about getting canned are a great read. Unfortunately for her, she was fired for talking about her co-workers on her blog. Big Brother is not only watching us 24/7 now, he’s also scouring the internet for speech that can potentially hurt an employer’s feelings. Or worse, that can bring in more business, but not in the way it intended. Perhaps this is a serious case of OCD and employers do not want to lose control of their employees’ actions. Fair enough. But the Constitution says that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of the press. So while Congress can’t prevent businesses from firing their employees, why are we allowing businesses to get away with it? Blogs might not be considered press just yet. Until then, mighty warriors, blog on. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for President?

2004-11-15T09:09:00.000-08:00

Didn't you see it coming? Bodybuilder turned film star turned Governor seeks to rule the White House. All obvious transitions. If history repeats itself, Arnold is going to be one lucky man. Ronald Reagan was a lifeguard turned movie star who did eventually rule the White House. The 57-year old has begun his campaign to amend the Constitution. The Terminator has garnered serious public support in California, but even in the liberal state he will reportedly have a tough time gaining support to alter the country’s foundation. How hard is it to change the Constitution? Passage of an amendment requires a two-thirds vote from both the House and Senate. And right now, the lucky Gov'na gets to work his magic during a Republican Congress. Thirty-eight state legislatures must then ratify the amendment. These states will have to be convinced that a man born in Austria who became a U.S. citizen in 1983 is both capable and worthy of running for President. Today, cable TV ads for an amendment change are being aired throughout California. The Kalifourneeyah-based mutual fund manager and creator of the ads has his own website, www.amendforarnold.com . The donor got real creative on his website, cutting and pasting the problematic Article to his website (as I do here): "Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution: 'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.' We think it's time for a change." This does nothing to convince me. You? Some Congressmen allege that they would like to see the amendment pass so that Hungarian Tom Lantos, a 76-year old California Democrat, can run for the highest office in the country. Others might like to see Canadian-born Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in the White House some day. But we all know that ever since Hercules in New York came out in 1970 featuring a bodybuilder named Schwarzenegger, he's had a tiny little aspiration to rule America, the land that gave him the opportunity to become a champ in many respects. I'm not sure why it would take a lot to convince me to change an archaic document that needs changing. Created hundreds of years ago by men who never imagined life in 2004, the Constitution could use a little tweaking. We're such a melting pot that we might as well include foreign-born citizens to run the country. Perhaps it's Arnold's way with words. "I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." Or: "The c**k isn't a muscle so it doesn't grow in relation to the shoulders, say, or the pectorals. You can't make it bigger through exercise, that's for sure." Just delightful. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Patient Reform

2004-11-14T09:15:00.000-08:00

Illinois might start using the law to bring doctors back to the days of house-calls and family ties. Physicians are now being told to say “I’m sorry” when they make a mistake. The push for doctors to admit defeat apparently helps to avoid career-threatening malpractice suits. The Institute of Medicine reported that 98,000 hospitalized Americans die every year from doctors’ mistakes. The University of Michigan Health System reports that its annual attorneys' fees have dropped by $2 million ever since they started promoting the apology approach. One man shared that if his doctor had said those two valuable words, he might not have sued for the misdiagnosis of his wife’s brain aneurysm that has left her severely disabled. The Illinois Legislature is considering a program called “Sorry Works!” that recommends asking for forgiveness and sending out apology letters when mistakes occur. Two Illinois hospitals will run a pilot program to see if it saves money. Backwards, much? We're enacting laws to promote personality changes? I might understand the apology framework for criminals who steal or murder. But for doctors? If this proposed law is the shift of healthcare’s future, it is shifting in the wrong direction. We do not need healthcare reform. We need healthcare recipient reform. Accountability is the first problem with the "Sorry Works!" program. Misdiagnosis is often due to human error. When you visit your doctor, do you expect anything other than a human being? It’s as though our American healthcare system now promotes: “To err is human, except in your doctor’s office.” You might not want such errors, but if they occur, you can't blame them by demanding millions from their insurance companies. Second in the list of problems with “Sorry Works!” is that it assumes doctors are to blame for all mistakes that occur. Again, it is silly of us to assume that if we are hospitalized, we are under the absolute care of our doctors. It’s a pretty theory. But, there are allergies, chemical reactions, discomforts, and problems with blood types, bone structures, tissues, arteries and thousands of body parts that doctors often cannot foresee without a magic crystal ball. Thirdly, what about all those folks who react poorly to apologies? I appreciate the all-knowing aura that glows in my doctor’s office. I did not go through a decade of medical training like she did. I trust her far more to research and diagnose my medical problem than I trust my lawyer and his library research. If her mistake costs me two weeks of pain due to a misdiagnosis and the wrong drug prescription, so be it. I do not want to hear “I’m sorry.” Neither of us will want to sit with the pain nor will we desire to work through it with some hugs and Kleenex. I will want her to try again. And if doctors start saying “I’m sorry,” what good will therapy do anymore? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

The Celebrity-Paparazzi Catch-22

2004-11-13T10:02:00.000-08:00

It’s not that assault and battery are not serious crimes. It’s not that Justin Timberlake and Cameron Diaz were right to allegedly fight the photographers for their privacy, having felt ambushed and harassed. And it’s not that the photographers aren’t fully entitled to file suit against those who assault and batter, as the famous pair allegedly did. It’s that both parties have got it all wrong. When a person like Cameron Diaz becomes a movie star, she is a “public figure” in the eyes of the law. While she is entitled to her privacy, she should know that her anonymity is traded for the big screen and the big bucks. Once a picture of Cameron leaving a restaurant appears in Entertainment Weekly, more fans buy that magazine. When buyers contribute to the magazine’s profits, advertisers are happy. And when advertisers notice who is adding pennies to their pockets, they advertise in other media that include Ms. Diaz. Soon enough, demand for Ms. Diaz swells to the point where she is offered roles in such classic contributions to film history as Shrek and There’s Something About Mary. One picture can mean one million dollars. Why the telephoto smackdown, Cameron? Why? (I’m not picking on Timberlake solely because Diaz is one of the world’s top-earning actresses, who, in the words of my grandmother, really should know better.) And, when camera lenses capture the Saturday morning fashions of an actress and her popstar boyfriend, they really are just doing their jobs. Newspapers and magazines pay thousands for a good shot. The paparazzi were likely situated in a public space where they are fully entitled to be. Moreover, by daring to wait in the warzone of angry celebrity, they will have earned less money by selling the photographs than the millions they will have contributed to the stars’ careers. To bring this suit might be necessary if the photographers cannot pay for their medical bills due to the emotional damages caused. But I'm betting that if these two were assigned to such superstars, they can likely shell out for a few therapy session. What's worse, the judicial economy and efficiency that is wasted by this type of lawsuit is outrageous. The photographers likely encounter emotional distress from unhappy famous folks all the time. Diaz and Timberlake have been photographed for most of their adult lives. In this situation, the photographers are taking advantage of the legal system to bilk the couple out their pocketchange. Funny, the money is pocketchange to them because of photographs taken by the paparazzi. You could be dizzy from this kind of Catch-22. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Tales of Starbucks

2004-11-11T08:13:00.000-08:00

Stop buying Starbucks , people. McDonald’s has scattered the globe and we’re all getting fat on fries. Well, they are getting the fat on the fries and we are consuming said fat. Super Size Me did an excellent job of pointing out the disgusting habits of Americans, although you don’t have to see the movie to believe it. The fast food chain has grown a bad reputation the size of chicken nuggets' calorie content, at least you can get your protein, carbs and monthly allowance of fat from a Happy Meal. Starbucks is worse. To start, they give snooty names to their products such as Bella Vista F.W. Tres Rios® Costa Rica. And all you get in that giant paper cup is caffeine-laced black water. Now, they’ve upped the ante on pricing and are charging way more than fifty cents for a cup of coffee. It takes no effort to make coffee and even less effort, apparently, to build 148 stores within a 5-mile radius. Starbucks has become a social liability and a company that lies. The first sentence of their Privacy Statement ? “The Starbucks name and reputation were built on a foundation of trust.” Is this the same trust that you will become an addict? The Wall Street Journal just reported that “Last month, Starbucks raised its beverages prices for the first time in four years, citing rising costs for commodities, particularly milk, as well as health insurance and rent.” That's funny. I could have sworn that the cost of one Starbucks coffee far exceeds the price of a glass of milk. And rent. Do they really need stores down the block from one another? If you build it, your landlord will come. Funnier yet, in Nebraska , Starbucks reportedly raised its prices due to rising costs of coffee and sugar. Perhaps Starbucks employees need to get their stories straight before they start pouring out conflicting information. Even worse, if you google “Starbucks was sued,” you will find out just how many times Starbucks has taken legal action against little people and little places. It offends every legal taste bud that I ever had. If you have any cents, stop feeding the Starbucks monster and get your buzz elsewhere. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

For Drunk Residents, No Place Like Home

2004-11-10T08:44:00.000-08:00

Thank goodness we have the Supreme Court. A dictionary would never have sufficed in this situation. A deported Haitian may now return to his Miami family because of the word “use.” Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that drunk driving is not a “crime of violence.” That phrase normally caused automatic immigrant deportation. With a little wordplay and a new definition, the Justices prove that they really have earned their seats in the highest court of the land. Each of our beloved nine supreme court justices earn over $200,000 of our taxpayer dollars a year. The greatest scholars of our time attended both college and law school. At the start of their careers , some practiced law, some clerked for judges, and others joined the Navy. They all take their appointments to the Supreme Court quite seriously. In fact, they work themselves nearly to death . But they all still seem a bit pretentious when it comes to the English language. They're always proving that they know their vocabulary better than we do. Enter Josue Leocal. A lawful permanent resident who’s been in the US for 20 years. Like many Americans, he chose to get tanked one day. Ran a red light, injured two people. Florida law landed him in jail for two years. TWO years. The INS picked on him and, due to Congress' 1988 decision to make noncitizens subject to automatic deportation when they’ve committed a "crime of violence", they deported him. As the law would have it, judges around the country were confused. They could not get the definition of “crimes of violence” right. Lucky Leocal became The Chosen One whose case came before the brilliant thinkers on high. The Justices were given two definitions for a “crime of violence”: 1. An offense that includes "the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force," and 2. Any other felony that involves the "substantial risk" that physical force "may be used." Rehnquist’s conclusion? “The word 'use'…most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct." Interpretation? If sloshed, anything you do behind the wheel is presumed to be an accident. And apparently, in an accident, you don’t use anything. Not the steering wheel, not the pedals, not physical force. Nothing. Most striking about this opinion is the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist issued this opinion. He is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer and has been working from home. Think he’s been driving anywhere lately? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Dead or Alive: Arafat Plays No Part

2004-11-09T08:20:00.000-08:00

In one of the first law codes handed down by Hammurabi (1792-1750 B.C.), the penalty for medical malpractice was to cut off the doctor's hands. The diorite column on which the laws were carved is now in Paris. And it is in Paris where Suha Arafat will demand the reinstatement Hammurabi’s law if things go her way. The AP just reported that Arafat, Great Leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, is near death. According to French law, all information about Arafat's medical condition is given not to the Palestinian leadership, but to Suha herself. Not only does Suha have the ability to hear what she wants to hear, but she can manipulate reports of Arafat’s health and leak what she wants to the press. The media has absolutely no access to Arafat’s medical condition. To make things even messier, under French law, doctors must perform a series of tests before declaring a patient brain-dead. But rumor has it that doctors are paying no attention to the law to keep the old man alive until successors are in place. Hopefully Arafat has enough morphine to override his recent brain hemorrhage and carry him through Political Playtime. (To prove my point: the AP has just announced Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath’s report that Arafat’s innards are in working order, 1 hour after he was "near death"). Arafat, 75, flew from the Middle East all the way to Paris when he became ill. France was apparently the obvious choice because he could easily avoid all the people who would have wanted to kiss him. No joke. But he could have gone a few more miles, landed himself in an American hospital, and let us really have fun with him. In America, it is the State that determines the patient’s ultimate state. Some states declare that certain criteria must be satisfied before a doctor can pronounce the patient brain-dead. In other states, it is left to the doctor’s discretion as to whether the plug should be pulled. Can’t you just see the doting Jack Kevorkian in a room with Yassir Arafat? Arafat has never had any say in the matter. Suha will let us know when she has determined that her husband is dead. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Canada’s Diagnosis: Pfizer Pfeels Pfine

2004-11-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

You can get your million bucks from the Vioxx lawsuit here . Or, you can read about the life-threatening drug reaction caused by Bextra here . How about my personal favorite, Celebrex ? This pain reliever also causes the same Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (skin, mouth, and eye blistering) as Bextra, just not as quickly. Pfizer, Inc. is not doing so well these days. The FDA has stamped its disapproval on all three meds but continues to inform the public about them on its web pages. If you ever wonder whether you should take Celebrex, go to this web page . You can read hilarious warnings such as: do not take Celebrex if you are allergic to Celebrex. If you are an American reading this, there is an 84% chance that the word LAWSUIT jumped out at you as you skimmed the words Vioxx, Bextra, or Celebrex. The FDA is just as quick to jump when it smells trouble: the agency labels and then re-labels its bottles for the misinformed public constantly. Apparently, this is a very American thing to do. Canada, however, is not so quick to re-label. Canadian health officials do not cave so easily under the pressure of threatening trial lawyers. Health Canada, Canada’s health agency, was recently informed that 20 people had died while taking Celebrex. No new labels were issued. No press conferences were held warning the public about such matters. (I first read about it in the American Wall Street Journal). A health official actually declined to offer a breakdown of deaths resulting from Celebrex's different side effects. Canadian health authorities are aware of more than 100 adverse reactions to Celebrex over the past five years, “including 19 cases of heart attack, cardiac arrest or heart failure and five strokes.” And they are doing nothing about it. Yet. Are we too quick to react? If so, is it because of impending lawsuits or because we care that much more about the health of our citizens? This long list of FDA recalls and market withdrawals should help answer those questions. Perhaps we need to pop less and ponder more. Or, we can do as the Canadians do and just ignore. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Eau De Bin Laden

2004-11-06T09:13:00.000-08:00

Yeslam Bin Laden thinks his name is highly respected around the world. So much so that his new perfume , "Yeslam," might outdo sales of Britney's "Curious" scent in department stores soon. While he chose to use his first name instead of "Bin Laden" to sell his new product, he has trademarked the famous last name all over Europe and Southeast Asia. Interestingly, he wanted to trademark it in the U.S. but his half-brother foiled his plan on 9/11/01. The marketing slogan? "A profound yet gentle message in a bottle for all who long for inner peace." Whatever the message may be, I am sure it stinks. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Chapter 11: Love to Fly, And It Shows Up Again

2004-11-05T08:11:00.000-08:00

Do you fear bankruptcy more than fear itself? Even more than airline food? Mark Twain backed the Paige typesetting machine rather than Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company to the tune of $250,000, a phenominal amount in the 1880’s. His bad call cost him dearly and he regretted his decision for the rest of his life. In 1894, Twain declared bankruptcy. Not unlike Twain, Burt Reynolds, Larry King and K-Mart, Delta and U.S. Airways have followed suit. The airlines’ money issues have hit hard, so much so that you have to wonder—why haven’t they just folded and gone away? Bankruptcy is believed to be the business death toll. The word itself has a destitute and desperate ring to it. Bank (from the Middle English ‘banke’, moneychanger’s table): A business establishment in which money is kept for saving or commercial purposes or is invested, supplied for loans, or exchanged. Rupt (from the Italian rotta, past participle of the Latin rompere, to break): to bring to financial ruin. Then why are these airlines still functional? Look to the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor’s bible. Chapter 11 is the favorite among bankruptcy nerds, and Delta may be filing for it next week. Corporations like Delta choose this avenue, although it is more expensive and complex than the Chapter 7 bankruptcy that individuals often file, because it gives companies an opportunity to restructure its organization and function all the meanwhile. Once a U.S Trustee is appointed to watch over the reorganization of Delta, the airline’s creditors and the court will have to confirm the Chapter 11 plan. Offering miles toward the Judge's vacation time can be an added bonus. United, the nation's second-biggest airline behind American, filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2002. In its first year in bankruptcy, it cut costs by $5 billion annually, including those obtained from unions. And it is still reorganizing itself to carry our behinds from one destination to the next. While these airlines sort themselves out, have no fear. If Twain can undo his debts--which he ended up doing four years after his filing by going on tour—so can our frequent fliers. That is, unless and until they do something about that barbecued chicken dish. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Microprivacy

2004-11-04T10:07:00.000-08:00

Your medical file just went public. The FDA recently approved VeriChip , an implantable computer chip that is inserted in patients' arms for medical purposes. It can hold your entire medical history and allows your doctors to read all about you with the click of a button. They can view your charts. Locate your allergies. Find out the last time that you lost bladder control. Or had a yeast infection. Now imagine all your friends seeing that same data. Comforting? Privacy, or the lack thereof, tends to anger certain thoughtful, paranoid types but does not seem to bother the rest of us. We type our credit card numbers into websites without thinking. We do not protest when our banks tell us that although we opted out of online banking, they will do it for us. We scribble our social security numbers on any and every entry form that we fill out. Personal information is made public all the time and it is scary that so few laws are protecting us from hackers, information collection companies, and bored teenagers. Justice Brandeis put it best. “The intensity and complexity of life...have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.” Brandeis had this foresight in 1890. And look how far we’ve come. "One of the big problems in health care has been the medical records situation. So much of it is still on paper," said David Ellis, the center's chief futurist and co-founder of the Michigan Electronic Medical Records Initiative. I don’t know about you, but the last time a stranger foraged through my doctor’s office to locate my medical information was…never. Instantaneously scanning a microchip for information, on the other hand, can take said stranger through my medical history and back again, well, instantly. Questions we should be asking of the Big Brother Chip: What if it’s erased because I lean against the black magnetic strip on the back of my credit card? What if someone stands near me, downloads my information, scrambles it, and uploads the new, false data into my chip? What if I am rushed to the hospital because my arm’s just fallen off and the hospital administers me meds that I am allergic to because the chip is in my missing limb? Perhaps these are naïve questions. "It's part of the future of medicine to have these kinds of technologies that make life simpler for the patient," Ellis said. Pushing for the strongest encryption algorithms to ensure hackers can't nab medical data as information transfers from chip to reader to secure database will help privacy concerns. If hackers can find their way into electronic voting machines , banks , and other types of microchips , those hackers will be nabbing whatever they want. Perhaps that's what Ellis meant by making life "simpler" for the patient. Notice that Ellis only talks about “pushing” for the strongest encryption. How about “getting” it too? I'm sticking with paper. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

New Supreme Court?

2004-11-03T09:05:00.000-08:00

Presidents, they come and go. But Supreme Court Justices are forever. Poor Justice Rehnquist is too ill to return to work. Undergoing both chemotherapy and radiation, the 80-year old Supreme Court Justice is battling thyroid cancer, but the fight appears to be an uphill one. Justice Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon and was elevated to Chief Justice during Ronald Reagan's presidency, just as fellow conservative Scalia was appointed to the Court. He might not return. And Bush will need to replace him to keep Scalia company. Along with Rehnquist, a few Justices may retire. (I refuse to speculate about who may retire--I was sure that our election would drag on for weeks and even introduced the possibility of a terrorist attack on election day. Who's the sore loser now?). Bush has already stated that he dislikes all this homosexuals-wanna-marry talk, and that fetus-killings are for the weak. He is going to make our Supreme Court stronger. The Court is apparently 1 or 2 votes away from overturning Roe v. Wade . If Bush decides to fill seats with conservative justices, they may take away my right to abort. But nevermind the right to choose. With this healthcare system, the choice is barely mine anyhow. What about court opinions influenced by religion? Or better yet, by morality?? According to today’s radio talk show hosts, the key issues that pollsters missed was morality. For some Americans, that means strong Christian values. For others, it means shipping off homosexuals to an island (Fire Island?) to rot. Did the pollsters miss it or am I missing something here? Bush apparently held steady enough for us schizophrenic citizens to want to keep him there. Some days, it appears that we want to leave Iraq and other times, we want to keep those terrorists under siege. Some days, the media capitalizes on the extreme anti-gay sentiments of various politicians and other times, 10 states voted for bans on recognizing gay marriage. Are you confused yet? We are a divided nation right now. Hopefully, our renewed faith in the Bushman will help heal his nation. Perhaps he will read us a little from his favorite children's story, The Pet Goat . With his strong faith in one hand and morality in the other, the President will unite us. Just like he will unite the new Supreme Court with a fresh new slate of conservatives. Boy am I excited. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

George Carlin Never Votes, But Should You?

2004-11-02T08:01:00.000-08:00

You can now vote mechanically, electronically, manually, systematically, radically, and dramatically. Whether or not you think that your vote will or will not count, you live in a democracy and it's election day. Still here? Not here ? Get off the internet and go cast your vote. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal. p.s. Do not fret. There will be much discussion here as the lawsuits unfold. And they will unfold.

Election Day Plan: Be Unprepared

2004-11-01T08:05:00.000-08:00

If and when a terrorist attack hits the U.S. tomorrow, only 2 people will have earned the right to utter everyone's favorite phrase: I told you so. On July 22, 2004, the House voted 419-2 in favor of a resolution that no agency or individual should be given the authority to postpone a national election. The man who introduced the bill, Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), was most definitely on vacation during the September 11, 2001, attacks. Standing in the middle of the New York subway that I faithfully took to work every morning, I watched the famous twins, in all their glory, on fire. It was September 11, 2001. Few New Yorkers were lucky enough to view the burning Twin Towers from a spectacular vantage point: the center of the Brooklyn Bridge. We had no idea why the buildings were on fire, why the train had stopped, or why a sight that initially struck us as a beautiful one slowly turned into the greatest horror of our lives. The New York Primary Election landed on 9/11/01. That election was totally interrupted. New York was not prepared. Primary Day was postponed until September 25, 2001, but voters did not return to the polling booths. Morale was low. The City curled up into a cocoon and ignored life for a little while. And yet, after all that, we are still unprepared. The two congressmen who voted against the resolution were Representatives Brian Baird (D-Washington) , and Scott McInnis (R-Colorado) . They knew what was up. Prior to his current gig, McInnis served our country as a police officer and volunteer firefighter. He knows that when the rough gets going, there are people to arrest and fires to put out. It was no accident that he left those professions for one more sedate. Baird has a masters degree and doctorate in Clinical Psychology. He recognizes that when a disaster strikes, therapy is the answer. He would like to avoid both. We must assume that the House is looking out for our best interests. This nation has voted through two world wars as well as the Civil War. In 1864, during the Civil War, President Lincoln refused to delay an election, saying, “If the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.” I am not sure that Mr. Lincoln was right, what with our global community, frenzied media and more jihad than rebellion. Cross your fingers and hope that the House called it. Then uncross those fingers and hit that touchscreen button tomorrow in your voting booth. Your vote will count tomorrow. We have no alternative. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

The Serious Grudge

2004-10-31T07:11:00.000-08:00

Happy Halloween. That is, unless you live in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In which case Angry Elrod might get you. When you head out to see scary flick The Grudge tonight, do not shush your neighbor. According to Ann Arbor News , Paul Elrod, 38, was shushed in a movie theater by a stranger sitting in front of him. Jamin Eisenbach, 51, put a finger to his lips. He directed the deadly "shhh" sound toward Elrod. While shushing normally brings us to the edge of our seats, Angry Elrod took it all the way to theater assault level. Elrod determined to puncture a lung, break multiple ribs, kick Eisenbach down a flight of stairs, force him into a nine-day hospital stay, and spend some quality jailtime with more strangers. This Wednesday, Angry Elrod was convicted and faces up to 10 years in prison on a count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Michigan's MCLA 750.86 makes revenge a felony: "Any person who shall assault another with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000." Funny, the law is quite clear about the consequences of sending someone flying down a set of stairs. Even funnier, Angry Elrod likely never knew such code existed. Yet another example of how we law types keep the Secret Code to ourselves. I would guess that Angry Elrod still hasn't read section 750.86, even though he has announced that he will appeal his conviction. We've all heard the famous "ignorance is no excuse" excuse. If you're not a lawyer, have not read all the code, and have been legitimately pissed off, let's be honest. Ignorance is your best excuse. Let us remember Angry Elrod tonight. Let us not relive the urge to stand up and pound gobstoppers into the skull of our shushing neighbor. Let us not forget the Safety Method of keeping jaws tight, teeth clenched, mouths immobile, and shushing like ventriloquists. Let Angry Elrod remind us that we, too, can be incarcerated for actions that we have all, at one time, told our friends to do. Let us read all laws of our states prior to any of our actions lest we make the same mistake Angry Elrod made. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal. p.s. Hope you remembered to fall back your clocks last night.

Kerry/Kutcher in Iowa Today

2004-10-30T07:41:00.000-07:00

You heard it here first. Received word from contacts in the swing state of Iowa that John Kerry and his best friend Ashton Kutcher will be there today to campaign. Kutcher: Movie celebrity. Born in 1978. In Iowa. But, voting records show his real birth date is 1974. Acting break in Pizza Hut commercial, followed by sweeping Cheerio dust off a General Mills factory floor. In love with Demi Moore, about 10 years his senior. Student of Kabbalah who likes to poke fun at himself. Kerry: Political celebrity. Born in 1943. In Colorado. But, botox shows his real birth date is 1923. Law school in Massachusetts. Upon graduation, became an assistant prosecutor where he created an innovative rape crisis crime unit, sweeping crime off Middlesex County's floor. In love with Teresa Heinz Kerry, about 5 years his senior. Catholic senator of whom we gladly poke fun. And get a load of this . Wyoming's Star Tribune really works its headlines to grab new readers. Apparently there now exists a Bush-Kerry campaign. Who knew? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

National Pastime On Death Row

2004-10-29T07:32:00.000-07:00

Cockfighting is on its way out.

Louisiana residents are upset that roosters can no longer tie knives to their ankles and fight to their deaths. Cockfighting, legal only in Louisiana and New Mexico, has been the talk of the town as the election rolls around. Massachusetts passed the first ban on hen-haggling in 1836; since then, another 23 states have stopped the gamecocks’ to-the-death pecking.

Bush is in favor of ceasing all hen-fighting in Louisiana. State Representative Karen Carter (D-New Orleans) is sponsoring legislation to ban this type of event. Eighty-two percent of Louisianans support her. But some are not so happy. Sarah Whalen, contributing columnist to Bayoubuzz.com, evokes the fundamentals of journalistic integrity with her piece on cockfighting : “Louisiana SPCA lady wants to know why we shouldn’t go along with the rest of the nation banning cockfighting. Well, in Gentilly, where I come from, our mammas always told us, “Hey, just because the rest of the kids in school jump off the Seabrook Bridge, are you gonna do that?” And that meant we were stupid if we just did things because everyone else did, so we always said, “No, ma’am,” and “ma’am” is something not heard often in New England. Women there are so liberated, they think you’re mocking them. So we are different here in Louisiana. Here, PETA means, “People Eating Tasty Animals.” Often fried. We call animal meat blood “juice.” That’s a carry-over from when we were French, and saying “jus.” Sometimes we save it in refrigerated jars for really special occasions like christenings and first communions. The SPCA lady and what’s-his-name at that humane society want animals to have all the rights with none of the responsibilities. Maybe we should now charge Christopher Reeve’s horse with murder. Or Seigfreid & Roy’s tiger with attempted murder. Cockfighting. What’s next on feminism’s never-ending agenda? Hunting, fishing, leather mini-skirt wearing, biker’s jackets, Ruth’s Chris Steak House? In short, our Louisiana way of life.” I thought of sending Ms. Whalen a pile of PETA stickers with a note saying, “Ma’am, will be filing suit against Eastern Express , Mr. Reeve’s horse, immediately. Would rather jump off the Seabridge than see another cock killed. Signed, a feminist.” Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Rod Stewart: The Jury Thinks He's Sexy

2004-10-28T08:39:00.000-07:00

I saw Rod! I saw Rod! Three music promoters have sued Rod Stewart for cancelling the South American leg of his 2001 Human Tour and keeping his $780,000 advance. Although no contract was signed, Rod assured the jury that “a deal’s a deal," thus making him the world’s least knowledgeable rock star in the area of contract law. I had arrived to Rod’s trial the day that he was supposed to testify. And he did. He never let us see him sweat. His attorney, Skip Miller, did a swell job of prepping his client for trial: the barrage of “I don’t know”’s that fell from Rod’s mole-encrusted lips proved that he had no idea what transpired between his management and the plaintiff-promoters to bring the lawsuit in the first place. All he knew was that "a deal's a deal". But Rod was suave, self-assured, and the jury probably thought he was sexy. They would likely let him know. Or maybe tell him so. It was the Judge and plaintiff’s attorney, on the other hand, who demonstrated what it means to be an embarrassment in the courtroom. Awkwardness hit when the plaintiffs’ attorney, on cross-examination, began to compare himself to the celebrity. “I used to sing in the school choir. We have a lot in common.” Chuckle, chuckle. When Rod talked about the trials and tribulations of touring as a 59-year old, the attorney whispered: “Well, we have a lot in common. I understand what it’s like to get old.” The attorney scratched his white hair and again, chuckled. The commonalities between the attorney and his witness abounded. At the end of the cross-examination, Rod's new best friend asked Rod a question, to which Rod gave his relentless “I don’t know.” A long pause. Silence in the courtroom. The plaintiffs’ attorney read aloud Rod’s deposition testimony, which contradicted what he had just stated. Rod was caught! This could have been a West Wing moment. Instead, the attorney started apologizing to Rod. “I don’t mean to embarrass you, Mr. Stewart…” I almost brought out the old Arsenio Hall punch-air-with-fist action and wanted to shout, “Embarrass him, you fool!” The giggles and apologies were too much to handle. By this time, there was no question--the jury definitely found Rod sexy. I had to leave. But not before making sure that the Judge had not moved from her frozen position on the bench. Leaning her chin on her hand, she had swiveled her chair toward the witness stand and away from everyone else. She could not see the faces I was making at her. She had locked her eyes on Rod and his high hair. Her teeth-filled smile came out every time Rod offered variations on his "I don't know" theme—“not sure” or “couldn’t tell you” really tickled her. Rod’s attorney twice made an objection to the opposing attorney's questions. Each time, the Judge took an uncomfortable four minutes to recall what had been objected to. She blinked four times. She shook herself from fantasies of becoming Mrs. Maggie May. She muttered “sustained” so quickly you’d think it pained her to face forward. Quickly swiveling back to her original position, the Judge resumed her smile. And we wonder how celebrities get away with murder in the courtroom. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

(The U.S. Is) Out Of This World

2004-10-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

I was two years old, happily playing in the sandbox. Until someone told me to get out. Evidently, this someone did not realize the full potential of Sand Fun and I appropriately threw a fit. Until then, I crawled where I wanted, napped when I wanted, and ate anything that pleased me. I was given absolutely no reason as to why I had to remove myself, the most respected player in the box (suggested by my brilliant shoveling talents). If said someone was not my Dad, I would have thrown sand in his face and punched him in the bucket. Even in 2004, our country still believes that we're playing in the sandbox. Only now, we're a whole country. Full of people. Not sand. The International Herald Tribune printed an interesting piece yesterday, asking 20 world leaders what they hoped to see in the next U.S. administration. Although you can find the article here , I will sum it up for you: America must acknowledge that it is not alone. Do we really have to? Haven't we been fine without international relationships? Seems to me we're the most powerful nation in the world right now. No reason to cave. We broke off from the U.K. in defiance, in order to form a more perfect union. What could be more perfect than going it alone, without other ideas or alternative opinions? Into our Constitution, our supreme law of the land, we wrote: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " Doesn't say much about including Pakistan or Burundi, does it? The Vienna Convention spells out the diplomatic norms for the countries of the world. America has said that it is above those norms. Why agree to a cooperative document among nations when we clearly know how to run our own ship? Normally, I don't like to take part in the America-hating rhetoric that is familiar to anyone who has ever met a tourist. Nor do I want to get into the long list of great reasons why America is the land of the free. If you've been to Payless Shoe Source recently, you know why. But the upcoming presidential election and the Herald article have made me think that perhaps all the anti-American sentiment out there might be well-founded. Well-founded, by my definition, means that if everyone else thinks so, there might be some truth to it. Take a look at what these folks think. I know, I know--these are just opinions. But what else makes the world go ‘round? DESMOND TUTU, South Africa, Retired Anglican archbishop, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize: “Perhaps this new administration will change and affirm that the best hope for this vulnerable planet is when all the nations abide by the rule of international law, with none arrogating to themselves the position of being above that law.” KUNIHIKO SAITO, Japan, Former ambassador to the United States: “I hope that the United States will continue to be the leader of the world but will take into full account the views and positions of other countries, particularly its allies.” CHRISTINE LOH, Hong Kong, Former legislator, chief executive of Civic Exchange, a research institute: “I would like the United States to be a part of the world again.” BRONISLAW GEREMEK, Poland, European Parliament member: “American policy should change. There are two priorities: multilateralism in international policy and the participation of America with Europe.” ALAIN DE BOTTON, England, Essayist, philosopher: “The most immediate priority for the next president is to make a speech to a worldwide audience defining what American power is and can be: a Rooseveltian world view of the United States working within international bodies to promote peace, justice and prosperity.” MECHAI VIRAVAIDYA, Thailand, former government minister: “America needs to be more understanding of other cultures…” VACLAV HAVEL, Czech Republic, Former president: “Sometimes, inadvertently, Americans may act in ways that are seen as arrogant and bullying… Americans should realize that somehow they should cope with the reality of international organizations.” Perhaps they all like sticking it to the most powerful and united states because they are jealous. Or perhaps--dare I suggest it?--our Narcissitic Nation is actually at fault. Narcissism is built into the laws of our country. But no matter how archaic or backward our laws might be, there is always room for change. These world leaders are optimistic for the next U.S. administration to think globally. With the advent of the internet, it's enough to convince me that we just might go global. To heed the advice of these international figures might be a starting point. Then again, why would any American administration read the International Herald Tribune? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Team America: Too Much Fun?

2004-10-25T08:03:00.000-07:00

Nothing makes me prouder of my fellow citizens than when they outsmart our legal system. Even if it takes puppets to do the job. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have some serious chutzpah. They were the politically incorrect force behind the funny flick Team America: World Police. The dialogue is hilarious. The musical numbers are a riot. The South Park team has taken their First Amendment freedoms to new heights, sounding off on political issues and obliterating reputations of Hollywood stars. Judging from last night’s uproarious audience, they were a great success. But, you ask, how could the South Park creators legally parody celebrities such as Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Liv Tyler, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, Jeanine Garofalo, and Helen Hunt without getting sued? Because the U.S. Constitution says they can. Celebrity is defined by my dictionary as "a celebrated or widely known person: one popularly honored for some signal achievement." While leads in "What Women Want" and "Jersey Girl" might not make for signal achievements, courts have accepted parts in major motion pictures as proof of persons widely known. (Although, in my opinion, they could just substitute a "who's-in-US-Weekly-Magazine" litmus test for their definition). The law allows celebrities to protect their names and their likeness. They can register for a trademark to protect their names. By registering these trademarks, they are free to build their reputations without imposters copying their image. No one can dilute their trademark. Courts can also infer trademarks from a public figure's prior history, as happened to Rosa Parks when she sued Outkast for using her name without her permission in their music. Because she was a major historical figure, the court held that Parks' name was as good as trademarked. However, parodies are an entirely different ball of puppet strings. Courts have held that parodies are entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution. This constitutional kryptonite seemingly supports Team America's celebrity puppet head explosions. Alec Baldwin might have been entitled to sue Team America's creators, getting an injunction against them if courts were to find that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, Alec was already 1) proven to be famous and that 2) Team America's puppet portrayal of him would dilute his famous persona. However, trademark dilution does not apply to "noncommercial use of a mark." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(4)(B). Senator Hatch introduced a bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to make this satire exception clear: "The bill will not prohibit or threaten noncommercial expression, such as parody, satire, editorial and other forms of expression that are not part of a commercial transaction." 141 Cong. Rec. S19306, S19310 (daily ed. Dec. 29, 1995). Parody is totally unaffected by the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. Upon seeing Team America, I was not sure that satire should be exempted from the Trademark Act. The movie made $12.3 million in its first weekend at the box office. Political insinuations and character assassinations were viewed nationwide, and were hysterical. But, Susan Sarandon's kids will see their mother killed on the big screen. Matt Damon's fans will cringe (through tears of laughter) when they see his new mentally disabled self. Then I came to my senses. These are puppets, people. Puppets . You won't have a hard time distinguishing Jeanine Garofalo from her puppet counterpart. And if it weren't for Team America, you would never know how easy it is to spoof the hand that feeds you. America gave us the almighty First Amendment. And Team America kicked it right in the balls. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Private Time With Justice Kennedy

2004-10-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

I sat down with Justice Kennedy last Friday to find out what he was really about. To see where he comes from. To learn what makes him tick. Apparently nothing makes him tick. Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, 68, was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan—sadly, the President’s third back-up choice--and was sworn in 16 years ago. He has written bold opinions, giving us City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (the denial-of-church-permit case), Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes , 523 U.S. 666 (1997) (the no-airtime-for-independent-candidate case), and most recently, Lawrence v. Texas, 41 S. W. 3d 349 (2003), in which he rightfully invalidated a Texas statute that made it a crime for gays to engage in sexual intimacy. Kennedy offers modern opinions, wordy but logical. As he pointed out several times to me, he is objective, has stayed objective, and remains objective. I took that as a challenge. And I attempted to throw him off his objective course. I asked him how he deals with the different opinions of the nine Justices during their roundtable discussions. Their opinions are of international importance, I explained. As though he did not know. I wondered where he put his anger—therapy, perhaps?—when he strongly disagreed with, say, Scalia. “I remain objective.” I rolled my eyes. Justices must remain rational, he said, and treat one another with the greatest of respect. That was his Kindergarten moment. A companion asked him a few moronic questions. What were his personal views about gay rights? What was the Supreme Court’s stance on legalizing marijuana? Kennedy respectfully shredded said companion, remarking that he could not comment on such questions because he had to remain objective. Kennedy objectively told us how the Justices see approximately 1,000,000 attorneys per year. Of these attorneys, he finds that the best can join the decades-long conversation among the Justices and fit right in. The Court, objectively speaking, receives about 9000 petitions for certiorari per year, considers 500 of those, and finally hears only about 75. He regaled us with his favorite story: that he was lecturing in Alabama where a man asked him how he is able to read as much as his job demands. He is an opera buff, he said, and often has a one-opera case, sometimes a two-opera case. Realizing that his answer caused a great divide between his Southern listeners and his hoity-toity self, he was highly embarrassed. That is, until an audience member raised his hand and said, “Justice Kennedy, I often have a 1-six-pack brief to write, sometimes a 2-six-pack.” Then the punchline. “Well, sir, I think I read your brief last week, and I can assure you that it was a 3-six-pack brief.” Not so funny, in an objective sense. Objectively, Kennedy never revealed as much as I had hoped for. But I expected too much. He is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The country would not function if he were not so objective. Kennedy has the audacity to live up his dry, almost brittle job description. A brilliant man who leaves much to the imagination, he made me hate myself for digging around his objective barrier. Objectivity makes this man tick more than anything else. Objectively speaking, that is. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Between The Compassionate Lines

2004-10-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

Right. Like it was really a donation. When I read this recent article , I thanked the rock gods for sending us such a charitable band. Uncharacteristic of pop sensations, the Dave Matthews band appeared remorseful of their heinous act. I recall, back in August, reading about the Dave Matthews Band emptying 800 pounds of liquid waste, "by accident," into the Chicago River. And onto a boat full of tourists. I also recall, during the same month, that the State of Illinois sued the band for $70,000 in civil damages. Dumps do not make for altruistic donations. But they do make for great press. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

First Amendment Applies To All But Ann Coulter

2004-10-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

Genius. It's like the chicken-or-egg dilemma. Did Coulter deserve to be shut up? Were the Pie Guys entitled to throw freely? Or was this really just staged to illustrate the beauty that underlies the freedom to speak? You decide. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Paul Hamm: Un-Disputed

2004-10-22T08:35:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin-born Paul Hamm is the undisputed gold medalist of the 2004 Athens Games.

Though, "undisputed" is given a whole new twist in Hamm’s case. When poor, pissed-off Yang Tae-Young won his lesser-than-gold medal, he claimed that error was made by the scorers, not by his somersaults. These scorers of somersaults swayed this sourpuss to swagger into the Sport Court (of Arbitration) with his strong suit. In Switzerland. (I swear).

Funny, the Court never disputed anything. They told the South Korean that he was too late in bringing his appeal and simply dismissed it. No scores were poured over. No judges testified. For all we know, Tae-Young may very well be the winner by .00000001. But due to legal formalities, Hamm now wears his gold medal. He truly is the un-disputed gold medalist.

Even funnier, the arbitrators are quoted as saying, "An error identified with the benefit of hindsight, whether admitted or not, cannot be a ground for reversing a result of a competition."

Let me ask you something. When any case is brought to a court, whether it be for murder, breach of contract, or harassment, don't our judges examine the situation with the benefit of hindsight? Our laws do not demand that attorneys be present at every incident that becomes the substance of their work. And the Olympic judges watched Hamm before they determined his score--which would, in effect, be judging in hindsight, would it not?

Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Adopt A Troop

2004-10-21T08:15:00.000-07:00

I was reminded yesterday of the days when, as a little girl, I cried through TV ads that offered me the chance of a lifetime: to adopt a starving Ethiopian child. Since I really did have one (and only one) lifetime, I begged my parents to help me pay the $5 a month to adopt Xhosanebele. I promised them that we would become best-via-snail-mail-friends. That we would swap our innermost secrets (mine: "I want to be famous when I grow up," Xhosanebele's: "I want running water."). I recall weeping through those long infomercials until my Mom informed me that adults support children. I was apparently content knowing that I would be able to support her in a couple of years. What reminded me of this childhood fantasy was an even more intriguing offer. If you did not know, the Presidential Prayer Team offers, among other prayerful things, the ability to adopt your very own troop! You even get a personalized prayer certificate! My uncontrollable weeping returned. And for good reason. While the First Amendment prohibits our President from declaring a national religion, he appears to retain the right to amass 2.3 million followers to pray for our soldiers. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," says the Constitution. If you take a peek at where this notion of a sinful state comes from, you will find Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion that read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). Our forefathers feared that the different religious sects of each state might try to duke it out for their religion to become the national religion were it allowed. Lawyers are upheld, by their Bar Associations and their clients, to the "punctilio of honesty" (in Cardozo's famous words) in their fiduciary relationships. In other words, lawyers are expected to be moral people. Morality is and has always been interconnected with religion. Religion is embedded in the American legal system. Religious undertones lie in our media, in our politics, and in our work ethic. Relative to other nations, pious is our middle name. Is the President bringing religion into the US through the back door? Is this team an attempt to introduce religion on a national scale? Perhaps he has confused himself with the Almighty and misinterpreted our pledge, "One nation, under God..." There is 1 troop currently waiting for adoption. While our soldiers no doubt need our support, somehow I get the sense that Xhosanbo needs me more than ever. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Taxing Changes: Grassley's Corporate Tax Bill

2004-10-20T09:20:00.000-07:00

My grandfather buses to Vegas from his Toronto home to spend his life’s inheritance on Keno. Apparently Congress was concerned about all of the taxes he pays on his gambling income well before he was. Like any great government, they want to help support this habit of his. The Senate just approved a new tax bill that your taxman is itching to have George W. sign. But while we wait for Dubya to finish tripping over his words on his way back to the White House, I thought we should examine why the new bill will present a number of changes that are vital to your future well-being. Of interest to you who prefer to kill your own dinner, there will be a whopping $9 million tax reduction on bows and arrows. About time. If you are a foreigner who not only fancies dog or horseracing competitions but like to throw a little money down on “Screwball” or “Answered-Prayer,” you are in luck. The proposed bill presents a $27 million tax break on gambling income of foreigners at American horse-racing and dog-racing tracks. The next time you are sailing by House speaker Dennis Hastert on your boat, give him a big wave and toss him a fish in thanks to the $11 million in reduced excise taxes on fishing tackle boxes. This item was his pet project. And obviously we are all better off for it. The “American Jobs Creation Act of 2004” does not use the word “manufacturing” in its title but that was the incentive for this proposed bill. Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) wanted to bolster American manufacturing, initially intending to remedy the $5 billion tax break for American exporters that the WTO had deemed illegal. He ended up with tiny 633-page bill that presents $137 billion in tax breaks for corporations. And those lucky Chinese. Who export ceiling fans. $44 million in tariffs have just been eliminated for importing ceiling fans, and Home Depot is pumped. But the Congress that giveth out also taketh away. Take section 179 of the Tax Code, for example. SportsUtility Vehicle happiness hit in 2003. When that code section was introduced, it allowed you to deduct a whopping $102,000.00 of taxes incurred in your small trade or business, particularly if the item was over 6000 pounds. (The IRS wanted to treat industrial trucks and work vehicles differently from “regular” passenger vehicles). So, everyone who paid attention hopped on the (giant) bandwagon and bought a huge SUV. If you watch TV, you’ve likely noticed that car commercials often describe the weight of the car being advertised. At least you can live with the comfort of knowing that every SUV which blocks your path or hits your car is driven by a person with an excellent tax planner. Grassley’s new tax bill put a stop to this SUV madness. The bill aims to limit the deduction on over-6000-pound vehicles to a measly $25,000. Whether or not Bush signs the tax bill is up to him. But while he is auditioning for Part 2: The Presidency, you'd better start sharpening your arrows and fishing spears and get ready for big breaks. Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

Footnotes, not FDA, Rule

2004-10-19T08:14:00.000-07:00

Looks like Chiron has plenty of flu vaccine alternatives. They just happen to be unavailable to us because of our speedy and efficient Federal Drug Administration. Check out the bottom of this page. Our teachers were right—it really does pay to read those little notes at the bottom of the text. Oh--and take this test (a.k.a. sales pitch). Apparently chicken soup does not cure the flu.

Warning: Flu Shot May Cause Hysteria

2004-10-18T22:50:00.000-07:00

Last week at Costco, I noticed a woman was handing out free samples. I put on my unassuming poker face and slowly approached her. To appear disinterested, I turned only one of my eyes to the sign below her. “Sugar-Free Chocolate Samples.” Healthy chocolate? She smiled as I reached out and with a Southern drawl (in California?) she muttered, “I’m sorry, darlin’. I’m outta samples.” How dare she. Before, I was content picking out giant cereal boxes. Now, I needed the chocolate. Mrs. Sham had introduced something great to me and now I needed the Splenda-filled delights more than any other item at Costco. More than anything ever in my life before. Ever. Did I get the sample lady fired? Perhaps. But, not unlike my Costco frenzy, this country has suddenly been hit with chocolate samples of its own: the flu shot. The Costco free sample booth? Chiron Corporation. The tease? The influenza vaccine. This country is apparently in dire need of the 48 million doses of the influenza vaccine that it was promised. Chiron Corporation, our lucky scapegoat, can only ship half the doses that it had promised its investors. Failure to live up to its promise has not only caused the SEC to open an informal civil investigation, but has tricked millions of Americans into believing that we all need a flu shot. We don’t. Reports of Chiron’s manufacturing malfunctions have spread to every news medium in the country. The New York Times has reported that doctors are price gouging in an effort to take advantage of the situation. The Wall Street Journal has made clear the gargantuan toll that Chiron’s stock has taken on Nasdaq since Chiron’s public announcement last week. And even President Bush, in the third presidential debate last Thursday, put a call out to Americans to give up their shot to those who “need” it, dangling the invisible dose right in front of our noses. It has become trendy to “need” the flu vaccine. The vaccine is a combination of 3 viruses, an A (H3N2) virus, an A (H1N1) virus and a B virus—a concoction of guesses as to which virus will hit us this year. Right on the CDC’s website, they report that the viruses in the vaccine change every year based on scientists’ predictions. They report that it is imperative for the elderly, infants, health-care workers and persons with chronic medical conditions to receive the influenza vaccine. Dr. John O’Treanor, a member of the CDC Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, spoke on NPR last week about the flu vaccine as a protective and not a preventative measure. And, not surprisingly, the majority of the 36,000 people who die every year of the flu are people who were more susceptible to getting sick anyway—the elderly, infants, and persons with chronic medical conditions. The spotlight on Chiron is unnecessary. The media knows no bounds and has created a monstrosity of a situation that is both avoidable and uncalled for. When will we have laws that stop sensationalist drama created by those muckrakers? Give the people sugar-free chocolate. They will be much better off . Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.

The Laughing Matter

2004-10-17T22:31:00.000-07:00

Did you think the law was dry and mindnumbing? Tedious and uninspiring? You were right. Our great country was founded upon a set of rules that have no elasticity. That have a built-in resistance to change. And that provide us with outcomes which leave us wanting to move to Canada. And yet, we love the law. That intricate framework which draws boundaries and creates opportunities for us helps to define who we are. It is a living, breathing organism that grows old and gets sick, but never dies. Like, ever. Do you see the humor in it yet? Lawfully yours, lawfulgal.