While acknowledging the legitimacy of their message, Bill Maher lambasted Occupiers Friday night for their strategic and tactical nonsense. He might have also mentioned that insisting on the “right” to monopolize land that was intended to be shared with others, is a legal and moral affront. Occupiers often tout the importance of reaching a consensus [...]
Chris Francescani’s otherwise solid Reuters article about George Zimmerman, with previously undisclosed and illuminating background info, is marred by the baseless assertion that Zimmerman “disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin.” Actually, there’s no known evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher “suggested” he halt, but the lynch mob has brainwashed a lot of people into perceiving fiction as fact.
Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement is centered around the word “occupy,” deciding which property to take over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn’t seem to be based on any guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes terrain seizable.
When someone who habitually drinks to excess vomits from the flu, it’s not an indication he threw up from drinking too much. Though it would likely be beneficial for him to curtail his imbibing, it’s not a good time to make that point. Telling him then anyway, and expecting a favorable response, is like using the Tucson tragedy as an excuse to scold right-wingers, and expecting them to see the light.
Julian Assange doesn’t like using condoms. Should the two women have been surprised? Mr. Assange is well-known for his dangerous.... releases. Now I am not an advocate of unprotected sex, per se, but can’t a better contraceptive be developed? Do we still need to torture penises to be safe? I might as well hump a Ziploc.
In an op-ed published January 5 by the Guardian, Naomi Wolf argues that Julian Assange’s alleged Swedish victims - and all sex crime accusers – should be publicly identified by their real names. Wolf is mostly right. But in her zeal to promote the benefits of disclosure, she neglects to mention that women who have been raped still tend to endure a type of hardship which rarely – if ever – affects any other crime victims who seek justice.
In an op-ed just published by The Washington Post, Rabbi David Nesenoff ascribes this incendiary opinion to the legendary journalist Helen Thomas, who was recently forced to retire after the rabbi posted an impromptu interview he had conducted with Thomas on the internet: “The Jew has no connection with the land of Israel.”
Even biased judges sometimes decide cases correctly, and with free speech experts of all stripes applauding the Citizens United decision, it’s far from apparent the Supremes falsely interpreted the First Amendment for political or ideological reasons.
Refuting conventional wisdom that the man who wrote the majority opinion was nefariously motivated, left-leaning constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told Keith Olbermann: “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy is no corporate shill. He really believes in this...It’s all about limiting speech."
At a public hearing Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Chad Hummel, the lead defense attorney in Roman Polanski's criminal matter, wanted it known that although he had recently asked for an in-chambers meeting to confer about one particular issue of "great sensitivity," he had never suggested anything else shouldn't be discussed in open court.
One reason I don't hate Roman Polanski is I don't know exactly what he did with or to Samantha Geimer in 1977. Moreover, compared to those who perniciously enable systemic corruption by obsessing over the punishment of one person, I think Polanski's reaction to evident judicial misconduct is laudable. Why should anyone take that crap?