f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

first, another teaser from tug of the current — this time,

by Pamela Miller Ness:

 

 

talk of divorce–

she leaves the map

open on her desk

 

 

autumn equinox

walking the loop trail

the other way

 

birthday morning

he tells me that 53

is a prime number

 

 

Pamela Miller Ness  tug of the current.  Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 2004  

(Red Moon Press, Jim Kacian, ed., 2005)

 

 

and, a Ness bonus from The Heron’s Nest:

winter doldrums up to her elbows in potting soil

 

 

• 
  
  by dagosan:  

a dear aunt’s cluttered desk —

checking email

from her guest room

 

                                          [Feb. 25, 2005]

 

 

  My mentioning the FTC’s teaser website yesterday, made me

wonder what has happened to Yusuf Islam, f/k/a Cat Stevens, since he was

removed from an airplane and deported for supposed terrorist connections last

September.(prior posts here, there).  Imagine my surprise that I had missed the news

ten days ago, as reported at Mr. Islam’s website:

The UK’s Sunday Times and Sun newspapers have agreed to pay

Yusuf Islam substantial damages in respect of articles published on

17th and 19th October 2004.  Both reports falsely alleged that Yusuf

Islam was or had been involved in supporting terrorism and suggested

that, as a result, the US authorities had been right to refuse Mr Islam

entry into the United States in September 2004.

“Six months after the fiasco of my deportation from the USA, my formal requests for 

clarification from the authorities there are seemingly being ignored,” he said.  (see the

Reuters report, and bbc.’s coverage, both Feb. 15, 2005)

 

  Remember the cute baby’s first word in Meet the Fockers?  That’s the one that comes to 

mind for the sponsors of a CLE seminar on Capital Trial Advocacy in Hunt County Texas, who

thought they should be able to keep a prosecutor out.  Get over yourselves and your “proprietary”

tactics! (law.com article, via  LegalReader)  And, yes, issue-spotters, money came from the courts

to help pay for the seminar.

 

  Irascibly teasing my e-friends: 

Nothing personal, George, but snarky is waaaay over-used and 

clearly going on my “please banish this word” list for the 2005 awards at

 Lake Superior State University.  A Google search today dug up 289,000

results for American Heritage Dictionary tells us that snarky

comes from a Dutch word for snoring.   It sure puts me to sleep.

 

And, Evan, LSSU put “bling” and “bling-bling” on the Banished List —

for some very good reasons — two years ago.  [825,000 Google results.]

‘Nuff said.

  If you haven’t left Comments here, here or here yet on UPL,

why not?   Of course anonymity is frowned upon (not teasing).  There was

a big surprise for me today Googling guild mentality“> — 3 of the top four

results refer to ethicalEsq‘s post in Sept. 2003, on lawyer websites and guild

mentality.  #1 was an elawyer post on the topic.   I found a nice quote from

Milton Friedman on the ABA and AMA in a Mises article:

“The justification offered is always the same: to protect the

consumer. However, the reason is demonstrated by observing

who lobbies at the state legislature for the imposition or

strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are invariably representatives

of the occupation in question rather than of the customers. True enough,

plumbers presumably know better than anyone else what their customers

need to be protected against. However, it is hard to regard altruistic

concern for their customers as the primary motive behind their determined

efforts to get legal power to decide who may be a plumber.”

  Before it slips my mind, I must say that I agree with RiskProf Martin Grace:

Walter Olson has done an admirable job of explaining med-mal insurance research

in his two responses to Tuesday’s New York Times article.  RiskProf also points

a finger at the press: “the level of reporting about this particular issue seems

to be at the level of an uninformed undergraduate. . . . Most of the analysis seems

to be a rehash of ATLA or Chamber of Commerce arguments.  Why don’t we see

original analysis? ”