Tort reform.

The problem with the British system--whereby the losing party pays the attorneys' fees of both parties--is that it discourages plaintiffs with fairly solid claims that happen to be a bit light in terms of damage awards. Which has the effect of denying access to the courts for the impoverished in many circumstances. Which is bad, methinks.

So what's the solution? The status quo arguably does not sufficiently discourage frivolous claims. So how about a compromise: what if we adopt a system where a losing plaintiff must pay his own legal bills and the legal bills of the defendants, but capped at the amount he pays to his own attorneys. So if a plaintiff pays his own attorneys $3000, the defendant pays his attorney $8000, the losing plaintiff ends up paying $6000 and the winning defendant pays $5000. It prevents monstrous defense bills from excessively impacting little-guy plaintiffs, but at the same time does discourage taking wild chances by initiating lawsuits.

Bush, Iraq, and 9/11.

I think I've figured it out. No really! We're all pretty much in agreement these days that Iraq was not involved in the planes-crashing-into-big-ass-buildings event of September 11th, 2001. So some have wondered why it is that politicians keep trying to connect the 9/11 terrorist attacks with our presence in Iraq. Here's the reasoning:

There are only so many items that your average terrorist can get his hands on that will kill thousands of people. That list includes airplanes, as evidenced by 9/11. That list also includes anthrax, mustard gas, dirty bombs, and a host of other "weapons of mass destruction." So let's split the thousands-killers into two groups: everyday weapons of mass destruction (EWMDs), and special order items of mass destruction (SOWMDs). [To be fair, EWMDs are not exactly "weapons" in the normal sense of the word. But we've been fed the WMD phrase for so long that it is hard to change and not create confusion.] Terrorists can get their hands on EWMDs on their own. But terrorists need governments to get SOWMDs. Because only governments have the buying power (politically and financially) to obtain SOWMDs.

So to prevent another large scale terrorist attack using EWMDs, to prevent another 9/11, we needed to seal off the borders and tighten security at airports. Or something.

But to prevent a large scale terrorist attack similar to 9/11, but using SOWMDs, we needed to topple governments shady enough to sell SOWMDs to terrorists.

Which is not to say I think this reasoning is sound. I'm not sure how being convinced we are susceptible to large-scale EWMD attacks "fundamentally changed 'the balance of risk' in the world", and required us to rethink our approach to "rogue" states. Tighter reasoning could be found if a disgruntled Scotsman procured smallpox from a rogue state, then released it in London, killing thousands. This hypothetical would be a better impetus to go to war with Iraq, even if Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with providing the smallpox. Why? Because it would indicate our vulnerability to the actions of rogue states, and the need for better containment. Or it would provide some evidence, at any rate.

But no matter. The point is that by bringing up 9/11 during a speech on Iraq, it is not necessarily the case that Bush is ignoring the facts or trying to dupe the American public again.

Souter's comeuppance?

After the Kelo v. City of New London decision--written by Justice Souter--was handed down, some guy decided to exercise his "new" right to take Souter's house away and build a hotel. Hilarious, if misguided.

Still more MGM v. Grokster.

Goddamn it. I just realized this is a god-awful plurality opinion. 9-0, yes. But with Souter writing the "majority" opinion, Ginsburg (with Rehnquist and Kennedy joining) writing a concurring opinion, and Breyer (with Stevens and O'Connor joining) writing another concurring opinion. Which means that although we can be sure that Grokster and StreamCast infringed MGM et al.'s copyrights, we cannot be sure why. Which is really helpful guidance for those of us who really do want to avoid infringement, but nevertheless dig on innovation.

More MGM v. Grokster.

Oh good. I had been told earlier today that the Court overturned Sony. This appears, after reading more of the case, to be false. Rather, the Court distinguished Sony by pointing out that while Sony was aware people were copying, they weren't actually marketing the Betamax as a copyright infringing device. In contrast to the actions of Grokster and StreamCast (Morpheus). Comforting result, really. Or at least not as discomforting as I had feared.

What this case really demonstrates is that copyright law in this country is fucked, and needs fixing post haste. But will those clowns in Congress figure this out? No. What a bunch of clowns.

MGM v. Grokster.

I started reading the Supreme Court's decision in the MGM v. Grokster case, but had to stop myself. The "Top 40" band that Souter cites is Modest Mouse. Modest Mouse! The boys from Issaquah sure have hit the big time...

Grow a Brain.

I first became aware of Grow a Brain in March of this year, when Yodelling Llama was linked therefrom. And started reading it more-or-less religiously. And posting a comment or two. After checking YL's statistics today, I realized GAB had linked to YL again. Twice. With one of the links not even remotely related to the subject of the post.

I must say, I am flattered. It is one thing to get links from friend's blogs. Or satire sites like ISNA, Mr. Satire and The Satire Awards. But to be on the radar of such a prestigious blog as GAB is something special. Thanks Hanan!

Randy's punctuation situation.

After getting about halfway through my live bookmarks this morning, I came upon the latest JumboJoke: Why Law School Costs So Much. Which really isn't all that funny. But I mention it because the prior joke, Rules For Clear Writing, had a definite grammar police bent. Which I find very pleasing indeed. And within the RFCW post, several nods to proper punctuation arose.

Now I know Randy does not write these jokes. But he does edit them. And the WLSCSM post had what I thought was a glaring punctuation error. In the second-to-last paragraph, he opened an embedded quote ('I hereby give...), but never closed it. For shame.

So I looked around for a contact address with which to point out the error. And, after not finding one, I moved over to "This Is True." Where I found this tidbit where he indicated his belief that not only is the American practice of placing commas and periods within a quote, where the quote indicates the title of a publication, illogical and lazy--an opinion to which he is entitled, although one with which I disagree--but also incorrect. Or at least less correct than the British rule. I cannot imagine upon what basis one could deem a widely accepted rule of grammar incorrect, or even less correct. Perhaps someone could inform me? Is there an International Association of Grammatical Correctness, the existence of which has been hidden from me?

Blogger survey.

Two more stories.

Local Man Assaults and Batters Husband, Chicken and Local Cow "Mad as Hell," "Not Going to Take This Anymore".

Another new story.

Another Downing Street Memo Surfaces, Blair Expresses Concerns over Live 8's Snub of Spice Girls.

New story.

It's been over a month since YL had its last new story. And I'm afraid this one--called God Attempts Suicide with Occam's Razor--may not have been worth the wait. But it should still give you a chuckle. Enjoy.

Alphabet Song.

So I was watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance yesterday, and a bunch of children were singing the alphabet song. You know, "A B C D E F G / H I J K L M N O P / Q R S / T U V / W X / Y and Z..." Only they added a few extra "ands." And they ended the song with "now I know my ABCs / tell me what you think of me."

When I learned the song, it ended with "next time won't you sing with me." So I thought that was odd. Then I remembered back to an episode of The Simpsons called "Duffless" that aired during Season 4. Homer is pulled over, after visiting the Duff brewery, for suspicion of drunk driving. And he ends the song with "won't you come and play with me." And Lou responds "we also would have accepted 'tell me what you think of me.' " Which is what the kids in Liberty Valance sang.

So after extensive research, I've discovered that the first copyrighted version of the song--in 1834, under the name "The Schoolmaster," by a gentleman named Bradlee--used the "tell me what you think of me" ending. Am I the only one that finds this version bizarre?

Yoda on drums.

I stumbled across this incredibly stupid, but nevertheless ingenious, Flash toy: Yoda on drums.

Archive.org's feature film collection.

I must confess that until recently, while I found the goal of archive.org laudable, I found its selection of books, films, and music simply too spotty to justify regular visits (as an alternative to the regular visits I make to the local library). I had found a few gems there in the past. Mike Doughty and Pinback concerts, for example. And classic Roger Corman and George Romero films. But on the whole, not enough to alter my lifestyle.

But, bored on a Saturday night and without much a plan, I decided to check to see what had cropped up recently. And imagine my surprise to see amazing selections like Charade, His Girl Friday, D.O.A., and Meet John Doe had somehow found their way into the public domain. Wow.

Speech.

Could someone please explain to me how the criticizing foreign policy decisions of national leaders endangers troops? How objecting to racial generalizations about Arabs undermines the military? How trash-talking the President makes us less safe?

Gilmore Girls.

So I've been watching episodes from the first season of "Gilmore Girls" on DVD lately. I have dubbed it "the smiliest show on television." Which is to say while watching it, you'll smile more often, for longer, and bigger than would watching another show. It is also likely in the top ten funniest (after "F Troop", "The Honeymooners," and the delightful Matt LeBlanc vehicle "Joey").

Every time I watch "Gilmore Girls," for some reason the single-episode catchphrase of a "Tiny Toons" character--whose name and species temporarily escape me--pops into my head: "Yay Plucky! He's my hero." It is an obnoxious catchphrase to be sure. And the voice was treacle. But it somehow seems appropriate.

Aeon Flux.

I remember quite liking Aeon Flux when it was a series of no-dialogue MTV animated shorts. And I remember staying with it after they added voices.

Now there is a movie coming out this summer. It has a September release date and Charlize Theron, both of which are bad signs. But it also has the great Jonny Lee Miller playing Oren Goodchild. Of Hackers and Trainspotting fame. Ex-husband of tabloid tabby Angelina Jolie.

So, against my better judgment, I'm excited.