In certain cultures, lying is not an issue.
In most cultures, lying about Israel is not an issue.
But for Palestinian “leaders,” lying about Israel is the default position.
Archive for the ‘O Mores!’ Category
What hump?
Posted by Ron Coleman on February 14, 2010
Posted in O Mores!, Orient, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »
Demogoguing disaster
Posted by Ron Coleman on January 21, 2010
From Michael Shaw:
This is a message to Anderson Cooper and CNN…
As American citizens concerned about the humanity of the Haitian people, the sensationalist and self-promoting tendencies of American media and the power of pictures, we urge you to: Please stop.
Read the whole thing!
Posted in Heart and spirit, Medialites, O Mores! | Leave a Comment »
Best of 2009: “Bipartisan? Whew!”
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 29, 2009
This was first posted on April 21, 2009.
Obama on show trials of CIA employees:
Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.
But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.
Regrets, we have a few.
The horror.
I’d like to say this is fundamentally a dodge. It is a dodge — he wants to look ahead, not back, he’s not suggesting, he’s leaving doors open… it is a dodge, and frankly a contemptible one.
But fundamentally it is not a dodge. Fundamentally it is something much more horrible. It is the process by which the United States takes on a practice associated with tyrannies and, far from being an endorsement of the rule of law, elevates the assumption to power to the ability to punish the previous regime for “incorrect” — and hence “criminal” — policies.
It is no different from the argument about the supposedly inevitable impeachment of ex-President Bush, also based on supposed crimes arising from torture. As I wrote on a private list, made up mainly of attorneys, discussing that topic (adapted here), there is a tendency among certain people, and in particular those attracted to a certain pole in political debate, to regard their political choices or philosophical conclusions as the sole “moral” choice. In fact, (a) criminalization of political disagreement, (2) the use of penal power to punish players in the previous regime, and (3) the adaptation of legislative bodies as proxies to loose the necessary political “justice” when the traditional judicial organs refuse to comply, have historically been popular options for playing out this partisan outrage and sating the desire for “moral” vindication on the politically deviant.
Just not in this country. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Best of the Blog, Lex scripta, Liberal punks, O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »
Best of 2009: “Ron Paul: Every bit as bad as we thought”
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 23, 2009
This was first published on January 6, 2009.
Ron Paul’s wickedness is not a big surprise — it was out there, as I told you, for anyone who wanted to know. But Cold Fury lays out Paul’s latest display of true, Jew-hating colors just so:
“Israel’s preemptive war.” “A few small missiles.” Palestinians “living in concentration camps.” America “rightfully to blame.” It’s all here in this rich, rich vein of vapid isolationism, utter stupidity, and contempt for the only functioning democracy in the Middle East . . . The line between Left and Right isn’t straight; it’s circular, and the ends meet right smack between this moron’s ears.
No, it’s not “merely anti-Israel” — you can’t be that morally blind about Israel’s moral position in this situation and not be an antisemite; and given the track record, this is not exactly a new insight. As blogger Rougman comments at the post, “I guess he doesn’t want to leave that Nazi vote on the table come 2012.” They never do.
So what’s scarier — that this wretched gnome is member of Congress? Or that so many people, otherwise capable of being taken seriously, were so seriously taken with Ron Paul?
Comments here.
Posted in Best of the Blog, O Mores!, Oppression, Orient, Right Wing to Nowhere | Leave a Comment »
Ted Klaudt, “Short Eyes”
Posted by Ron Coleman on December 17, 2009
No, that won’t do, Klaudt. No in a million ways.
That’s so dumb it doesn’t even get onto my copyright blog!
Very dumb. Very bad. Are you a bad man, Ted Klaudt? Or just a dumb one?
Please don’t say “both.” That’s bad for you, and bad for Creation.
Ted.
Klaudt.
UPDATE: Ted Klaudt, Ted Klaudt, Ted Klaudt.
Posted in O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »
First, let’s all us lawyers kill ourselves
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 29, 2009
This advertising campaign is, well, bad. Very, very bad.
There is a certain irony, though, you know.
The defense representation being offered here is in fact completely legitimate — n0t only to sleazeballs, slime and creeps, who are constitutionally entitled to their defense (just not by me), but to people involved in all sorts of disputes (but typically divorces) who are wrongfully accused of being sleazeballs, slime and creeps.
But the choices made in these ads completely undermines that bona fide prospective, mainly because in the graphic, hyper-realistic and borderline pornographic pictures, the crimes being referred to are really happening.
Guess what, law firm? People who have been wrongfully accused of these acts, or who desperately want the world (including the justice system) to believe the accusation is wrong, want to be represented by the lawyers who only have innocent clients.
And from these ads, that does not seem to be you. Get it?
Turn in your wingtips. Please.
Cross-posted on Right Wing News.
Posted in Americana, Lex scripta, O Mores! | Leave a Comment »
First let’s kill all the liars
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 21, 2009
I wonder why 90% of judges refused to take affirmative action against lawyers who file papers that contain objectively, unquestionably false assertions of fact — assertions that the attorneys filing them had to have known were false.
I think the legal profession, the justice system and the world would benefit immensely from judges actually making this matter.
I know my practice would, because I don’t lie for my clients. True, to some extent it’s a good sign when the other side starts to “misrepresent the record” or the facts or the law or, well, otherwise LIE. It means my hunches were right, I’ve got their backs to the wall, they’re reduced to this. It’s useful information to me.
But why is “this” even an option? In most courtrooms lawyers can lie, if not with impunity, still at fairly negligible risk. And of course it handicaps my ability to achieve a just result for my client if the other side perceives that it can lie and get it away with it.
I’ll tell you a short story which you might think shows the opposite of what I’m arguing for here, but it doesn’t.
In one case I’m involved with, we have a judicial officer who is a tad taken with himself. He sees every dispute between counsel for the parties as an opportunity to crucify one or the other of them. There are no grey areas, no reasonable interpretations of language or law that could depart from his. I long ago gave up on approaching this judge with requests to “help both sides work out this issue,” a problem-solving mechanism most judges urge lawyers to use when they get to a sticking point. No — this former prosecutor does not understand the meaning of any of those words (“help,” “work out” or “both sides”).
So, the story. I was in court along with an associate, and he had the floor as both sides were walking through who said what to whom and when about some discovery issue. We reached a point where my associate and the other side had divergent recollections of what had happened. So this judge, out of nowhere, orders my guy, a fairly junior lawyer, on the stand, and then tells the other guy, who was every bit as stunned as we were, to cross-examine his own adversary, under oath, about what happened!
It was a travesty — and this was in federal court! Not only this: When my adversary — who didn’t have the spine, or presence of mind, or whatever, simply to refuse to take part in this circus — failed to get the “gotcha” moment the judge was looking for in this unplanned and improper cross-examination, the judge himself jumped in and, interrogation-style, took over the “cross,” cornered my guy and “got” what he wanted.
I will never forgive myself for letting this happen, by the way. But I was so stunned by it. I’d never seen such a shtick in 20 years of law practice.
Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
We were later in court again. And this judicial gent pulls the routine again — only this time he tells me to get on the stand! And while I had not exactly planned it out, I had thought about what would happen if he tried this again. The question was whether my adversary, i.e., the attorney himself, should be deposed on a certain subsidiary but relevant topic. And this is how it went:
THE COURT: Mr. Adversary, do you want to be deposed?
MR. ADVERSARY: I don’t think — I haven’t — first of all, I’m not sure when Mr. Coleman spoke to me about it.
THE COURT: But when did — Mr. Coleman, when did you speak to him about it?
MR. COLEMAN: We spoke about —
THE COURT: When did you say, “I’d like to depose you. Are you willing to do it?” When did you do that?
MR. COLEMAN: I didn’t say that to him.
THE COURT: Okay. So when did you discuss with Mr. Adversary your desire to depose him?
MR. COLEMAN: When we had our meet and confer.
THE COURT: When was that?
MR. COLEMAN: That was after last year and we — and that was among the topics discussed was whether or not we — it would be appropriate to depose —
THE COURT: Is that true?
MR. ADVERSARY: That simply never happened.
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s have a hearing right now. Get on the witness stand. No, no, no. Mr. Coleman, come up and state under oath what you’ve just told me and then I’ll allow you to be cross-examined on the subject; you’ll cross-examine Mr. Adversary on it; and I will make findings. And if I make a finding that somebody has committed perjury you’ll refer you to the United States Attorney’s Office. Shall we do that?
MR. COLEMAN: If the Court insists, I will do it.
THE COURT: Well, it seems to me that I would have to have a hearing like that if I was going to proceed on your motion. No?
MR. COLEMAN: No, I don’t think so at all. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to have even actually asked him or even to have discussed it.
THE COURT: I don’t care if it’s necessary or not. You’ve made a representation to me that you did so.
MR. COLEMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: And you’re prepared to rely on that?
MR. COLEMAN: I’d never say anything that I wouldn’t say under oath.
THE COURT: On the stand, please.
MR. COLEMAN: I’m going to proceed under object — under objection.
THE COURT: Well, when you say “objection” do you wish to — you make an objection to preserve your ability to seek relief. What relief will you seek on the basis of it? In other words, is it something where you would like me to stay [unintelligible] that you can seek review from the assigned District Judge as to whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law to have you take the stand to satisfy me that a — as to which side is correct in a factual dispute?
MR. COLEMAN: No.
THE COURT: Okay. So what is the objection?
MR. COLEMAN: The objection is in — depending on how the proceeding ends up going. I’m not interested in staying this proceeding and — but rather stating on the record that I find it objectionable that the Court has this practice of putting attorneys on the stand without notice. Every time —
THE COURT: Well, forget it. We’ll have notice. We’ll come back on — I’ll find the date. It will be — I’m not here next week, but we’ll come back later and you’ll have notice.
MR. COLEMAN: Well —
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. COLEMAN: If the Court considers it necessary, then I’ll come.
THE COURT: Well, we have a factual dispute here between lawyers. Now, Normally I take lawyers at their word, but we have words. We’re saying things that are irreconcilable —
MR. COLEMAN: But I don’t —
THE COURT: And I’d like to be able to have a basis to determine which of them is true.
MR. COLEMAN: But are they material, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You’re asking me?
MR. COLEMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: I will ask the questions and you will answer them. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores!, Oppression, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »
Rights in the abstract
Posted by Ron Coleman on November 5, 2009
What could make the director of a Planned Parenthood Clinic quit her job and join an anti-abortion group?
Oh, just abortion:
“I had never seen an abortion happen on an ultrasound,” she said. “My job during the procedure was to hold the probe on the woman’s abdomen. I could see the whole profile of the baby 13 weeks head to foot. I could see the whole side profile. I could see the probe. I could see the baby try to move away from the probe.” . . .
Although she had seen ultrasounds before, including during her own pregnancy, Johnson said she had never seen an ultrasound image during an abortion. She is unclear why, as the director of the clinic, she was asked to be in the procedure room on that day, because it was not a normal part of her duties. Still, Johnson said, the experience changed her forever.
“I just thought, ‘What am I doing?'” she said. “And then I thought, ‘Never again.'”
The controversy years ago over The Silent Screen (careful) was never based on accusation that the depiction of an eleven-week-term abortion was anything but misleading. It was based on the concept that “a woman’s right’s to choose” — which, today, is the official name of abortion in Democratic politics — should never be connected in the public mind, or in any moral way, to what is actually being chosen, and who, or if you like “what” else, it affects.
Because that would be some sort of cheating, I guess. Making people feel bad and all about what happens when they want to exercise “a right” is so wrong.
UPDATE: This seems to be the some of the most active blog coverage I’ve seen. Otherwise, not much compared even to the MSM, much less the religious blogs — because, guess what: The so-called right wing blogosphere is mainly libertarian, and this is an issue that doesn’t, er, skew so great for it.
Posted in Faith and Works, Heart and spirit, O Mores! | 3 Comments »
Beyond politics
Posted by Ron Coleman on September 16, 2009
That’s what Jon Stewart is, at least — at least regarding ACORN.
My favorite line: “Your pimp outfit appears to be a fur coat on top of your Andover uniform.”
Even Stewart is mocking that idea that this mere right-wing agitprop. As Glenn Reynolds (who I now see has also embedded this video) says in another post:
And you have to love this: “Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, called the tactics used to go after Mr. Jones and Acorn ‘McCarthyite,’ and said the critics were harping on minor failings.”
Yeah, it’s exactly the same. Heck, compared to Joe McCarthy’s famous pimp disguise, this kid’s an amateur. . . .
Posted in Gelt, Liberal punks, Medialites, Metropolis, O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »
What the Jewish-controlled media won’t tell you about September 11th
Posted by Ron Coleman on September 11, 2009
First published September 8, 2007.
Instapundit points to this extraordinary article in the Weekly Standard about the Nazi roots of Al Qaeda, by a German analyst:
What ideas propelled [9/11 plotter Mohammed] Atta and the others to act? . . . . One participant in the Koran circle meetings, Shahid Nickels, said Atta’s Weltanschauung was based on a “National Socialist way of thinking.” Atta was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination and considered New York City the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy No. 1. Fellow students who lived in Motassedeq’s dormitory testified that he shared these views and waxed enthusiastic about a forthcoming “big action.” One student quoted Motassedeq as saying, “The Jews will burn and in the end we will dance on their graves.”. . .
Amazingly, neither the American media nor the international press took much notice of this testimony, largely refusing to report on Atta’s and Motassedeq’s explicit Jew-hatred. [I]n this case, involving attackers of Arab background, journalists apparently found the issue irrelevant. . . .
[Similarly,] the 9/11 Commission Report is a case in point. Instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred had reached epidemic proportions in the Islamic world well before September 11, the report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies. . . .
A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.
Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles.
What’s the explanation for this? I would posit a few possible ones:
- A completely misplaced desire to avoid offending Muslims, who of course should not be offended, if they are indeed moderate, by accurate descriptions of their extremist brethren
- A similarly misplaced, though relatively benign, desire to avoid, ironically, “blaming” the Jews for “bringing” this attack “on” America — as if to report this twisted, and objectively preposterous rationale would be to vindicate it
- A left-wing desire to urge as “root causes” of extremist violence Western policies that are conveniently the opposite of their preferred policy prescriptions, coupled with the fact that describing deep-seated Arab antisemitism as a motivation would undermine those very preferred policies (e.g., more pressure to produce Israeli “concessions” from their friendly neighbors who supposedly desire only to live in peace with the their Jew neighbors)
Mix and match, or suggest your own. But don’t expect to read about this in the New York Times.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, across the Pond…
Posted in Faith and Works, O Mores!, Oppression, Orient | 1 Comment »
