Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘O Mores!’ Category

Samuels’s Round Tuits: “It’s like a masters class in blawg review”

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 9, 2009

Wow.  Remember what I said?  (And I’m not the only one.)  No matter what you do, don’t be stupid and buy into what some consultant sells you as “social networking” to build your practice if you don’t have (1) something to say, and (2) a gift — or a honed set of skills — for saying it in compelling fashion.

Well, that doesn’t mean that if you don’t have these things, the next best thing is to just steal it from someone else!

You really have to read this to see what @ScottGreenfield is talking about.  But here’s a sample of what on earth is going on out there, where it’s evidently nuts:

Scott Greenfield was displeased to discover that his RSS feed was being “scraped” and reproduced by an outfit called USLaw. When confronted by Greenfield,USLaw behaved unprofessionally; their unsatisfactory response prompted Greenfield to reconfigure his feed to offer only partial posts. While this is entirely understandable and part of a Greenfield post beats a dozen posts from most bloggers, the change was not in Greenfield’s interests or his readers’; it was a necessary but regrettable response to unprofessional behavior. For what it’s worth, while it was well beyond fair use for them to reproduce the posts as they did, USLaw didn’t represent Greenfield’s writing as anything but his work. USLaw behaved unprofessionally, but they were not obligated to do otherwise. As far as I can tell, they are not practicing attorneys; although they operate in the broader legal internet space, they are not legal professionals bound by codes of ethical conduct and subject to discipline for unethical behavior.

Without excusing USLaw’s conduct, what’s been done by attorney Melina Bennighoff or on her behalf by a marketer is much more objectionable. As Bennett explains, Benninghoff scraped posts from Bennett’s blog and others’ without those authors’ consents and reposted these on Benninghoff’s blog. It is noteworthy that the reposted items are identified as “by benninghofflaw”. A cursory search online revealed that Benninghoff has also set up several Twitter accounts with false names and pictures to drive traffic to her singularly ridiculous blog and boost her position in search engines.

What this boils down to is a practicing attorney lifting copyrighted content from other sites and presenting it as her own work for commercial benefit. That she may have hired a marketing consultant who has done these things in her name and for her benefit may be meaningful to some, but it shouldn’t matter; attorneys are, and should be, ethically responsible for their own actions and those of their agents. . . .

Confronted by Bennett, Benninghoff’s marketer, Wayne Conley, responded unconvincinglyand set-up a fake Twitter account using Bannett’s wife’s name. At Legal Blog Watch, Carolyn Elefant wrote about the whole sorry affair, calling it “Law Firm Marketer Gone Wild”.

It’s the Wild West out there.

Man.

And… don’t even think about it.  I say that with all due modesty.

Posted in Blogophilia, Lex scripta, Nuvo-Techno, O Mores!, Social networking | Leave a Comment »

The wrong thing: Kennedy in Arlington

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 27, 2009

jfkjrsalute

The third time as farce

I felt a little bad writing a fairly vicious piece about Ted Kennedy that I posted pretty much at the cusp of his stay in this world.  But then I considered that, seeing as how he was so sick, he probably would not read it.  So I did not kill him.

What kills me right now, though, is that while there is nothing to be said for speaking ill of the dead, there is plenty to say about the very ill idea, which sounds like all but a done deal, to bury him in Arlington National Cemetery.

This is astonishing, and it is so wrong, that we do have to speak.

Ted Kennedy’s two years as a buck private in the Army were spent far, far from harm’s way — and there was plenty of harm to be had, in a place called Korea.  He technically qualifies for Arlington (both as a veteran and a member of the Senate), which despite running out of space is still open for business.  But he is not merely going into a private’s grave or even a Senator’s :  He is being buried alongside his assassinated brothers, a former President, Senator and war hero and a former Attorney General, bona fide presidential candidate and Senator, murdered by politically motivated killers for what they stood for.

And what did Ted Kennedy stand for?

Right, he just died.  I’m not writing that piece.

But his burial alongside John and Robert Kennedy vastly demeans their memories, and is an uncomfortable reminder of the heavy thread — well, call it a chain — of political fixing and nepotism that characterized the entire sad Kennedy saga.

Jack and Bobby were not perfect politicians, leaders or men by any stretch of the imagination, but in the scheme of things, they arguably rose to the level of opportunity their father bought for them.

I know this because I read about in books.  I was child when each of them was killed.  But to paraphrase Lloyd Benson, we all knew Ted Kennedy, and he’s no Jack Kennedy… or Bobby.

Notwithstanding his legendary personal charm and “effectiveness” in the Senate, and not even considering his worst crime, Ted Kennedy was merely the undistinguished scion of a very wealthy, powerful family. He not only achieved virtually nothing on his own merit prior to his preposterious placement into the Senate, but had already been shown to lack the basic sort of ethical standards that would have, in that time, disqualified anyone else for high public office.  Nonetheless he spent a gin-soaked lifetime raising the taxes and controlling the lives of those less privileged than himself, assured of life and, as it turns out, death in that exalted office by virtue of representing a constituency besotted by a family name burnished by his more accomplished and “martyred” older brothers.

Edward Kennedy’s internment alongside those brothers is a tawdry reminder of the stain of corrupt nepotism and elitism that will demean what had, despite those dubious origins of the Kennedy legacy, become a hallowed place in American civic religion.  It is the wrong thing, yes, but in fact it is probably, at the end of the day, entirely right.

UPDATE: There are comments here, too.

Posted in Americana, O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

Now that is one bad crook

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 5, 2009

You’d have to be to beat these pro-acquittal factors:  A black elected politician, a New Orleans jury, and mere charges of bribery brought by the Bush Justice Department?  Don Surber reports:

A federal jury convicted former Congressman William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, of 11 counts of being one big crook.

I am glad to see justice is served.

He likely will appeal.  So what?  He’s a crook.  Send him to prison — or considering the cash found in his fridge, send him to the cooler. The convictions care a potential of more than 20 years in prison — give him every single day possible.

He earned it.

Well, those guys in Congress have to earn something, some time.

Posted in Americana, O Mores!, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Academic freedom a queer notion

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 21, 2009

David Lat reports that the NYU community is up in arms over the appointment of Dr. Li-ann Thio,

the NYU visiting law professor whose views on homosexuality have made her the legal academic everyone loves to hate. It’s an online petition, addressed to the NYU law school and university administration, expressing “deep dissatisfaction with New York University School of Law’s appointment of Dr. Thio Li-Ann as a Global Visiting Professor of Law.”

The petition concludes by articulating the belief “that the Administration’s decision to appoint Dr. Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach ‘Human Rights in Asia’ is inappropriate and offensive.” There’s an additional option, selected by many (but not all) of the signatories, calling upon the administration to rescind Dr. Thio’s appointment.

Not all the signatories are quite that crass, or open, about their limited scope of their tolerance for unfashionable intellections as to that moral “human rights” issue regarding which no dissent is tolerable.

This should be interesting to watch.

Posted in Edumacallit, O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Soul man?

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 30, 2009

From the latest Governor Heedless:

The once-promising presidential prospect said he is committed to reconciling with his wife, but professed to The Associated Press his continued love for the Argentine woman at the center of the firestorm that gutted his political future.

In emotional interviews with the AP over two days, he said he would die “knowing that I had met my soul mate.”

What a pathetic specimen.  What a pile of protoplasm.

A stack of unmanly goo.

It is really something to watch a man unravel in public like this.  He’s making the brilliant Eliot Spitzer look, well, brilliant, actually.

Now, that takes some doing.  So to speak.

Posted in Americana, Narcissus Rex, O Mores!, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

You brute!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 17, 2009

Obama, it turns out, isn’t even different about being different, especially as regards the… different:

“When a president tells you he’s going to be different, you believe him,” said John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist.

You do?

What if he says, “This time it’s for real” or “I’ll call you”?

In fact, it turns out John Aravosis is all kinds of apoplectic about the things going down in his world (via Insty).  Here he’s particularly outraged that Barney Frank, being all gay and all, doesn’t agree with The Agenda:

Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I’m told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we’re better than the Republicans – by repeating their arguments in court.

You’re missing my point if you read past the first line (I just could resist pasting the whole thing) (you can learn about the actual legal issue here):  Aravosis is livid that this offensive political view is being espoused by “Our senior most gay member of Congress.”

Let me get this straight:  Gayness is supposed to lead to a specific political outlook?

If so, then is there anything wrong, after all, with opposing a candidate for office because he’s… that way?

Or maybe I’ve finally found a topic that can actually cause me to write words defending Barney Frank.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, O Mores!, Oppression | 1 Comment »

Out, damned blog!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 7, 2009

Unknown

On one of my favorite topics, anonymous blogging — James Joyner (via Glenn) is unhappy with one particular bit of outage:

While I generally find the practice of revealing people’s secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when it’s appropriate.  Public officials who are abusing their power is the most obvious case.   Here, however, there is no public benefit achieved. Whelan is simply annoyed that Publius had been “biting at my ankles in recent months” and critiquing his blog posts.

Jeopardizing a man’s career and family relationships over something so petty is simply shameful. Anonymous Liberal (which, I’m given to understand, is not his given name) hits the nail on the head:

It’s really difficult to put into words just how despicable and childish this behavior is. This is a man who was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. He’s currently the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And he’s acting like a six-year-old.

[…]

The reality is that if you don’t think your work product can withstand the scrutiny of a few anonymous bloggers, than you have no business publishing it. And if your ego can’t withstand being criticized by people who write under pseudonyms, then you’re far too insecure to be blogging for a living.

Well, I’d say something different: If your career, life or whatever can’t stand the pressure of being held responsible for your words, then you’re far too insecure — literally — to publish them on line, especially when they’re at someone else’s expense.

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

There’s no “public interest” test for outing an anonymous blogger.   There is only the test of how far you can go before you show your hand, and the test of accountability in the public sphere.  And I say if you’re prepared to shoot out someone else’s lights, whether or not he is “blogging for a living,” then be prepared to have your’n popped, too.

Accountability.  In a free society, if you can’t stand behind it, I see no reason why you should be allowed to get a pass on saying it.  Put differently, you’ve got every right to say it, and every right to pay for it.

Posted in Blogophilia, O Mores!, Oppression, Social networking | 9 Comments »

Edwards reaffirms. Only not that Edwards.

Posted by Ron Coleman on May 11, 2009

Remember this one?  “Edwards reaffirms key political question.”  And this, its predecessor.

Oh, did I get abused for this.  Even by some pretty slick brains.  How could I be so mean.

Well. And… and… to Her.

And now?  It’s as if I’m the only one left who hasn’t piled on at this point.

But wasn’t that a different issue?   The cancer?  The suffering, saintly wife?

Not at all.   It’s all of a piece.  Two things:

  1. People like this are made for each other.  That doesn’t excuse the humiliation visited on their wives, but it does tell you something about a woman who would be with the likes of such men in the first place.
  2. Anyone who couldn’t see what a cynical, wicked phony John Edwards is — and I don’t mean a mere scamp like Bill Clinton, but an utterly soul-less, ambition driven, demagogue with a potentially unlimited capacity for unprincipled rule — from “go” wasn’t looking.

Silky pony indeed.

UPDATE:  What were my mean old words?  That he was either “a liar or a moral retard.”  Yea-heah.

Posted in Heart and spirit, O Mores! | Leave a Comment »

Not in the spirit

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 24, 2009

A little too friendly

A little too friendly

This makes sense to me.  Via Above the Law I found this item on something called “Facebook ghosting”:

One popular Facebook “ghost” was a blond female temptress, the site reports.

The team allegedly would use these fake profiles to get friend-level access to recruits’ information on the site. The thinking there is that if a team official spots a player in Facebook photos smoking dope or partying hard, the team might avoid a bad draft pick and a potential public relations problem.

The fake profiles are called “ghosts” because they disappear soon after they surface.

I wonder if this technique exists in other spheres of recruiting? At law firms? At banks? In other sports?

There’s no hard evidence the NFL ghost-profile incident is part of a trend, said Justin Smith, editor of the blog Inside Facebook, which tracks the social networking site.

It’s not only going on with athletes and prospective employees.  I’m 99% sure that the rash of friend requests that I have recently received from essentially unconnected, untraceable young women claiming to be Christians but looking decidedly, um, different in their mode of dress is part of some attempt to get conservative bloggers of a certain level of prominence (like somewhere above the C-list, I guess) to do and say stupid things for later use.

Quite the dirty trick.  Lucky for me I — well, no, it has nothing to do with luck.  I’m just not stupid.

Careful out there, boys and girls.

UPDATE:  A famous blogger friend passes along this link — all that “principles are for everyone” stuff is for political consumption, don’t you know.  Duping righties is completely cool.  It all depends on the ends!

Posted in Nuvo-Techno, O Mores!, Social networking | Leave a Comment »

Bipartisan? Whew!

Posted by Ron Coleman 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.

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 Lex scripta, Liberal punks, O Mores!, Oppression | 15 Comments »