Here's a You Tube video that tries to put our current economic woes in plain terms. Unfortunately, simplifying complex issues almost always leaves the viewer/listener/reader without all the facts, but it's interesting. Of course, the real lesson here shouldn't be that one party is better for the economy than the other. Instead, it should be that neither party is good for the economy.
This society wasn't built on intelligence as much as on hard work. Unfortunately, hard work has become something of a scapegoat for health problems, and that doesn't bode well for our culture. On the other hand, there are some people out there that still lead industry through hard work, and that will keep us going. Click here to read my note on just such a person. Originally posted July 17, 2009, on the blog, What About Clients?, on which I'm a regular contributor.
Why do you all care so much?
Excerpts from my cousin's email that sum it up well, give or take a point.
"While I could stand only snippets, I could not avoid the freak show that was the memorial. It was everywhere! While watching the Michael Jackson history rewrite, I noticed that some of the things being said were beyond inappropriate. Of course, I've gotten used to that, but no less repulsed by any of it. They are turning this pervert into Jesus. He's a holy man. And if you speak out against him, you will be destroyed for your sacrilege.I don't think it's good to speak ill of the dead. It's like kicking a man while he's down. But I didn't start this. You've been inundating me with this, but your hero worship is misplaced. That's not good either.
The facts that govern my perspective:
1. He was a talented singer, dancer, and performer.
2. He molested boys. Sheila Jackson Lee gave a shouting speech in which you quickly learned that you better not speak against Jackson; you will be targeted. She wielded the Constitution like a weapon even though she obviously hasn't read it. People are innocent until proven guilty. That's true, in a court of law; however, that does not exempt them from the court of common sense. We all know O.J. did it, don't we? That's thanks to the civil system, where it's easier to get the truth heard. Also, you can't convict someone if it doesn't go to trial because the witnesses are paid off.
3. He had dozens of cosmetic surgeries. I wouldn't care about this other than it's now denied. They admit to two nose jobs. Yeah, right. That's not such a solid statement to hang your hat on.
4. His "kids" aren't his. I believe TMZ. Why? Because it's been obvious for years. I knew this from the start -- as did anyone with any sense -- when they first showed the veiled, purely Caucasian kids. But the media won't touch it. At least, not with him.
5. The pity party is designed to elicit sympathy for someone who set up his own world. Poor Michael; couldn't go anywhere without being hounded. What a tortured life. Gimme a break.
6. He was a drug addict. Why did the Lord take him? Ummmmm, . . . he didn't. Michael took himself, nimrods. It wasn't a natural death. He had thousands of dollars of prescriptions. I heard 50K per month. He was 5'11 and 108 pounds. God didn't take him prematurely, so stop saying it.
Wait! It fits the myth! Say it now and say it often, and 10 years from now, it will become fact. The rewrite begins."
Thanks for the thoughts. Not sure I believe anything TMZ reports. The fact that TMZ reported it is the best argument against it. But the point is well taken . . . and it could be true.
Depositions are basically intreviews taken by attorneys of all the witnesses that might be on the stand at trial. These interviews are often the bearer of bad news, showing the weeknesses in your arguments and the strengths in the other side's arguments. Still, they're not that bad. Click here to read my brief note and cite to a reference on depositions. Originally posted July 6, 2009, on the blog, What About Clients?, on which I'm a regular contributor.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held Virginia’s “Partial Birth Infanticide” Act constitutional in Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring, No. 03-1821 (June 24, 2009). In Herring, a doctor sued to enjoin (i.e., legally stop) the Act’s enforcement, claiming that the Act was facially unconstitutional because it was so broad that it would criminalize the dilation and evacuation (“D&E”), the most common, least expensive, and safest method of second trimester abortions. The doctor claimed that, even after reading the statute, a reasonably intelligent doctor wouldn’t know what was legal and what was illegal. This would discourage doctors from performing the procedure, effectively eliminating a women’s right to an abortion. (Whether you like it or not, that's currently the law.)
Looking to Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), a case decided by the Supreme Court on the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U .S.C. 1531) while this case was waiting its turn there, the Fourth Circuit pointed out that the findings of the Virginia legislature and the doctor’s own statistical evidence showed that it was rare that a D&E would result in a situation giving rise to potential liability under the Act. Also, even in those rare cases where that could happen, the Act would most often provide a safe harbor, excusing the doctor’s actions because they would be necessary to save the life of the mother. So, there were only a small fraction of circumstances where the fetus was delivered alive and intact, and the mother’s life was not at risk. In those cases, though, 1) it would be clear what the doctor’s obligations would be under the Act, and 2) the state's criminalization of the behavior would be constitutional, because at that point the state would have an interest in protecting the life of a fetus, even considering past abortion decisions.
This is a tough issue for a lot of people. The legal point to be learned is that the courts shouldn't throw out statutes easily. Consider that when you wonder why a statute that you thought was bad was held constitutional. Maybe it is a bad law, but is the product of compromise. In most cases, the statutes better reflect the will of the people, and that should govern. We are a democracy, aren't we?
Trademarks are catch phrases, logos, and even color schemes that you may associate with your goods or services that you use in your business. Here's a recent case on trademarks.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 2009-1100 (July 1, 2009), upheld decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") and the US Patent and Trademark Office that denied registration of the trademarks, Shinnecock Brand Full Flavor and Shinnecock Brand Lights, for cigarettes. The Federal Circuit held that the marks violated Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(a). That section prohibits registering marks that falsely suggest a connection with a non-sponsoring entity, and Shinnecock refers to a Native American Indian tribe that has no connection to the products. Among other things, the Applicant claimed that failure to allow registration demonstrated a pattern of discrimination against Native American Indians attempting to register marks. The Federal Circuit held the claim meritless, as the Applicant provided no support for his claims of discrimination. Even if true, however, the claims of discrimination could not be justification for allowing the Applicant's improper registration, but rather an argument for disallowing the other registrations.
The point? You can't select a trademark that inappropriately associates itself with another group. Consumers might think the group endorses your products and services when in fact they don't.
Click here for my review of Stephen Bochco's latest dramatic series, Raising the Bar, appearing on TNT on Tuesday nights at 10pm ET. Originally posted June 8, 2009, on the blog, What About Clients?, on which I'm a regular contributor.
