GOP-voting, Hollywood-dwelling, Bill-Maher Writer Reviews United 93 AND Bill Clinton

Human Events Online ^ | Apr. 28, 2006 | Ned Rice, (ANNOTATED by Mia T)

[Mia T]

Republican-voting, Hollywood-dwelling, Bill-Maher-writing Master of Tongue-in-Cheek, Paladin of Truth, Reviews 'United 93' AND Bill Clinton

'United 93' Defames Islam, Bill Clinton Equally

by Ned Rice, (ANNOTATED by Mia T)
Posted Apr 28, 2006

 

Mr. Rice is believed to be the only person in Hollywood to have both written for Bill Maher and voted Republican. Ned is currently a staff writer at the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. His other staff writing credits include The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Politically Incorrect, and many other fine television programs. He can be reached at egrice@comcast.net.

United 93 is a taut, well-crafted “what if?”-type political thriller about what might happen if a group of murderous fanatics hijacked commercial airliners and used them as long-range missiles to destroy civilian targets within the United States.

United 93 is well-acted and well-directed, with terrific special effects and a harrowing climactic sequence which, while disturbingly grisly, is sure to get the patriotic blood boiling—especially among un-educated Red Staters in fly-over country who tend to be suspicious of all “foreigners.” (Spoiler Alert: In this tale three of the four hijacked planes find their targets; United 93 takes place mainly on the fourth plane).

So what’s the problem with United 93? In a word, plausibility. Granted, a certain suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite for enjoying thrillers, horror movies and other filmed works of fiction, but there has to be at least some semblance of reality in what is unfolding onscreen in order for the audience to “buy into” the story being told. And as any informed person knows, the events depicted in United 93 are simply too far-fetched to be believable.

Right off the bat the makers of United 93 reveal their ignorance of recent history because, in point of fact, the World Trade Center was attacked. By sheer coincidence, in 1993 a group of young Muslim Arab males used a rented van filled with explosives to try to topple the twin towers. (By way of historical perspective, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center by Arab Muslims occurred after the totally random 1988 bombing by Arab Muslims of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and before the totally random 1996 bombing by Arab Muslims of a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.) But their plot largely failed. President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department then brought indictments against the guilty parties and had them arrested, as any sensible person would in response to such a criminal act. The attackers were convicted in a court of law, found guilty, and placed in prison where they remain today. So much for the idea of any further attacks on our World Trade Center!

Indeed, one would have to have slept through virtually the entire eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency to have made a film as historically inaccurate as United 93. (And if there’s one thing this writer prides himself on it’s his sense of history). A terrorist conspiracy such as the one depicted in this film could not possibly have taken place so soon after the Clinton era.

First of all, a plot of this scope would have required literally years of planning, which means that an attack occurring in September of 2001 would have to have been conceived, planned, and largely carried out (i.e., the financing, the placing of terrorist “moles” within the U.S., the hijackers’ flight training, etc.) while Bill Clinton was still President. This, in a word, is simply preposterous: as any schoolboy could tell you the whole world loved the United States and every American from the day Bill Clinton first brought his unique brand of dignity and respect to the Oval Office until the sad day he stepped down. Moreover, the planning for a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on such a scale would have quickly been detected—and just as quickly stopped—by our nation’s combined law enforcement and intelligence communities.

In a nation where Janet Reno’s Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI all worked together like a well-oiled machine to effect a seamless exchange of ideas and information, even the best-laid attack plan wouldn’t stand much of a chance. Or to put it in layman’s terms, you couldn’t keep a terrorist plot this big a secret in Bill Clinton’s America if you built a virtual wall between the FBI and the CIA … not that such a thing could ever happen.

Even more flawed and wrong-headed are the political—and yes, the racial—implications of this movie’s basic premise. United 93 asks us to imagine that 19 religious fanatics undertake simultaneous suicide missions targeting perhaps tens of thousands of innocent American civilians—and that all 19 of the attackers are Arab Muslims! Even statistically speaking, what would be the odds that four different airliners, departing from three different cities, would be hijacked within minutes of each other on the exact same September morning—and that all 19 hijackers would be Arab Muslims? Did somebody say “conspiracy theory”? Come on, Hollywood … this plot point is practically screaming “re-write”!

To say nothing of the cultural insensitivity (and ignorance) of implying, as United 93 surely does, that young Arab Muslim males are more prone to violence than are the rest of us. As any educated person can tell you, the Muslims have always been a peace-loving people. In fact, the word “Islam” means “peace”. (I think “Islam” actually means “submission,” but I guess that’s pretty much the same thing. Ed.)

Ethnically profiling Arab Muslims as a group of fanatics bent on some sort of global holy war against non-believers might play well in the sticks, but back here in the real world (New York, Los Angeles), everyone knows that the religious fanatics we really have to worry about are the white Christian ones. Like Timothy McVeigh and … and all the other ones, too. For United 93 to be realistic at least half of the hijackers should have been white, red-state Christians, preferably pro-life fanatics, End-Timers, or—at the very least—Promise Keepers. Far as I’m concerned, making a movie in today’s modern world that portrays Muslim Arabs as murderous fanatics is nothing short of a hate crime.

For all of its shortcomings in terms of believability, United 93 nearly redeems itself during its final moments. The display of raw courage by the doomed passengers as they thwart the terrorists’ plans with a coordinated assault of their own had an authenticity that will resonate with even the most cynical.

The obvious implausibility of the grim scenario depicted in this film notwithstanding, one senses that a group of average Americans in a similar hypothetical situation would have fought back with all they had so as to ensure that their lives would not have been lost in vain. Granted, all that “Let’s roll!” business was a little “on the nose,” as any decent Hollywood script doctor could tell you.

But in the final analysis the heroism shown by the passengers on Flight 93 was authentically American. That’s who Americans are, and that’s what Americans would have done. The idea that heroes like the “Todd Beamer” character would have given up without a fight, or begged for mercy, or tried to reason with the hijackers, or even—God forbid—tried to see things from their point of view, as if such brutality could ever be justified by some ludicrous stretch of the imagination—now, that’s something that could never happen.

Could it?

---

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 

UNITED 93:THE CLINTON-9/11 NEXUS
"We have to do it now. We know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing...."



CLINTON: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'
(+ Albright-Fulbright-Nobel TERRORISM revelations)

by Mia T, 4.24.06

LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE AUDIO: Fulbrighters' gasps of horror follow clinton's "I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak...."

I suspect the horror was provoked not by the (proven) fecklessness and recklessness and rigidity and danger of the purported clinton 'terrorism policy' or even by the absurdity of the argument; I suspect the gasps of horror were in response, rather, to the Kill-Bill kind of violence (albeit "virtual") contained in bill clinton's words.

God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.

--Paddy Chayefsky

 

And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless. --Mia T

'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' THE ADDRESS	THE (oops!) TRUTH
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war.... But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... 6 So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'  I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... 1 I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening." bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan. We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden]. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." bill clinton Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002 Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer "I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.' I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him." bill clinton Sunday, Sept 3, 2002 Larry King Live "You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda." hillary clinton Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 Chitchat with Jane Pauley San Francisco, CA
... I thank you for this award, even though, in general, I think former presidents and presidents should never get awards.  I was delighted when Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize because I thought he earned it, and I thought it was great because he got it as much for what he did after office as when he was in office.  In general, I think that the fact that we got to be president is quite honor enough. bill clinton Fulbright Prize address April 12, 2006	"Bill Clinton is still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. But for now, he'll just have to settle for "the political play of the week." Bill Schneider CNN reporting on the Fulbright Prize April 14, 2006       WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East. Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated Friday, October 13, 2000 By Rita Cosby       There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president. AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL       At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct. Mia T Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

READ MORE

 

hat the loser is up to here:

1. Sheltered by a messy war, rising gas prices and a tanking president, haunted by his own failed, dysfunctional presidency and longing for the ultimate mulligan, the peacenik-posing, draft-dodging proximate cause of 9/11 intensifies the Left's Tet-Offensive gambit replay...
   
   

2. as he claims he ignored terrorism on purpose, which he actually did; but not for PEACE, as he claims. Rather, it was the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE--his obsession, his ultimate validation (in his own mind, anyway)--that in the end produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled him (and his wife) to shrug off terrorism's global danger.
   
   

3. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward. It is no surprise, therefore, that bill clinton blames his failure to confront terrorism on his eponymous mentor, the-dead-and-defenseless-as-a-doornail Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright. Clinton's simplistic (and cynical--note the caveat) leap from Cold War to asymmetric netherworlds and his shameless choice of venue are the product of unbridled egoism and contempt.
   
   

Biography lends to death a new terror.--Oscar Wilde

  

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of Clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson posthumously misappropriated...

Mia T, THE OTHER NIXON

   

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

READ MORE

ALBRIGHT INDICTS CLINTON FOR TERRORISM FAILURE
(and doesn't even know it)

ALBRIGHT¹: 'Bin Laden and his Network Declared War² on the United States and Struck First and We Have Suffered Deeply'

by Mia T, 4.28.06

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

READ MORE

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

by Mia T, 04.18.06

 

 

"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war....

But sometimes we would have these debates where people would say, if I didn't take some military action this very day, people would look down their nose at America and think we were weak.  And I always thought of Senator Fulbright.... ⁶

So anytime somebody said in my presence, 'Hey, if you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' 

 

I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow?  If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak.... ¹

 

I learned that as a 20-year-old kid watching Bill Fulbright.  Listening."

bill clinton
Fulbright Prize address
April 12, 2006

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

Reason Enough To Act
BY MARK STEYN
The New York Sun
April 17, 2006

or the clintons to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR.

Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and America is the number one clinton imperative.²

DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN

The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.³ Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,⁴ given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.⁵

But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.

PURPOSEFUL FAILURE

First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.⁵ (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.¹ Bin Laden told us so himself.

Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?

Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

MORE

 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[chaosagent]

Bookmarked

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Darkwolf377]

That is excellent.

But I cringe in anticipation of the posts from people who don't get it...

[E.G.C.]

Mia T. Bump.

[Mia T]

My title forewarns, I hope. ;)

[Wolverine]

bump

[Mia T]

Indeed, one would have to have slept through virtually the entire eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency to have made a film as historically inaccurate as United 93. (And if there’s one thing this writer prides himself on it’s his sense of history). A terrorist conspiracy such as the one depicted in this film could not possibly have taken place so soon after the Clinton era.

First of all, a plot of this scope would have required literally years of planning, which means that an attack occurring in September of 2001 would have to have been conceived, planned, and largely carried out (i.e., the financing, the placing of terrorist “moles” within the U.S., the hijackers’ flight training, etc.) while Bill Clinton was still President. This, in a word, is simply preposterous: as any schoolboy could tell you the whole world loved the United States and every American from the day Bill Clinton first brought his unique brand of dignity and respect to the Oval Office until the sad day he stepped down. Moreover, the planning for a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on such a scale would have quickly been detected—and just as quickly stopped—by our nation’s combined law enforcement and intelligence communities.

In a nation where Janet Reno’s Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI all worked together like a well-oiled machine to effect a seamless exchange of ideas and information, even the best-laid attack plan wouldn’t stand much of a chance. Or to put it in layman’s terms, you couldn’t keep a terrorist plot this big a secret in Bill Clinton’s America if you built a virtual wall between the FBI and the CIA … not that such a thing could ever happen.

'United 93' Defames Islam, Bill Clinton Equally
by Ned Rice, (ANNOTATED by Mia T)
Posted Apr 28, 2006

Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

thanx to Fixit for the audio

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

 

 

 

e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.

Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.

Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
  
• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect....

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998

 

Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support the thesis that the Wall was cover for international clinton crimes.

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

 

I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.

LEARNED HAND

Since there are occasions when every vessel will break from her moorings, and since, if she does, she becomes a menace to those about her; the owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B<PL.

LEARNED HAND
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)

 

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

 

 

 

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

forgot the 'thanx' ;)

[visualops]

bump

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

This piece does assume a certain level of knowledge and ratiocination.

[kellynch]

Same here. I printed it out and have already forwarded it to several friends. As my friends across the pond would say, "it's bloody brilliant!"

[wildcatf4f3]

Forwarded as well

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thx :)