“Power, not reason, is the new currency of this [Supreme] court’s decision making”
- Justice Marshall, on the final day of the court’s 1990 term. Two hours later, he announced his own retirement"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html
Showing posts with label quote of the day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quote of the day. Show all posts
21 June 2007
30 May 2007
pick one
Which of the following is the real The New York Times quote of the day:
(A) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s about partial birth abortion. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(B) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(C) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is there's a war on terror. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(D) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is there's a gas shortage. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
Answer: who cares? It's all empty political rhetoric and that's the way we like it. We're Americans. OK, it was B. Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30immig.html
(A) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s about partial birth abortion. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(B) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(C) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is there's a war on terror. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
(D) "If you want to scare the American people, what you say is there's a gas shortage. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens."
Answer: who cares? It's all empty political rhetoric and that's the way we like it. We're Americans. OK, it was B. Full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30immig.html
18 November 2006
Quote of the Day
“The shells themselves are made of different materials, a barrier shell, that is relatively much more impermeable.” Dr. Scott L. Spear, the chief of plastic surgery at Georgetown University who has conducted clinical research for Allergan of Irvine, Calif., describing new silicone breast implants approved by the FDA and available for you use on Monday.
My first thought, well - maybe my second thought - upon reading that the FDA has approved silicone breast implants and dismissed earlier safety concerns was "wow - Dow Corning must be pissed." But, it looks like they emerged from bankruptcy ok and have a spiffy website up and running, so I guess that whole "class action" thing is in their past.
The more I read the article, and the more I reminded myself that this FDA is part of the Bush administration, the more skeptical I became. And then I came to today's Quote of the Day, and other comments that 70% of implants rupture and that women should only assume that their implants are safe for 3 years, after which they need to have regular MRIs. If you are gonna put a plastic bag in your body and fill it up with liquid, wouldn't you want it to be close to the fluids that are already there? Silicone? Forget about it - you might as well have kerosene implants as far as I'm concerned.
As is rightfully pointed out by "Dr. Sidney Wolfe, chief of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. . . 'The approval makes a mockery of the legal standard that requires ‘reasonable assurance of safety.’ ”
At any rate, someone needs to send Dr. Scott L. Spear over at Georgetown a dictionary. American Heritage Dictionary defines 'Impermeable' as "impossible to permeate" - as in, nothing can get through; zero; zilch; nada. Something can't be more impermeable, more impossible. It is impossible for me to fly - but is it more impossible for me to fly in outer-space?
As if that wasn't enough, he even qualifies the "more impermeable" with "relatively." I guess that means that the new implants are more "more impermeable" that some things, but less "more impermeable" than others?
full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/washington/18breast.html
read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701246.html
My first thought, well - maybe my second thought - upon reading that the FDA has approved silicone breast implants and dismissed earlier safety concerns was "wow - Dow Corning must be pissed." But, it looks like they emerged from bankruptcy ok and have a spiffy website up and running, so I guess that whole "class action" thing is in their past.
The more I read the article, and the more I reminded myself that this FDA is part of the Bush administration, the more skeptical I became. And then I came to today's Quote of the Day, and other comments that 70% of implants rupture and that women should only assume that their implants are safe for 3 years, after which they need to have regular MRIs. If you are gonna put a plastic bag in your body and fill it up with liquid, wouldn't you want it to be close to the fluids that are already there? Silicone? Forget about it - you might as well have kerosene implants as far as I'm concerned.
As is rightfully pointed out by "Dr. Sidney Wolfe, chief of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. . . 'The approval makes a mockery of the legal standard that requires ‘reasonable assurance of safety.’ ”
At any rate, someone needs to send Dr. Scott L. Spear over at Georgetown a dictionary. American Heritage Dictionary defines 'Impermeable' as "impossible to permeate" - as in, nothing can get through; zero; zilch; nada. Something can't be more impermeable, more impossible. It is impossible for me to fly - but is it more impossible for me to fly in outer-space?
As if that wasn't enough, he even qualifies the "more impermeable" with "relatively." I guess that means that the new implants are more "more impermeable" that some things, but less "more impermeable" than others?
full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/washington/18breast.html
read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701246.html
08 November 2006
quote of the day
"If the [law] be clear, we are bound to conform to it even though we do not comprehend the principle upon which it is founded."
From Commonwealth v. Pullis, the first American criminal prosecution for conspiracy against striking shoemakers in 1806.
From Commonwealth v. Pullis, the first American criminal prosecution for conspiracy against striking shoemakers in 1806.
03 November 2006
Quote of the Day
“When I see someone wearing headphones in the New York City Marathon, I feel sorry for them,” Mr. Solarz said. “They don’t even know what they are missing. The hoots, the hollers, all the bands, the excitement. When else can a skinny white guy wearing little shorts run in Harlem and get cheers?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/fashion/02fitness.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/fashion/02fitness.html
18 September 2006
Legal quote of the Day
When special interests claim that they have obtained favors from Congress, a court should ask to see the bill of sale. Special interest laws do not have "spirits," and it is inappropriate to extend them to achieve more of the objective the lobbyists wanted. . . . What the industry obtained, the courts enforce; what it did not obtain from the legislature--even if similar to something within the exception--a court should not bestow. . . . Recognition that special interest legislation enshrines results rather than principles is why courts read exceptions . . . with beady eyes and green eyeshades.
Chicago Professional Sports Ltd. Partnership v. National Basketball Ass'n, 961 F.2d 667, 671-672 (7th Cir. 1992) (Easterbrook, J.)
Chicago Professional Sports Ltd. Partnership v. National Basketball Ass'n, 961 F.2d 667, 671-672 (7th Cir. 1992) (Easterbrook, J.)
23 August 2006
Legal Quote of the Day
"Men cannot always, in civilized society, be allowed to use their own property as their interests or desires may dictate without reference to the fact that they have neighbors whose rights are as sacred as their own. The existence and well-being of society require that each and every person shall conduct himself consistently with the fact that he is a social and reasonable person. "
Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 149 (Minn. 1909)
Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 149 (Minn. 1909)
25 July 2006
Quote of the Day
"Law, as an instrument of justice, has infinite capacity for growth to meet changing needs and mores. . . . The law should be based on current concepts of what is right and just and the judiciary should be alert to the never-ending need for keeping legal principles abreast of the times. Ancient distinctions that make no sense in today's society and that tend to discredit the law should be readily rejected." Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc., 269 Cal. App. 2d 224, 227 (Cal Ct. App. 1969) .
on the iPod:
Paul Weller, Heavy Soul
on the iPod:
Paul Weller, Heavy Soul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)