The Case Against Limbaugh
With America's Free Speech rights, libel and defamation cases are hard to win, particularly when the comments' target is a public figure. That's why celebrities always bring libel cases in the U.K.'s more accommodating courts. Nonetheless, it seems Rush Limbaugh may have gone far enough in his attacks on President Obama to meet the tough American standards. Limbaugh claimed, among other inflammatory things suggesting that Obama is a failure whom other people always covered for, that Obama didn't write his own law review article while at Harvard Law.
To win a libel suit asserting that Obama did in fact write his own article, Obama would have to show the accusation was false, and that Limbaugh said it with actual malice. Proving the statement false is pretty easy, according to a former Harvard law classmate. But what about actual malice? While many might think Limbaugh's actual malice toward Obama to be self-evident, the standard is "reckless disregard" for whether the statement was false. Rush reckless with the truth? What would Obama's odds be of proving that? I can't imagine we'll find out, as it's hard to see the President filing suit over this.
How Easily Can the Cops Track Your Cell Phone?
Whenever your cellphone is turned on, your carrier records where you are every seven seconds or so. That information is used anonymously for commercial purposes, such as analyzing real-time traffic, and you can't do anything about that. But how easy should it be for the cops to get your whereabouts? The 3rd Circuit is going to decide whether it's extremely easy, or fairly easy. That is, does law enforcement need to show only "reasonable grounds" to believe the information "relevant and material to an ongoing investigation" or do they have to meet the "probable cause" standard required for making an arrest or performing a search?
Partners in Boston Make Bank, Legal Job Losses Drop, New York Workaholics Even More So
Law partners in the Boston area are seeing record profits, thanks in part to large associate and staff layoffs.
Nationally, the legal services industry lost "only" 1,100 jobs in January, which is a big improvement; December's total was nearly double that, and the industry has lost over 44,000 jobs since January 2009. Of course, a job loss decrease, as everyone in this economy viscerally understands, is not good news. Hiring, now, that would be good news.
Attorneys know that New York lawyers are the workaholics of the industry; attorneys who want lives relocate to Washington, D.C. or San Francisco. Well, New York attorneys -- those still with jobs -- are working harder than ever. A new report says demand for legal services increasing, and notes that billable hours were up most in New York, among major markets, despite a 3% decrease in "headcount." That is, even more billable hours being done by less people -- no wonder New York is the city that never sleeps.
influence than people. They own the Republican Party almost completely,
they can start wars, as they did in Iraq, they can collude to set
prices as the health insurance and oil companies do, and they buy
legislation. The Enron example was a learning tool for many, as it
showed CEO's and upper management how to loot a company and get away
with only a slap on the wrist, hence eight years later we have a
meltdown in our banking industry, but even that affected no one's
outrageous bonuses. Our government is controlled and led by the
corporations, who set the agenda. Last I heard the health insurance
industry has 2700 lobbyists and all the money they need to make sure no
reform is allowed. With the Supreme Court ruling it will be far worse than it is now.
It is We the people, not We the Corporations!
by: Yolanda Monge | El País (Spain)
So, what is this Tea Party, then, and where did it come from? The name is borrowed from one of the famous events that triggered the American Revolution. In 1773, a group of colonists, in an act of protest against the British Empire and their bloody taxes, hurled crates of tea into the Boston Harbor. Samuel Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States, is suspected of being one of the instigators of the rebellion. Today, in addition to being the name of a popular Boston-based beer company, Sam Adams' legacy lives on in the convention hall of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel (the largest American hotel outside of Las Vegas), here in Nashville, where several Tea Party-goers can be seen dressed up in historical Adams attire, parading up and down the hallways and calling for "the revolution."
The 21st-century incarnation of the Tea Party is a movement that brings together mostly white, working-class men who find themselves in a state of panic after being hit hard by the economic crisis. Many of these people also feel uneasy about the presence of a black man in the White House - a black man who they regard, moreover, as a racist, a Marxist and possibly a Nazi.
The birth of the Tea Party movement - which came out in full force this past September as thousands congregated in Washington, DC, on September 09, 2009 - can be traced back to the furious outburst of CNBC's Rick Santelli who, in February of 2009, to oppose the Obama administration's housing bailout proposal. After that, the movement took off and Americans across the country began to organize their own Tea Party protests.
Although they claim to have neither Republican Party affiliation nor an official leader, Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential nominee for the Republican Party, closed the convention on Saturday night at a dinner party that cost attendees $350 a plate, lobster option available. Palin charged $100,000 for her appearance, a bounty she says she will give back to "the cause." The high cost of the event has been a source of friction among Tea Party followers: charging a $549 registration fee during times of economic crisis was reason enough for FreedomWorks, a primary organizer of the movement, to skip out on the Nashville convention. Could this be the first schism in what might eventually become an official third party in the United States?________________________
The one word answer to your question NO! The billionaires club that runs this country will not allow a third party, especially one that goes against their own economic interests.