King of Fools

The surprise ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham in Denver handed the telemarketing industry its second legal victory this week and put in doubt the future of the Federal Trade Commission's national registry.

Although Nottingham's ruling is certain to be appealed, legal experts said that at the very least it will delay implementation of the program, which was scheduled to start Wednesday.

Nottingham voided the FTC registry because it offered consumers the option of banning unwanted calls from for-profit businesses but not calls from charitable organizations, which, the judge reasoned, are just as intrusive. This 'content-based' discrimination between two otherwise indistinguishable forms of speech, Nottingham ruled, violated the First Amendment.

Iranians and Yemenis account for the next largest number of foreigners being held by U.S. forces, Bremer told reporters at the Pentagon. He was unable to provide precise numbers.

Foreign Islamic terrorists and "mercenaries" who have infiltrated into Iraq from Syria and Iran constitute a large part of the threat to U.S. troops, along with backers of former dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, Bremer said.

The suspected al-Qaida members were identified in interrogations and by examining confiscated documents, he explained, adding that some of those who have entered Iraq from Syria "may also be al-Qaida."

"Several hundred" members of a terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which U.S. officials say is allied with al-Qaida, also have re-infiltrated Iraq and pose a major threat, Bremer said.

"They're a very dangerous terrorist group, and that's a lot of terrorists," he said.

The Senate and House were expected to consider legislation Thursday that would ensure the free government service goes into effect as scheduled next week, deflecting unwanted sales pitches to more than 50 million registered phone numbers.

A flood of congressional proposals defending the list came only hours after an announcement Wednesday that a federal judge in Oklahoma City had ruled the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority by creating the registry. Telemarketers who sued to block the list stopped short of declaring victory because there was uncertainty about how the ruling would affect the FTC's plans.

Consumers may continue signing up for the list despite the ruling, FTC spokeswoman Cathy MacFarlane said.

Frankly, having now experienced (you do not 'view' this film) 'the Passion' it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded 'After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't.' He continued 'It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus'

I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations.

The ruling, issued on Tuesday in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and made public today, found that Congress had not given authority to the Federal Trade Commission to establish the national registry.

Sounds like they didn't anticipate the storm.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION - In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

What Clark meant, his aides scurried to say, was that he would have voted aye only to pressure Saddam Hussein into allowing more inspections, and as a way of scaring the United Nations into taking more action. But that was the rationale many Democrats in the Senate (including Kerry and Clinton) used to justify their yes vote. Dean, by contrast, agreed with Gore: that a yes vote on the resolution was tantamount to giving Bush a strategic blank check, sanctioning the president's theory of pre-emptive war. Dean says he would have voted no; Rep. Dennis Kucinich actually did so.

Clark's new spinners blamed the confusion on reporters' refusal (or inability) to understand fine distinctions - and on Clark's own naivete about the brutish simple-mindedness of the campaign press corps. Lacking infrastructure (his new press secretary was using her husband's cell phone), Clark personally printed from his computer a sheaf of his writings showing his passionate opposition to the war per se. "We screwed up, but we're learning," one aide said. In Iowa, he declared he "never would have voted for the war," though war was precisely what the resolution he "probably" would have supported authorized.

It said the ban was a warning to the stations and other broadcasters for inciting anti-United States violence.

'Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya will temporarily be excluded from any coverage of Governing Council activities or official press conferences, and correspondents of the two channels will not be allowed to enter ministries or government offices for two weeks,' the statement said.

The Baghdad that Bennett sees is a city where gunfire erupts every night and dozens of Iraqis are reported dead in the morning. Looting and robberies are common. ''There is a mounting terrorist threat, and the people who want to kill American soldiers are getting more organized,'' he says.

But he also sees a city where restaurants are reopening daily, where women feel increasingly safe going out to shop, where more police means intersections aren't as clogged as they were this summer. ''My neighbors are nice,'' he says. ''My street is a pretty quiet place.''

When Bennett visited the USA a few weeks ago, he realized that, five months after the U.S. invasion, the Iraq he lives in doesn't mesh with the bleak picture that friends here are getting from the media.

The further outside of Tehran I was the less political and less critical of the government people were, although not completely without regard. They did not like the situation but were less inclined to openly complain about it.

When I was riding in cars in Shiraz with my friend Ali many of the people had questions for me. They often wanted to know what I thought about their country. They were very proud and they were concerned that I would think less of Iran, and them, since it was not as modern as America and economic conditions were not as good.

I sensed a strong identity with America from many of the people. I think this is because of the success and power of America, and also because of the feeling that in America anyone who wants to work hard can be personally successful, which is a value that they respect. I think many people in Iran feel that their country could and would achieve the same success if not for the leadership of the clerics.

This insight into the way the Iranian people think gave me a new perspective on the foreign policy of the USA. Think about it like this. Let's say that over 50% of the people in Iran would like to get rid of their government of mullahs (I believe the number would really be over 90%). In a democratic system, with over 50% wanting something they would get it. So if an outside influence (USA) helped them get what they want, isn't the outside influence doing the democratic thing?

Of course I realize that this issue is not so simplistic and the opportunity for abuse by the outside influence is huge, but at any time is it ok for an outside influence to help shape another country if it is the desire of the majority in that country? I have never been to Iraq, but I wonder what the majority of people there want?

Patrick Graber, 31, was arrested in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly claiming to be a Russian mobster willing to kill the Colorado teenager for $US3 million ($A4.44 million) on Bryant's behalf.

Hypothetical matchups found the Republican beating both of the state's Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) and Charles Schumer, if the elections were held today.

The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion found 62 percent of registered voters want Giuliani to return to public office, while 32 percent felt Giuliani should stay in private business.

...

In a hypothetical matchup for the U.S. Senate against Clinton in 2006, the poll found 57 percent favoring Giuliani over 40 percent for the incumbent Democrat. Giuliani would beat Schumer 51 percent to 45 percent if the 2004 election were held today, according to the poll.

The Iraqi dictator is demanding safe passage to the former Soviet republic of Belarus. In exchange, he has vowed to provide information on weapons of mass destruction and disclose bank accounts where he siphoned off tens of millions of dollars in plundered cash.

President Bush is being kept abreast of the extraordinary talks by his National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice. She is co-ordinating negotiations in Baghdad which are led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of American forces in Iraq.

The United States has vowed never to negotiate with Saddam and want to take him dead or alive, but the White House hopes the clandestine talks will allow them to pinpoint the tyrant's exact location.

A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This proscription does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties, to the explanation of court procedures, or to a scholarly presentation made for purposes of legal education.

Moreover, the official Commentary makes clear that this isn't limited to cases that are still before the judge, or for that matter to cases that involve the judge's own court: "The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending action continues until completion of the appellate process. If the public comment involves a case from the judge's own court, particular care should be taken that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Canon 2A." As Beldar points out, none of the exceptions in the Canon apply here; hard to see the Pregerson statement as anything other than a Code of Conduct violation.