Thursday, October 21, 2004


I read other people's blogs. One guy, that for a long time posted many things about how he disliked Bush, decided to change his vote and vote for Bush. He did it becuase of personal reasons that he decided not to post. His normal comment stream had maybe 5 or 6 comments, which is a lot, per post. This one had 27 and I would not be suprised to see it go up. the point of this is not a pro Bush or a pro Kerry post. The thing is that I don't like the political discourse in this state. EVERYONE here is a liberal and they view having conservative views as a bad thing. I express conservative views about the death penalty and strict liability crimes and people go nuts. New York considers itself very 'progressive'. I don't like the way that word is communly used in popular vernacular, but if they were so open and accepting than wouldn't they accept views that they didn't believe in? Doesn't it go against their views to not be accepting? it just doesn't seem like open discourse here. I don't like that at all. Also this makes it tough for other people to express their views because the liberals seem to dominate the discussion and seem appalled when anyone disagrees with them. There are notable exceptions to this, but I am complaining of the masses.
Secondly today I would like to write that Bill O'Reilly's impending litigation is quite interesting. They have put in a pre-trial motion trying to get defendant to turn over the supposed tapes if they have them. I doubt it will work and they will have to follow normal voir dire procedures, but I am curious about this. It seems to me that many people in his profession seem to support him. I think tapes would seem very dispositive. I also think that 60 million is a stupid figure to ask for. She may as well be asking for a million gajillion dollars. No court in their right mind would allow for a 60 million verdict especially if there is no physical touching. We'll see how it works out. As I hear new things I will post.
Lastly I learned that in California their highest court decides whether or not to publish opinions. Cases actually have to meet a certain criteria to be published. They can depublish cases and when they do this they no longer appear in the official reporters. They still remain in the unofficial reporters, but you cannot cite to them and you cannot use them as authority. I am trying to find out if there is somewhere that publishes their reasoning for depublishing these things. If anyone knows please tell me. thanks


Post a Comment

<< Home