Recently, this weblog has been highjacked by the rogue editor, politEsq. Challenged last
night by our Vice President, we pledge to stand up to any such invasion of our space –
with pre-emptive strikes as needed - for at least the next four years.
Instead of politics, with the help of Master Issa and George Swede, let’s celebrate yesterday’s
surprise visit from my twin brother. He’s already headed home to wife, kids and clients, after
groaning with me at the Vice Presidential debate and trying out my new futon.
(You can see the 3-year-old bow-tied duo by clicking here) 
bamboo shoots–
big brothers, little brothers
grown so quick!
are those nightingales
brothers?
identical voices!
sparrows at the gate–
the brothers’ first
fight
waving goodbye
to the father a clothesline
of children’s shirts
the open mouths
of my two sons soundless
above the waves
cute waitress -
no protest
when we say we’re old
[Oct. 6, 2004]
remember when you could read the fine print?
from Nest Heads by John Allen (UComics.com, Aug. 22, 2004)
if people ask
and dewdrops answer
is the lesson learned?
Issa/Lanoue
Right now, an hour after their debate, I wouldn’t want to have either Dick Cheney or John Edwards in the Vice President’s office. Let’s save a bunch of money and leave the position open for four years (rent out that great mansion on Mass. Ave).
- Can you spell d-i-s-p-i-r-i-t-e-d? Dick Cheney said nothing that I found helpful or persuasive. But, John Edwards really let me down. He had a lot of little points to make and decided to make them, whatever questions were asked — even when answering the actual question would have been very advantageous. For example: When Gwen Ifill asked if flip-flopping could be a good thing. Edwards ticked off the President’s own flip-flops, but not how an open-minded re-assessment of facts and tactics can make for better decisions — while stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes can make things worse. TalkLeft asks who won and why. I say Edwards only won if you already supported him.
-
From Bull to Pit Bull: On October 1, 2004, the Florida Bar filed its request for Supreme Court review of Judge Herring’s ruling in the (800) PITBULL case, which found no deception in using the Pit Bull logo or 800 number (see our posting). (Fla. Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler, Dkt. SC04-41) Thanks to Marc Chandler of Pape & Chandler for the tip.
Correction (Oct. 8, 2004): Although we expect the Florida Bar to appeal the Referee’s Report and Order, such an appeal has apparently not been filed at this point. The notation on the Florida Supreme Court case docket to which we linked earlier appears to be a notice that the review process must be commenced by Nov. 29, 2004, as called for in the bar rules [Rule 3-7.7(c)(1)]. We apologize for the error and any inconvenience it may have caused. Please remember that, while Homer may occasionally nod, the retired ethicalEsq definitely naps a lot. Your Editor promises to do better next time, and hopes the Florida Bar will choose to let — dare we say it — this sleeping dog lie.
- Barack Obama is at Rick Klau’s house tonight for a fund-raiser. Maybe we’ll get a clue about Obama’s tort reform position. We first asked the Obama Campaign on Aug. 4, 2004. [Update (1 A.M., Oct.): Rick got my question too late to ask Barack, but will try to follow-up. They had 100 attendees on just 5 days’ notice. And, Rick wants the world to know his wife is a saint. Funny how many wives are saints/martyrs! Here’s Rick’s recap.]
