CBS just lost in federal court and did so because they're (a) too pig headed and (b) unable to listen. Jury found them off putting and confusing.
I'm only noting it because I had a heated argument with a friend (on legal team) who did not want to listen and insisted they knew how to handle the case.
When I told him the strategy was wrong and the presentation confusing, he replied, "Well then when we lose, I guess you can just blog about it!"
He was being sarcastic but, yes, I can.
(And after he's done licking his wounds, he will laugh that I did.)
(Licking 1.5 million dollars worth of wounds.)
Amy Davidson (The New Yorker) explores the war in Iraq in terms of how definitions matter:
That prospect—an engaged military, a disengaged public—is part of the
reason that the name we give this fight matters. Under the War Powers
Resolution, the President is required to get congressional approval
within sixty days of going to war. (Counterterrorism, by contrast, is
something that even local police departments can undertake.) Obama said
that, while he would “welcome congressional support for this effort,”
formal approval was not necessary: “I have the authority to address the
threat.” By way of justification, he and his aides have referred to
Article II of the Constitution, which designates him Commander-in-Chief.
Like some of their predecessors, they hold that the President has a
great deal of leeway to act on his own in matters of “national
security,” as Obama put it in a letter to Congress last month, or in
“protecting our own people,” as he said on Wednesday. That’s well and
good in certain emergencies, but if “national security” is defined too
broadly it would follow that the only wars in which Congress has a role
are those which somehow don’t pose any danger to Americans.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the new yorker