A reminder to readers in the Raleigh-Durham area that I’ll be speaking at lunchtime today to the Federalist Society chapter at the law school in Chapel Hill, room 4082.
While on the subject of North Carolina, it seems the state’s most famous current politician has started his PR rehab with a talk at Indiana U..
Guide dog Skeeter Jones, who has loyally served a student during her time at the school, is the lucky canine. I understand Fark.com claims credit for being first to observe that the honoree may already have genuine ambulance-chasing experience. (LegalBlogWatch, Nov. 11).
Ron Coleman has the report. We covered the case in June.
“Pharmaceutical company Biopure Corp.’s defamation and trade libel case against a National Institutes of Health official for his statements in an article co-authored for the Journal of the American Medical Association raises concerns about the litigation risks of scientific discourse.” (Sheri Qualters, “Suit Against Scientific Journal Raises Litigation Issues”, National Law Journal, Oct. 31; MassHighTech; Pharmalot).
We said something relatively nice yesterday about the president-elect’s incoming chief of staff, but there’s no way to sugar-coat one of the less appealing items on the Illinois congressman’s record: his vocal advocacy of mandatory national service. From his 2006 book The Plan: Big Ideas for America, co-authored with Bruce Reed, currently the #1 selling book in several political categories at Amazon and #91 overall:
It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.
(J.D. Tuccille, “Obama’s chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service”, Examiner, Nov. 6).
Some think we’re being alarmist in wanting to know more about the episode late last week (blogged here, here, and here) in which the Obama transition site posted (and soon thereafter silently retracted by alteration) a policy statement indicating that its plan would require participation in community service. After all, pointed out one correspondent, the issue had come up repeatedly before the election, and the Obama campaign had given assurances then its plan wasn’t going to be compulsory. What were the odds it would introduce a major policy change so quickly and stealthily after winning? Unfortunately, that doesn’t put an end to the issue. As everyone knows, all winning candidates pay concessionary lip service during campaigns to views that their key people may not share in private (cf. Goolsbee and NAFTA). Those discrepancies often foreshadow later deviations of policy from the line taken during the campaign. We may hope last week’s web posting reflected nothing more than a staff mix-up, quickly corrected, as opposed to some staffer’s relaying in all innocence a view of the issue formed by listening to internal campaign discussions. But wouldn’t it be better if the transition itself went public with such a reassurance?
Turns out there’s a city in southeastern Turkey by the name of Batman. And its mayor wants royalties. “‘The royalty of the name “Batman” belongs to us … 
Sometimes a headline, and the story behind it, just makes our day. (Elefant channeling Patently-O). Given that the “inventor Clive D. Menezes is a Halliburton patent attorney”, and Halliburton as a big industrial company has presumably gotten shaken down by patent trolls many times in the past, it seems to have taken some of the commenters at Patently-O a while to catch on as to possible satirical intent.
Update: Or maybe not precisely satirical intent: Halliburton has issued a statement saying that it “has no intention of applying the technique offensively. Rather, Halliburton intends to use any patent that may issue from this application defensively to discourage entities that engage in such tactics.” (AmLaw Daily).
He’s oh-so-dismissive of John Derbyshire for overreacting to an Obama national service plan that (in Smith’s words) “is, whatever its merits, voluntary”. His commenters pile on. Meanwhile, Smith completely misses the actual news of the day on the subject, namely that the Obama transition team’s Change.gov website flatly endorsed a mandatory, not voluntary plan, and then silently edited (and later yanked) its language when bloggers noticed. How misleading is it to describe Derbyshire as reacting to a voluntary plan when he was quite patently reacting to the sudden prospect of a mandatory one? And Andrew Sullivan was unfair and misleading in the same way.
Ben Smith writes for one of the hottest news operations around, which means he’s well situated to start digging for questions you’d think almost any reporter would want to ask about this episode: who drafted or approved the first version, the one that got edited before being yanked? Was it some staffer misinformed about the genuine thinking of the Obama team, which would make the later editing a relatively conventional (if covert) effort to correct a mistake? Or did the language reflect actual thinking that the Obama team has not yet seen fit to share with the public? I certainly hope it was the former and am by no means ready to jump to the latter conclusion. But wouldn’t it be nice if our press corps took an interest in shedding light on such questions? (& welcome Coyote readers).
