Theorem: Exactly Two People Read This Weblog Regularly
(Or at least, exactly two people comment on it regularly.)

Not counting me. Then again I don't always remember to check this weblog for comments. That slows the pace of back-and-forth debate, which could be good or bad depending on the discussion.

Even though you both mostly disagree with me, I'm tempted to offer you write privileges just to expand the content here.

More about lawyers...
...unless these women are representing themselves, somebody actually took this case.

Shameful.

Good News
A bad bad thing comes to a better ending. Probably not a happy ending -- too many lives ruined -- but less horrific than it would have been.

Profanity is too weak. But if we have to have the death penalty, isn't this the kind of crime for which it should be reserved? --Who Is Jane Galt?

This.

United Nations' Moral Authority
Abuse is rampant. Google couldn't get useful sources fast enough but there's a molestation scandal among African relief workers that will make the priests look like, well, priests.

The world, historically, has a terrible track record on these things. The U.S. itself is, well, imperfect, but compared to the rest of the world we do both relief work and military work astonishingly humanely.

I've gotten into bitter arguments about this before, accused of being jingoistic or isolationist or unilateralist or pick your favorite buzzword. The record stands for itself though.

Read this.

Breadwinner
bread·win·ner - One whose earnings are the primary source of support for one's dependents.

Apparently there's a restaurant called Breadwinner's in a predominantly gay neighborhood in Dallas.

Apparently there's a predominantly gay neighborhood in Dallas.

Any bets he said the three-letter f-word? I guess he doesn't have the Pavlovian instinct to avoid that word. Civilized people avoid it, the six-letter n-word, and the four-letter c-word. Anything else that approaches that trio?

Sorry to trivialize all this but I honestly think gay people have bigger things to worry about than John Rocker. In fairness I can't blame the people who won't go to Rangers games because of him; I wish more people did that. (Yes, this contradicts comments I've made scoffing at people who go around boycotting things. I can't quite explain the difference yet, perhaps because I don't fully understand it. Maybe I'm irrational.) Any baseball team that employs him has a death wish, not least of which because he's become a truly sucky pitcher anyway.

On second reading the intro to this post is too snide. Rosie O'Donnell certainly has dependents; I applaud her for that. It's still rare enough to amuse me.

The tribulations of the idle rich
I'm sure the legal hassles of September 11 have affected many people. Couldn't they have found a more sympathetic character than this? Or am I overreacting to what I perceive to be his unappealing qualities?

Op-Ed Columnist, Chess Champion
I'm not sure which makes me happier, that Garry Kasparov is a WSJ columnist (blah registration blah) or that he's so right.

Dumass QOTD
“That would leave Nevada with one of the most liberal policies on drugs. … What kind of tourism will Nevada attract?”
--Asa Hutchinson, DEA director, on a ballot measure that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

(Reno Gazette-Journal, via Reason)

Every now and then Mickey Kaus deserves a "Will you marry me?"
Quoth Kaus (some formatting is mine):
In another shocking finding from the poll:

Almost three-quarters of likely voters (72.9 %) say the 6 million children around the world who die annually from hunger-related illness is a convincing argument to do more.

The rest say, "Screw 'em!" ... Isn't the news here that an astonishing 27.1 percent say they don't think "the 6 million children around the world who die from hunger-related illness is a convincing argument to do more?" ... How could the pollsters have failed to stack the question more effectively? There's the scandal!

Lawyers
Then and now.

Don't get me wrong, I think what McDonald's did was awful. This class action was badly mishandled though. It should be pretty easy to figure out who does(n't) belong in the class:
1. Are you a vegetarian?
2. Did you eat McDonald's fries in the time that they were misleading people?

If yes and yes then collect your... probably on the order of $100. That feels (to me) like less than the value the injury you suffered but such is life when a case settles.

Maybe they figure it's just too hard accurately to track down the individual victims and so use these community advocacy groups as a proxy. But this is just one of many reasons to despise such groups. Suppose I'm part of Random Disadvantage Group A. Would I rather have money given directly to me or given to some group that claims to be fighting on my behalf? The choice seems clear enough, especially since the random advocacy group will do things like support causes I disagree with, support tactics I disagree with, and/or pay its own staff lavishly.

Granting that a lot of people do "non-profit" social justice work for peanuts, there are also a lot who get paid quite handsomely for it. Lawyers, lobbyists, executive directors of various charities. All of whom then pat themselves on the back for "caring about other people" (with other people's money), and look down their noses at folks who dare to make their living by actually producing useful good and services.