Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Effects of drugs on spider webs:

LSD:


mescaline:


hashish:


caffeine:


the clean spider's web:


linky

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Effects of drugs on spider webs:
caffeine:

It's a little scary that the freakiest web is the one on caffeine. But it goes along with an article in the Minneapolis paper on caffeine. There is an energy (?) drink called Cocaine with 280 mg of caffeine in 8 oz. Makes Red Bull look wimpy.

[LessinSF]

Boogers! from abroad.

LessnotinSF

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Check out the articles I posted to the politics board. They featured a senior government official not only outing firms, but suggesting that maybe they are really being paid by the terrorists, instead of doing pro bono work.

This crap is indefensible. The only way one can reasonable come around to questions the law firms is if one actually believes that everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist. That belief might have been plausible four years ago, but history has not been kind to it.

No.

If history jumped off a bridge, would you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Effects of drugs on spider webs:

LSD:


mescaline:


hashish:


caffeine:


the clean spider's web:


linky

Oh, that's gibberish. It's taken from an old spoof of those cheesy old fear-mongering government anti-drug shorts. Go on Youtube and look up "spider" and "drugs." The film is pretty funny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, that's gibberish. It's taken from an old spoof of those cheesy old fear-mongering government anti-drug shorts. Go on Youtube and look up "spider" and "drugs." The film is pretty funny.

I've read that caffeine causes problems in animals that it doesn't cause in humans, so I attach little significance to the photos, but I thought they were cool.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your point is completely valid and would seem self-evident to most. Ironically, however, it is often those who claim to be most ardently in favor of limiting government who have the least objection to government officials not acting as though they represent "the People" but instead pushing their own political agendas.

The current adversarial system of politics, where politicians and the people fight each other until one side defeats the other, with rematches every two years, seems pretty intractable.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've read that caffeine causes problems in animals that it doesn't cause in humans, so I attach little significance to the photos, but I thought they were cool.

Caffeine can kill pets. I don't think their hearts can handle what ours do in re the slight speeding up caused by the drug.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Actually, yes.

It's not a violation of a specific ethical duty.

It's not a government official trying to prevent criminal defendants from getting competent representation.

It's not a government official making the false (and, I would argue, knowingly false) suggestion that the law firms involved are being paid by questionable sources (i.e., on the al Qaeda payroll), when in fact they are usually working for free.

I wouldn't be particularly offended if a private company made the decision, on its own, to stop doing business with a law firm that represented prisoners at Guantanamo. (Though, personally, I would like to know the name of that company and I would consider not doing business with someone who tries to interfere with another person's representation.) Clients are entitled to make that choice. But I am offended by a government lawyer, particularly one in a prosecutorial role, advocating for this.

In contrast -- and more similar to the situation you identified (which I don't agree with, btw; while I did not support the position of the plaintiffs in that case I think it is a complex issue and one that merits court attention) -- if a group of law firms were bringing a civil case on behalf of al Qaeda or Hamas to, say, challenge the freezing of bank assets, I would have no problem at all with a call to boycott those firms. In fact, I would fully agree with it.

So, yes: a prosecutor trying to separate defendants from lawyers is a particularly bad thing.

What Sidd said.

There's nothing wrong with compliance with a FOIA request, or for noting that a release has been made. This government lawyer, however, chose to shit on centuries of tradition encouraging pro bono representation and ethical rules that permit it, and use public pressure to try and get BIGLAW firms to stop representing these detainees in criminal trials.

The man's a putz, and for showing such pussified fear of a talented opponent, especially in the face of several years of detaining those folks, he should resign for embarassing himself and the Administration he represents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What Sidd said.

There's nothing wrong with compliance with a FOIA request, or for noting that a release has been made. This government lawyer, however, chose to shit on centuries of tradition encouraging pro bono representation and ethical rules that permit it, and use public pressure to try and get BIGLAW firms to stop representing these detainees in criminal trials.

The man's a putz, and for showing such pussified fear of a talented opponent, especially in the face of several years of detaining those folks, he should resign for embarassing himself and the Administration he represents.

• In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.

NYT. Good for him.

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• In an interview on Friday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said he had no problem with the current system of representation. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.

NYT. Good for him.

David Lat at AboveTheLaw believes that the guy is a patsy for the administration.

[patentparanyc]

Who is in work and who has the day off? Or does everyone have the day off? I have the day off but am in work.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
Who is in work and who has the day off? Or does everyone have the day off? I have the day off but am in work.

That is a rather depressing way to spend your day off. Unless you are lost without going to work.

aV

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by andViolins
That is a rather depressing way to spend your day off. Unless you are lost without going to work.

aV

agreed, but overtime for staff. more pragmatic than depressing. Quiet and slow during the week so sometimes, I have to work weekend and holidays during slow period.

AoN, the trains were PACKED today. wonder why?

Slide show from weekly lunches w/ the New Yorker cartoonists

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/ny...ml?ref=thecity

[Adder]

Originally posted by Gattigap
use public pressure to try and get BIGLAW firms to stop representing these detainees in criminal trials.

Most of them are using Biglaw firms to help they GET criminal trials. Or at least a hearing of some sort.