Via Jonathan Turley, I see that Mike Huckabee, a probable candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination for President, had a discussion on Fox with Moral Majority leader Sean LaHaye about whether whether President Obama is pushing us “closer to the apocalypse.” No, not metaphorically. As in the end times.

I’ve heard a lot of things that President Obama is pushing us to, and I realized that it is long past time to compile a comprehensive list, with the help of you, Gentle Readers.

BARACK OBAMA IS PUSHING US CLOSER TO:

1. The Apocalypse/The End of Days/Rapture
2. Socialism/Communism
3. One World Government
4. Slavery
5. Fascism/Nazism
6. Widespread sexual perversion/mandatory and/or widespread homosexuality (how you doin’?)
7. The Destruction of Israel
8. The Downfall of America
9. Economic ruin (within a quasi-capitalist frame of reference)

C’mon, help me out here.

I’ve been reading a fine discussion Mark Bennett (found through John Kindley) on Gerry Spence’s claim, which I’ll accept as true, that he has never lost a trial before a jury.  Both Kindley and Bennett, who are approaching this claim as criminal defense lawyers, have perspectives I’ll not repeat here.

But I will point out that Gerry Spence is not a criminal defense lawyer.  Most Americans think he is.  He was on CNN pontificating about what a bad job Johnny Cochran was doing in the OJ case.  He defended Randy Weaver!

Now there’s no doubt that Spence is a great trial lawyer, by any measure.  I’m sure Spence could carve me up like a turkey in an average case.  And there’s no doubt that Spence has defended some important, and famous, criminal cases.

But that isn’t how Spence earned his fortune.  There are plenty of criminals in Wyoming.  The state is teeming with them, but very few could afford to buy one pair of shoes from Imelda Marcos’s closet, much less the fee that Spence probably charged her.

Spence is a personal injury lawyer.  He earned his fortune suing doctors, truck drivers backed by huge insurance policies, governments, and corporations.  And there it is possible to pass an entire career, never losing a case.

It just depends on what the meaning of “win” is.  And in a personal injury practice, you can win every case.  Just don’t pick losers.  Pick rear end auto collisions, claims where negligence is clear, especially from the much lower bar that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard presents in civil cases, as opposed to the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases.  I can “win” a rear-end auto collision case, for the plaintiff, if you hand me the file on Friday and tell me the case is going to trial on Monday.  I can persuade the jury that the defendant shouldn’t have hit the plaintiff from behind, and I can persuade them to award a dollar or more in damages.

That’s a “win” from some perspective.  Of course my client may be royally pissed off that she only got a dollar (33 cents of which goes to me, thank you very much!), but the jury said “yes,” and they did award damages.  We won!

But Spence doesn’t take whiplash cases.  He still “loses” cases, as most laypeople would understand the term.  Those cases just don’t get to a jury in the first place.

In a typical criminal case, even if it’s a dog, the prosecutor, if he’s a stubborn enough mule, will get his jury trial.  The defendant may absolutely shred the prosecution witnesses (“You have 20/800 uncorrected vision, Ms. Smith?”  “And you weren’t wearing your glasses at midnight on July 29?”), but he has little chance to find out what the prosecution’s case is about before trial begins.  Witnesses can’t be compelled to testify, or even talk to the defense lawyer, before trial.  Hostile witnesses may be paid by the government (that’s what a plea bargain often is) to give incredible testimony, but that can’t be brought up until the jury is in the box.

In a civil case, on the other hand, a defense attorney with deep pockets behind him can explore everything.  He can compel witnesses to give depositions.  He can demand far more information about the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s witnesses, through discovery than a criminal court would ever give a defense lawyer.  And he can introduce affidavits, through a motion for summary judgment, proving that the plaintiff’s version of the case can’t be true, or that even if it is, the law won’t allow the plaintiff to recover.  He can tell the plaintiff to put up or shut up.  If the plaintiff doesn’t put up evidence then and there, the case is dismissed months before jury summons ever go out.

As I write this, I have a number of cases where the plaintiff’s lawyer would love to have the assistance of a Gerry Spence, but Spence couldn’t make a damned bit of difference and would never get the case to a jury.  The plaintiff sued Big Grocery of North America, instead of Big Grocery of Small Town, which actually owns the store.  The plaintiff is suing Heartless Insurance Company for a claim which, in plain English, isn’t covered under its policy.

As great as he is, I’ll bet that sort of “loss” has been handed to Gerry Spence more times than he, or his marketing team, would like to admit.  But he didn’t lose the case in front of a jury.  He lost it in front of a judge.

Plaintiff’s attorneys sue the wrong corporation and the statute of limitations expires before they can amend the complaint.  They allege that doctors performed the wrong medical procedure when the medical textbook, from which all new doctors are trained, says they did.  All of those cases can be dismissed through discovery and motions, long before trial.

A criminal lawyer generally can’t do any of this.  No matter how weak the case, he has to investigate on his own, has limited power to compel people to testify, and can’t bring a motion for summary judgment.  Then he has to persuade a jury to do what a judge would ordinarily do in civil court: throw it out.

Imagine what the criminal justice system would look like if defense attorneys had the same tools that their civil brethren have.  All sorts of dubious or even fraudulent criminal cases would be dismissed, sparing the innocent the pain, expense, and embarrassment of a trial.

Of course, criminal attorneys are merely arguing over who goes to jail, and who remains free.  Civil defense attorneys are fighting about what’s important. Which is to say, they’re fighting about money.

(See also: Norm Pattis, who got this ball rolling.)

John Podesta is playing a dangerous double game.

As Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, he’s surely in a better position than you or me, probably anyone except Henry Kissinger, to know the truth about UFOs and alien intelligence.  He’s read the files.  He’s probably even met them, at least the ones who still have bodies, the ones sent to pass down orders and take tribute for the Old Ones.

(Of course the idea that Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, or any ex-Soviet apparatchik really knows anything about aliens is ludicrous.  Barack Obama is a chieftain from the squalid hills of darkest Armenia, taking gold from a Roman military tribune and boasting to poorer hillmen that he’s formed an alliance with Caesar.  But that’s beyond the scope of this post.)

Podesta has seen the secret files, at least the ones that the Illuminati allow the government to read.  He’s probably a junior member of the Illuminati himself.  Most high-ranking politicians aren’t, but their staff, who know what’s going on, are as illuminated as a discount fluorescent lightbulb store.  Yet Podesta pronounces himself merely a “curious skeptic” about UFOS.  And he’s contributing to a book on the subject. How can this be?

a) He really thinks you’re that dumb. You’re so stupid that you’ll buy the story that the government doesn’t know the truth about UFOs.  On the other hand, maybe you are that dumb.  You still think there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

b) Podesta knows you’re not that dumb.  He’s involved with this book because he knows something BIG is about to happen, and he wants you to focus on him, or at least to crack jokes about Monica Lewinsky and cigars.

It’s like a finger pointing at the moon.  Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory! — Bruce Lee.

c) Podesta is a freedom fighter.  This book is somehow important.  He’s trying to give it publicity in hopes of drawing the 1% of non-insider humanity that has the knowledge and power to do something to some truth contained within the book, something written in secret code.

We’d BETTER HOPE the answer is C.  The most likely answer is A.

God help us if the answer is B.  The book comes out in twelve days. Hope your survival shelter is stocked with food and ammunition.

H/t: The Gormogons.

Subject line hat-tip.

You’ll never be told how many FBI agents cheated on the Bureau’s exam testing their knowledge of the law of surveillance:

“I’ve got a general idea. But I do not know how many,” have cheated, [FBI director Robert Mueller] said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “And I’m not sure the IG knows how many either.”

But, Mueller added, the IG “has pointed out instances orally to me where there may be persons and a particular office where it was widespread. And it may be attributable to a lack of understanding and confusion about the procedures.”

Bullshit.  To become a special agent:

You must possess a four-year degree from a college or university accredited by one of the regional or national institutional associations recognized by the United States Secretary of Education.

The cheating agents were trading answers during the open-book exam testing their knowledge of the constitutional and statutory law that governs the basic requirements of their job.

It’s pathetic enough that the FBI gives these people, who we’re told are the elite, an open-book exam, but each and every one of these agents must have graduated from college.  Everyone who graduates college, even the football and basketball players, knows that trading answers during an exam is cheating, even if they do it.  Now we’re told that the creme de la creme of our nation’s law enforcement agents lack understanding, and are confused, by this simple rule that most kids learn in elementary school.

Hell, even a meter-maid should know that’s cheating.

But few of the agents in question will be fired.  None will be named and disgraced.

Question (no looking in the book to see the answer):

If X special agents are willing to cheat on the exam testing their knowledge of legal surveillance procedures, what is Y, where Y is the percentage of X who will go on to file false affidavits and commit perjury during their careers as special agents?

Is Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy hysterically overwrought in not comparing an unwanted spam email from Michelle Obama to the trappings of Stalinist dictatorship?  You be the judge, all emphasis added by me:

At another level, asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader’s birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president’s birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear.

No, I am not saying we are in a dictatorship; I am saying that because we are not, we should not be emulating the trappings characteristic of that fundamentally different sort of regime. Nor do I think this is particularly ominous, just a very small step in the wrong direction.

Lindgren, like Jerry Seinfeld, wants us to be charitable.  To know that he isn’t actually saying … what he just said.

“Now of course we’re not livin’ in a Stalinist dictatorship, and Barack Obama isn’t anything like that Kim Jong-Il, the Dear Leader of North Korea.  I’m just sayin’, is all.”

Except that Lindgren isn’t being charitable.  I got the same email, directed to Tim Simms, one of my alias email addresses.  (I never give a politician my real one, because they could use it to put me in a concentration camp.)  Big deal, it was spam.  I got it because I’d signed up for a My Barack Obama weblog.  I did what I do to all other spam.  I deleted it.  And I didn’t sign the President’s birthday card, though I do wish him a happy one.  He’s my President, and I want him to wake up happy every day, motivated to do what’s best for America and me.

But that wasn’t enough for Lindgren.  He even looked up Michelle Obama’s traveling schedule, and determined that she will be out of the country on the Dear Leader’s birthday!  It’s all a lie, I tell you, it’s proof of a conspiracy!

Except it isn’t.  Lindgren of course doesn’t think that getting spam from a political campaign, to which he’d given his email address just like I did, is a slippery slope to tyranny at all.  Just a small step in the wrong direction to … what?

He’s just sayin’, is all.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seeking to curry favor with his core demographic of the angry, the ignorant, and the deranged, has taken a stand on a key international issue: he hates Paul the World-Cup-prophesying octopus.

However, the Iranian president accused the octopus of spreading “western propaganda and superstition.” Paul was mentioned by Mr Ahmadinejad on various occasions during a speech in Tehran at the weekend.

“Those who believe in this type of thing cannot be the leaders of the global nations that aspire, like Iran, to human perfection, basing themselves in the love of all sacred values,” he said.

I’m not entirely sure which sacred values Ahmadinejad means. Are octopi opposed to stoning adulterers to death and hanging gays? That’s probably why National Organization for Marriage hates them.

Anyway, I think Ahmadinejad has hit on a great strategy here: leaders can pander by bashing the fictional, the buffoonish, and the ridiculous. Hence:

David Cameron should be “accidentally” caught on tape saying how much he despises Voldemort;
Fidel Castro can denounce that Geico gecko as the habringer of merciless capitalism;
Hugo Chavez can call for the capture and People’s Trial of Yosemite Sam;
Obama can criticize Andrew Breitbart.

Any other ideas for good targets?

Jeffrey Lord and his supporters claim that he is a writer for American Spectator.

They’re lying. Probably for political advantage — out of bare, naked hatred for every thing that makes America great.

How did I discover this outrage? Several ways. First, note in the link above that American Spectator lists Lord as a “contributor,” not as a writer. Also, the page about him says he is an “author,” not a writer. Moreover, I couldn’t find him on this wikipedia page called “Lists of writers.” Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines “writer” as “one who writes stock options,” and I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that Lord writes stock options.

Therefore, even though in one manner of speaking he “writes,” and even though he uses his own name (which I am recently given to understand is the sine qua non of credibility and literary excellence), he’s not a writer, and nobody ought to read him.

There. I’ve constructed an irrefutable logical edifice.

How did I learn to do so?

Why, from Jeffrey Lord himself.

See, Lord wrote — though not as a writer — that controversial former federal employee Shirley Sherrod is a liar. Why is she a liar? Well, in the course of discussing race in America, Sherrod claimed that a relative of hers, Bobby Hall, was lynched in the South. But Lord knows, that’s not right. Ask the Supreme Court itself. Here’s how they describe what happened to Bobby Hall:

This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner Screws was sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance of petitioner Jones, a policeman, and petitioner Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Robert Hall, a citizen of the United States and of Georgia. The arrest was made late at night at Hall’s home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to “get” him.

Aha! sayeth the Lord. There’s nothing in there about lynching. It doesn’t even mention a rope. He was beaten to death, you big dummy. Black folks and their exaggerations! QED.

Now, people like Radley Balko — not to mention Lord’s own colleagues at the Spectator, might lack the unique mental agility of a Lord. They’re insisting on looking at statutes, and actual definitions, to show that “lynching” is a term used to describe mob murders of all sorts, not just ones accomplished with a rope.

But Balko and his ilk forget that in the year of our Lord, there is one supreme authority on the meaning of words, including “lynch.”

I refer, of course, to HUMPTY. MOTHERFUCKING. DUMPTY.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

Make no mistake that our Lord is a master. So “lynched” means what he wants it to mean.

That’s why he embarked on a furious, indignant defense of his definition of “lynched”, snapping at his detractors. In the course of that defense, he informed us that (1) even if there was no rope, it couldn’t be a lynching, because only three people did it, and that’s not a “mob”, and (2) the Supreme Court said that the murder was “under the color of law,” meaning that they had legal authority to do it, so it couldn’t be a lynching.

Now petty detractors might argue that anti-lynching bills of the time defined “mob” as three or more people. But Lord thinks that’s not what it means, and that’s the only relevant point.

Petty detractors might point out that “under color of law” means, and has always meant, under pretense of official right, not under actual official right. Hence, when the Supreme Court took up the case of the 1964 murder of civil rights activists Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney and Andrew Goodman by Mississippi law enforcement, and agreed that they had acted “under color of law,” the Court was not suggesting that the murders were lawful. Of course, that definition of “color of law” is an obscure issue, known only to lawyers and marginally literate people capable of reading the newspaper without reducing it to an illegible pulp with their OMG-A-NEGRO-IS-PRESIDENT spittle. Moreover, if Jeff Lord is a master of the language, what stops him from being a master of what the law is as well?

Other detractors might assert that all of this misses the point — that only a lunatic would quibble over the use of the term “lynched” to describe a brutal racist murder in the first place, and that such quibbling demonstrates a gravely disordered approach to the subject. Lord knows, that ain’t right. History, and the people in it, are only there to advance our current political agenda. Even a non-writer like Jeffrey Lord can tell you that.

Jack Tatum, the best tackler in NFL history, better than Dick Butkus, better than Lawrence Taylor, has died.

Tatum will always be remembered for a freak accident, an otherwise great tackle that paralyzed New England Patriots receiver Darryl Stingley in a 1978 exhibition game.  I watched it as it was broadcast, and was sickened.

I appreciate football for what it is, but my enjoyment was permanently lessened after watching the Stingley tackle at the age of 10.  It made me a basketball fan for life.

I’m sure you have heard that my favorite raving crazy person Glenn Beck is hosting a (surely non-offensive) rally on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial. And, I’m sure you agree that there is absolutely no way this could be possibly be a bad idea. Well, in case you don’t, Glenn offers these calming words in a press release about the event: “The Restoring Honor Rally is neither a 9/12 nor a Tea Party rally. There will be absolutely no politics involved.”

See, case closed. Glenn tells us it’s a non-political event. Wait, what’s that? The featured speakers are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? Well, they are certainly noted for their non-partisan nature, aren’t they?

A few random notes & observations about Beck’s Meisterwerk:

- A few weekends ago, he had cousins of the King Family on to make it seem like this was okay with the family, or that this rally was somehow a tribute to Dr. King. It was sort of funny, but also really sad. Good to know that even the King family has crazy uncles.
- I wonder how much Sarah Palin is getting paid to speak here? Her going rate seems to be about 100K (75K at CSU Stanislaus 100K at the tea party convention)
- Among the things you cannot bring to this rally: pets, helium balloons, glass containers and fireworks. Good news gun nuts, nowhere does it say you can’t bring firearms. Oh, sorry, firearms are still prohibited at the Memorial.
- The most notable prohibited item: signs. Perhaps learning from the follies of tea parties past that maven of the First Amendment Glenn Beck is denying you the right to express yourself on cardboard. Who’s the fascist now Glenn? Sayeth Der Beck “signs (political or otherwise) may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington.” You know what what else deters that message? Pretty much everything you say.
- But, they do suggest you bring your flag.
- By the way, nice to see Jo Dee Messina getting work. I wonder if Lee Greenwood was busy?

Dear Andrew:

Today I am marrying the love of my life, and he is not you.  To be honest you never had a chance. But after our years together, in which you used me as little more than a bauble, an accessory to be shown off to other men, and a mirror, an object whose main purpose was to show you your reflected glory, I don’t expect you to understand that there was never a chance in Hell that I would marry you.

I shouldn’t have had to write this letter.  I should be devoting all of my time to my groom, my family, and my friends, who’ve come to share a joyful wedding with me.  Naturally, as one of my bridesmaids just showed me, you had other plans.

I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised that you would choose this day to write a narcissistic “open letter” to me, which is just another excuse for you to wallow in your own greatness, and your self-centered fantasy that I’ll suddenly realize the error of my ways, leaving my groom at the altar like some ditz in a Julia Roberts movie, to return to you.  No doubt you imagine you’ll whisk me off to some island paradise, where we’ll be married and I’ll be happy forever, fulfilling my true destiny of listening to you talk about … yourself.

Just as I did for four increasingly agonizing years with you, before I found the guts to cut you away like a lamprey from a shark’s underbelly.  I’m sorry Andrew, but I’m not about to let you reattach your umbilical cord. I won’t be your mirror.

I’ll admit it was fun for the first year.  You can be a very funny guy, as long as the subject of humor is something other than you. You’re good-looking.  You have a great job.  I love your son, and genuinely miss him.  But you?  Well, it’s par for the course that you’d pick my wedding day to send a creepy open email all about how wonderful you are, and how wonderful I am (because any woman who’d date Andrew Cohen is, by definition, almost as good as you) to thousands of total strangers on the internet.  With true love like this, who needs a stalker?

Despite your stunt, I still care enough about you to give you some advice, words that I know your parents never said to you:  The world does not revolve around you Andrew.  Get over yourself. And please, see a shrink.

Say hello to your son, and tell him that I miss him.  Even if I never want to hear his father’s name again.

Anne

Hey guys! Remember two years ago?  Man that was such a crazy time.  A lot has happened since then.  Obama crushed McCain in the general election, the GOP decided to react like themselves, and angels descended upon us and we entered into the Fourth Age.  And then more STUFF began to happen.  And I know what the big question is: Derrick, why didn’t you write anything about all this garbage?  Well, it didn’t help that Games Workshop decided to be a big dick to their customers… again.  It just didn’t feel right using Dawn of War 2 for anything, my game of choice.  But that all became irrelevant once a… better option appeared.  Let’s do this.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Continue Reading »

In the wake of government raids on organic food collectives for the crime of selling raw milk, it would be easy to follow the lead of the Los Angeles Times and seize the opportunity to make lighthearted fun of the hippies, and foodies, and hippie foodies:

With no warning one weekday morning, investigators entered an organic grocery with a search warrant and ordered the hemp-clad workers to put down their buckets of mashed coconut cream and to step away from the nuts.

The “hemp-clad workers” is a masterful touch; I wish I’d written that.

Or, you know, you could examine whether we should be thrilled about the government raiding stores where willing participants sell, and knowing participants buy, exotic food items that satisfy their beliefs about “organic” and “natural” food. Let’s be clear: this isn’t the Atherton Safeway carelessly putting out raw milk where innocent, unaware Susie Soccermom from the burbs is going to pick it up by accident and give it to little Dakota and Logan. This is an organic collective selling overpriced specialty goods to informed (kind of) consumers who for philosophical reasons want their produce and dairy goods to be as organically filthy and free of corporate taint as humanly possible without them wresting it non-exploitatively from the ground and the empowered cow’s teat themselves. Should we really applaud the government stopping them?

The tricks, in discussing limits on government authority to micromanage our lives, are to (1) be wary of the government’s categorical frames, and (2) recognize that safety and freedom often exist on a continuum.

The government likes nice, neat frames. The government likes to create categorical exceptions to rights, then cram as much as possible into those categorical exceptions to increase its power. The government likes to get you to accept these big categories first — like “safety” and “homeland security” — and then tell you that what it’s doing fits entirely into those categories, with nothing left to go in the category marked “freedom.” The government’s rationale for pestering hippies is no different:

“This is not about restricting the public’s rights,” said Nicole Neeser, program manager for dairy, meat and poultry inspection at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. “This is about making sure people are safe.”

The government would prefer you believe that its actions are all about one thing or the other, like a light switch. The government doesn’t want you to contemplate how safety and freedom are incremental trade-offs on a sliding scale — because then you might start questioning how far the scale has slid in one direction, or maybe even question whether the government, in light of widespread dishonesty and incompetence, really improves safety with its meddling.

But the L.A. Times — ostensibly the government’s critic, in longtime practice its compliant lapdog — is unlikely to raise those questions.

Hat tip.

Damn that Stalin!  He forced historian Orlando Figes to write sock-puppet reviews trashing books written by other authors.

One of Britain’s leading historians, Orlando Figes, is to pay damages and costs to two rivals who launched a libel case after a row erupted over fake reviews posted on the Amazon website.

The award-winning Figes, professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London, admitted in April to posting critical reviews of books by a number of authors, including fellow historians Rachel Polonsky and Robert Service, praising his own work and rubbishing that of his rivals.

Initially, Figes denied the allegations, threatening legal action against colleagues, journals and newspapers that suggested he had written the reviews. …

Figes’s lawyer, David Price, contacted the newspaper, demanding a “corrective publication”, and suggesting that his client would be entitled to damages. Hours later Price issued a new statement, which said Figes’s wife, the barrister Stephanie Palmer, had posted the comments, and that Figes himself had “only just found out about this, this evening”.

In fact, Figes’ cover story that his wife had written the reviews, some of which appear to have been connected to the suspiciously named “Orlando-Birkbeck” account, was also false.  Figes was later forced (by whom?) to admit that he’d written the reviews himself, and that he’d lied to his lawyer, not once (“I didn’t write this! Sue the bastards!”), but twice. (“My wife did it!  I’m innocent!”)

Which makes Figes’ last line of defense, that he was driven to malign other historians by the stress of meeting victims of Stalin’s Gulag, rather suspicious.

According to Dr. Rachel Polonsky, one of Figes’ victims:

“I understand that he is claiming that he has been traumatised by the research he did with victims of the Russian gulags which caused him to behave like this. I think it is horrific to use one of the greatest acts of criminality in history to excuse his bad behaviour. In any case he has been behaving like this for years beforehand.”

Walter Olson, from whom I got this story, wonders whether Figes would have been forced to pay damages in an American court.  Probably not.  But consider:  Figes’ defense of his conduct, that he was in effect driven to sockpuppet and defame by Stalin’s crimes, seems unlikely, perhaps even untrue.  Stalin committed appalling crimes, but are we to believe that Stalin drove a historian to destroy his career almost 57 years after the tyrant’s death?

Under Russian law, even the dead (or more properly, their estates) may file defamation actions.  Joseph Stalin, in particular, has a litigious family.

It’s possible Orlando Figes will, in the end, have to answer not just to Rachel Polonsky and Robert Service, and not just to his wife (to whom he probably answers every hellish night), but to Stalin himself.

Let’s face it, the law thing sucks. Where do I sign up to get paid for not making fun of politicians?

Yes, yes, it would be very hard under some circumstances. I’d have to negotiate a clause where I could make fun of them to myself, in a quiet room. But still.

Thanks to the English rag The Daily Star, we have this correction where they let us know that their story about Rockstar making a new Grand Theft Auto game based on the shootings in Rothbury England. Just one problem: “We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story. We also did not question why a best selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event.”

Ah, journalism at its finest.