8 posts tagged “washington”

With any election campaign, and now being involved as a political candidate myself for the New Zealand Parliament, my observations stem from the point of view of ‘Would I do this?’
   For example, I wouldn’t have tried making fun of Sen. Barack Obama for wearing traditional African costume, as Sen. Clinton’s campaign did, using it as a tactic of painting him as an outsider. (And I said so at the time.)
   I did, meanwhile, have a field day over Sen. Clinton’s sniper-fire gag, or the time she called the still-governing Helen Clark as the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’. I believe she opened herself up for those.
   At the end of the day, I want to see an even playing field, and I’ll do the little things that I know something about.
   And I thought today about Gov. Sarah Palin’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ remark.
   She said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to the construction of a bridge to a community of 50 in Alaska.
   Critics say that she was for the bridge before she was against it—something pointed out by Charlie Gibson in the ABC News interview.
   As far as I can gather, Gov. Palin and her Alaskan Congress would try to apply to Washington for a share of infrastructure projects, which, from what I can gather in western politics, is normal.
   I read about something similar in John Major’s autobiography, recalling his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with each government department trying to get a cut of the budget.
   So securing a share of the cake is business as usual in most democracies.
   When Congress (Washington, not Juneau) requested that Alaska itself pay for the bridge, Gov. Palin said, ‘No way.’
   Maybe I am being totally stupid but I can’t see what she has done wrong.
   Folks, I don’t support a lot of Sarah Palin’s ideas, not least her environmental stance, and as I have pointed out, her English seems to be below par for a woman holding a journalism degree and with broadcasting experience.
   I am for the Second Amendment, personally speaking. I like how she reduced her mayoral pay in Wassila and how she sold the gubernatorial jet which her predecessor had bought, against the will of his congress.
   She could be a populist. So is Sen. Obama.
   But on this “bridge to nowhere” issue, I thought about it this way.
   I get free samples of various products here that I give out to our team members. They are happy to take them. But if I were to ask them to pay for them, they’ll say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on most. They defend their own patch, as Gov. Palin defended hers.
   Critics say that Gov. Palin maybe should have said, ‘I said, “Thanks,” then “No thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.’ But I think it was a waste of time for Gibson to even go there.
   There’s plenty of other stuff to attack the Governor on, just as there’s plenty of other stuff to attack Sen. Joseph Biden on. Americans tire of the politicking in the news not because they are disinterested in who gets to the White House, but because the media are so happy to sway the issue to things everyday people could not care less about.

I first read about Sen. Joe Biden’s nomination to be Sen. Barack Obama’s running-mate through the MSM. It was probably on Google News, in the headlines. Then I saw it here on television, albeit briefly, since a VP nominee doesn’t really have much importance to New Zealanders.
   I first read about Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination as Sen. John McCain’s running-mate on Timothy’s Vox blog. I have not heard mentions on radio or TV here. And I realize that this is not big news to Kiwis, and I admittedly was out during the six o’clock TV news broadcast yesterday. But as someone kind of interested in US politics, I would have expected to have run into the news somewhere.
   Maybe to us, as we have had female prime ministers twice (at one point, the PM, Chief Justice and Governor-General were all female), the ascension of a woman to the presidential ticket is not a biggie. Also, then-Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro had already trailblazed on that front as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984.
   It will be interesting to see if Gov. Palin will help the McCain campaign. She is largely unknown outside her home state but that might help charges that Sen. McCain (like Sen. Biden, I should point out) is the same-old Washington establishment. With Palin’s approval ratings at 80 per cent in her home state, and a pretty solid résumé, she has quite a few pluses in terms of her hard work for Alaska.
   She has been clear on her beliefs—she has a lifetime NRA membership, she opposes the legalization of marijuana and she is pro-life—so people can judge her on those quite easily. If the majority of Americans do not see eye-to-eye with Gov. Palin on these matters, then that is democracy in action.
   Alaska, though in fact modern with large cities, has a stereotype among Americans, and being the 47th state in terms of population, the Democrats will be able to accuse the Governor of inexperience in national politics. It’s a fine line, however: Palin has had 16 years of elected public service, versus Sen. Obama’s 11; though I note that this never stopped Sen. Clinton, with eight years, from attacking Sen. Obama in the primaries.
   Her biggest plus is her whistle-blowing about corruption and the lack of ethics among certain sectors of government in Alaska, meaning Sarah Palin is a no-nonsense, clean-government advocate. How successful this image will carry through into the quagmire of Washington politics is dependent on how Americans view things: can they believe that one person can make a change, or do they believe one person will be buried among establishment thinking?
   It depends on how strongly they believe in the power of the individual.
   Palin is probably an individualist—someone who doesn’t mind bucking the trend and surprising people, and that could play well to many Americans. To some extent McCain has these values but he has also changed his mind on some, which the Democrats have rightly pointed out at their Convention.
   It will be an interesting road ahead.

Before I begin, I should note that this story does not have a response from the Clintons directly, but it makes very disturbing viewing. As Peter Paul says in the first part, the case against the Clintons is proceeding, dealing with a massive election fraud, but there is nothing in the media about it. At the end of Part One, Mr Paul shows a video that demonstrates Mrs Clinton was in full knowledge of the campaign contributions that were raised for her by him and his organization.
   Equal Justice Foundation of America, which presents the documentary, calls the incident ‘most shocking expose on the blatant corruption surrounding Hillary Clinton. Includes exclusive home videos of Hillary to expose the illegalities that elected Hillary to the Senate and the obstructions of justice that keep her there.’ One commentator believes that Sen. Clinton has committed a felony punishable by five years’ jail time.
   Let us say this is not beyond the realm of imagination and needs to be considered fairly.

The Washington Post knows a good blogging story when it sees one. Marc Fisher has updated his blog after the second day of the crazy judge and the missing pants saga.
   I’m sure it has crossed more than a few minds: a future where all news articles come via blogs. Scary. Though at least there are some professional journos making a good job of it.
   But it sounds like Christopher Manning, representing Custom Cleaners, is on the right track. As Mr Fisher reports:

Pearson told the defense lawyer that if the tables were turned and he were in the place of the Chung family, the owners of the Northeast Washington cleaners who purportedly lost Pearson's pants, he would have immediately written a check for $1,150—the replacement value of the Hickey Freeman suit to which the pants belonged—to provide the satisfaction that the store's “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign promised.
   It took more than 10 minutes and numerous attempts by both Manning and Judge Judith Bartnoff to get Pearson to answer a question about whether anyone has the right to walk into any cleaners and claim $1,150 simply by saying that their suit had been lost. Finally, Pearson said that the law requires that “The merchant would have an obligation to honor their demand.“
   “So your answer is Yes?” Manning asked.
   “Yes,” Pearson said.
   The courtroom, in which it's hard to discern any support for Pearson except from his mother and her friend, broke up in laughter. Derisive laughter.
   Manning pushed ahead: Does Pearson believe that people should interpret signs “in a reasonable way?”
   “Depends on the circumstances,” Pearson said.
   Asked to answer yes or no, Pearson said, “No.”

   I have to agree with Mr Fisher’s thoughts about the presiding judge: ‘This is known as giving someone all the rope they need to hang themselves.’

Just to show how distraught he is at having the wrong trousers which necessitated him to sue a hard-working Korean couple for $54 million, Judge Roy Pearson burst into tears in court today.
   Ah, so he’s not just a vindictive prick: I happen to share the Chungs’ attorney’s viewpoint here.
   My opinion: what a goddamn phoney. It’s not like the trousers were being controlled by an evil penguin or rooster or something.
   I hope that all dry-cleaners in the Chungs’ region have little signs of Judge Pearson in their shops with, ‘Do not serve this vindictive bastard’.
   The Judge may find, to his surprise, that signs in consumer law are to be interpreted through the eyes of the reasonable person, not unreasonable, over-the-top, over-the-hill, overreacting morons, and that the quantum of damages is likely limited by that.
   Not everyone is as vindictive as he is, certainly not his colleagues on the bench who will feel this man has made a mockery of everything the US justice system is meant to stand for.

Got this in the feedback form from my main site last night, from the law firm representing a Mom-and-Pop dry-cleaning outfit. If you recall, a Korean family was being sued for $65 million by an American judge because they lost his favourite pants. It looks like they are about to have their day in court, with an amended claim from the judge after outcries. Still, he wants $54 million—that’s some amendment.
   I’ll post more if Manning & Sossamon inform me of developments. My best wishes go to Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung. No prizes for guessing what I want to happen, especially to Judge Pearson. I think I share most people’s feelings, especially those Americans who feel Judge Pearson is giving their entire nation a bad name.

Update: $67 Million Dry Cleaning Case

On May 31, 2007, D.C. Administrative Law Judge, Roy L. Pearson, filed a Pre-Trial Brief in the Pearson v. Chung dry cleaner case. In the brief, Pearson shifts the focus of his claims from his allegedly lost pants to claims related to signage in the Chungs’ store. One sign reads “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and another reads “Same Day Service.” Pearson claims the signs are somehow misleading and apparently continues to seek over $54,000,000 in damages from the Chungs. Pearson had previously sought $67,000,000 in compensation from the Chungs.
   Christopher Manning, of the law firm Manning & Sossamon in Washington D.C., represents the Chungs and made the following statement in response to Pearson's recent actions:

"Although it is always encouraging to see claims withdrawn, it is simply baffling that Mr. Pearson continues to assert that he is entitled to tens of millions of dollars as a result of two completely harmless, completely straight-forward signs. Mr. Pearson's claims are not founded in common sense and are extraordinarily abusive towards the Chungs. As a result, the Chungs' terrible ordeal continues. The Chungs' decision to move to and build a business in America began with the classic American dream. Mr. Pearson has turned that dream into an American nightmare."

Mr. Pearson's lawsuit has cost the Chungs tens of thousands of dollars in defense costs. Donations to a defense fund set up by the Chungs may be made at www.customcleanersdefensefund.com.
   This case will be tried in courtroom 415 of the District of Columbia Superior Courthouse on June 11th and 12th beginning at 9:30am each day.
   All questions regarding the matter should be directed to the office of Manning & Sossamon at:

Manning & Sossamon PLLC
1532 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-2228 (voice)
(202) 387-2229 (fax)
chungdefense@manning-sossamon.com

I am generally happy to watch many of the 1970s’ cop shows or even movies. It’s probably why I love Life on Mars so much.
   Now, with the American version coming, I hear it’s going to be set in Los Angeles. Now, if you have seen any cop show from the 1970s, LA then kind of looks like LA now, at least to us foreigners.
   Here’s my suggestion: model the American Gene Hunt on Lt Lon McQ (presumably McHugh?), John Wayne’s Irish–American character from McQ (1974) and set it in Seattle: the 1972 (the Yanks are going to set their version a year earlier) version bears little resemblance to the 2007 Microsoft-tinged one. Plenty of jokes can abound about the internet or Bill Gates, and we all know we like Bill Gates jokes (sorry, Bill). That movie had groovy music from Elmer Bernstein. It was basically a western (directed by John [Magnificent Seven] Sturges) involving cars, guns and dope.
   Only one clip on YouTube, but here it is, with the Duke in all his bad-ass, junk-pusher-killing glory.