Random chart - Supreme Court

Source: Negative Views of Supreme Court at Record High, Driven by Republican Dissatisfaction

Random charts - U.S. crime rates

 

Source: Is Violent Crime in the United States Increasing? (13-pg PDF)

"... Overall,homicide and violent crime rates have been trending downward for more than two decades, and both rates are at historic lows.. An analysis comparing 2014 and 2015 homicide data from the nation’s 60 most populous cities suggests that violent crime is not increasing. Overall,reported homicides were up 16% in 2015, but a majority of cities (44 of 60) have not seen a statistically significant increase in homicides. The general consensus is that it is too early to draw any conclusions about the reversal of long-term trends..."

Random chart - gay marriage

Source: Where Europe stands on gay marriage and civil unions

Campaign finance redux

In a June 19th, 2008 oped this blogger suggested greatly raising the limits on potential campaign donations while massively strengthening disclosure and transparency with regard to the donations. Well, that's exactly where the law has been going as well, courtesy of a number of Supreme Court rulings...

Rethinking Disclosure in the Wake of McCutcheon v. FEC sums it up:

"'... Earlier this spring, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to campaign finance regulation. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court invalidated the federal “aggregate limits” — or statutory restrictions on the amount any single individual can contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and committees combined. This decision was the latest in a string of decisions handed down by the Roberts Court removing restrictions on the flow of money into politics. 

McCutcheon is likely to drive significantly more money into the coffers of federal candidates, political parties, and other political committees. While the overall limit on the amount any individual could donate to such entities in a single election cycle was $123,200 prior to McCutcheon, wealthy individuals may now be able to contribute over $3.5 million in a single cycle... 

But less noted in the aftermath of McCutcheon was the fact that the Court went out of its way to affirm the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure. The Chief Justice’s opinion asserted that disclosure “offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information” and in addition provides “robust protections against corruption.” Indeed, every member of the current Court but Justice Thomas has now signaled strong approval of disclosure..."

The article then goes on to ask if current forms of disclosure are sufficient to meet the Chief Justice's assertion, before deciding that the current reporting/disclosure system need reform. They suggest a number of changes, including standardizing disclosure forms. As did this blogger back in 2002!

Great quote - independence

 "... the General Assembly has asked whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law.The answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable inter-national law prohibited the declaration of independence. If the Court concludes that it did, then it must answer the question put by saying that the declaration of independence was not in accordance with international law. It follows that the task which the Court is called upon to perform is to determine whether or not the declaration of independence was adopted in violation of international law. The Court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to breakaway from it. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a particular act — such asa unilateral declaration of independence — not to be in violation of inter-national law without necessarily constituting the exercise of a right conferred by it. The Court has been asked for an opinion on the first point,not the second..."

- International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 22nd July 2010  The ICJ concluded that nothing specific  in international law prohibited the Kosovo declaration of independence.

"The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law" 

- President Obama, see Obama: Crimea Referendum Would Violate International Law. No specifics or particular law actually cited...

Consequences (MDET)

A recent article by Curtis Rooney, president of the Healthcare Supply Chain Association, took to task medical device manufacturers that have chosen to pass along the 2.3% Medical Device Excise Tax to their healthcare customers - Some medical device manufacturers not paying their share of health reform:

"As debate over repeal of the medical device excise tax continues on Capitol Hill, evidence has begun to emerge that some medical device manufacturers have chosen to pass the costs of the tax directly to American hospitals and healthcare providers, and ultimately to patients and taxpayers. For hospitals already delivering effective and affordable care on shrinking budgets, this is tantamount to being double-billed for healthcare reform.... 

... Hospitals are now reporting that, although some suppliers are behaving responsibly, other device manufacturers are billing hospitals directly to cover the costs associated with the medical device excise tax. Although there are more than 40 taxes found in the ACA, hospitals and other healthcare providers report that medical device suppliers are the only parties indicating that they plan to pass the tax on to their customers. That is not right.."

All true... The device manufacturers seem to be falling into three groups, those that do not attempt to pass this expense along (incidentally the plurality of the manufacturers that we deal with); those that seem confused or misinformed; and a smaller group that appear to be actively deceitful about the issue.

An example of a manufacturer from the second group (anonymized to protect the innocent):

Click to enlarge

Here's an example from a manufacturer that would appear to fall into the third group (also anonymized). This one is so elaborate that it is difficult to attribute this to confusion or even willful ignorance, but would seem to be an attempt at active dishonesty. The letter references part of the legislation and corresponding IRS regulations, but for things that do not pertain to the hospital doing the purchasing! The hospital is directed to complete a "medical device exemption certificate."  Clearly the first three choices would not apply to a hospital almost 100% of the time (i.e. use for further manufacture, for resale, or for export) leaving "None of the above: Purchased item(s) subject to the 2.3% medical device excise tax" which would imply the purchaser is responsible. The only problem? This logic is applicable to the manufacturer and not to the purchaser!

Click to enlarge

The medical device manufacturers are behaving responsibly for the most part. They, and their trade association, are actively trying to get this provision of the Affordable Care Act reversed. Majorities in both the Senate and House have indicated that they are in favor of a repeal, however specific enabling legislation has not been passed so the MDET remains in effect.

OK, so this blogger has no problem with these efforts by the device manufacturers, where he takes exception is with the legislators... Of course, this was not unexpected!

The September 29th, 2008 blog entry 'Quick reminder...' bemoaned Congress' penchant for specializing in ignorance, error, and immediate interest; in evincing a cavalier disregard of the intricacies of the matters they consider; and for 'specializing' in producing unintended consequences!

The follow-up September 29th, 2009 entry 'Unintended consequences' reprised this theme, provided a couple of examples, then said: "... Here's an easy prediction that's guaranteed to come about: one or two years after health care reform (or, rather, health insurance reform) gets passed, our Senators and Representatives will be complaining about some aspect of the delivery system and demanding corrective legislation, and that the issue(s) they are complaining about will be a direct (but unintended) consequence of the earlier reform... Another easy prediction: when this happens they will eschew all ownership and responsibility for the issue, and will seek to lay the blame elsewhere..."

Amen!

Random charts

Source: Counterterrorism Intelligence: Law Enforcement Perspectives

Brief update I (Recycle)

In the March 29th, 2008 blog entry, Medellin, this blogger looked at Docket 06-984 Medellin v. Texas. In that case the Supreme Court held in favor of the state of Texas, allowing it to execute a Mexican national even though he had not been advised of his right to contact the Mexican consulate...

Fast forward to July 2011. Over similar objections another Mexican national is executed by Texas in similar circumstances, see UN rights chief: US execution of Mexico national violated international law.

Koh redux

The March 28th, 2010 blog entry, 'Thought Experiment', examined Harold Koh's (Obama administration State Department Legal Advisor) speech at the American Society of International law, in which he argued that the administration's use of unmanned drones to conduct strikes in which many have been killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are legal and in accordance with international law. A quick "thought experiment" showed it to be unpersuasive...

Now Koh has built on to that exposition to argue that the killing of Osama bin Laden was legal....

Great quotes

"We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law."

- President Obama, see Obama on Manning: “He Broke the Law.” So Much for that Trial? Hmm, quite apart from the propriety of making this comment before a trial, the first part, "we don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate', is quite rich coming from a President who seems to believe he is exempt from this...

President Obama speaks on Manning and the rule of law says it much better...

Misc update (Pharma suits)

Two people whose physicians prescribed them the drug Reglan for different indications are suing the manufacturers of the generic versions (metoclopramide) they both took. Both plaintiffs were on the drug for extended periods and subsequently developed tardive dyskinesia.

One (Gladys Mensing) originally sued both Wyeth (the manufacturer of the trade-name drug) as well as the generics manufacturers in state court on the grounds that they (the manufacturers) did not adequately warn of the risks of long-term usage of the drugs.

The district court dismissed her suit against the brand-name manufacturer (Wyeth), since the plaintiffs had not used their product. It also dismissed her case against the generic manufacturers on the basis of federal preemption. She then appealed to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment that had been made in favor of the generic manufacturers. These then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted review of Mensing's case, and merged it with two others, agreeing to "... clarify the legal duty of makers of generic medicines to change their labels to warn consumers of a new threat of harmful side effects, and to decide whether state court lawsuits may be filed for failure to do so. .." (see here). Note: the Acting Solicitor General had recommended that the Court deny certiorari in these cases, but was ignored.

In March 2009, in Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court had already ruled (6-3) that the FDCA did not preempt state failure-to-warn laws against brand-name drug manufacturers. This case will now clarify this same issue with regards to generic drug manufacturers.

Argument preview: FDA drug labeling requirements and failure-to-warn claims
PLIVA, Inc v. Mensing

Some previous blog entries related to pharma suits:
Misc update III - Feb 13th, 2011
Say what? - Aug 25th, 2010
Wyeth v. Levine - Mar 22nd, 2009

Misc update III

The March 22nd, 2009 blog entry, Wyeth vs. Levine, mentioned the issue of federal vs. state pre-emption related to drug company labeling of their products... Another case on this issue was adjudicated in January, with the drug company losing again, see: Generic OTC Drugmaker Loses A Preemption Case

Great quotes I

"Freedom House today renewed its deep concern about the fairness and impartiality of the pending court decision in the case of former Yukos head, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in light of comments made by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during a call-in session with the Russian public.

Asked by a viewer about the fairness of the eight-year sentence Khodorkovsky is currently serving on charges of tax evasion, Putin borrowed a famous line from a popular Soviet film, replying “a thief must sit in prison.” He also said that the crimes of Mr. Khodorkovsky "were proven in court," before any verdict has been rendered in this latest trial. Putin concluded his remarks by calling the Russian court one of the “most humane in the world.”

“The Russian prime minister's remarks are utterly irresponsible and make a mockery of the justice system by overtly prejudging a verdict before the court issues its decision,” remarked David J. Kramer, Executive Director of Freedom House. “Mr. Putin once again has demonstrated his scornful disregard for rule of law, directly contradicting President Medvedev’s pledges to eradicate legal nihilism and dashing hopes for a justice system free from political pressure.” See Putin’s Remarks on Khodorkovsky Show Blatant Disrespect for Rule of Law.

Ok, so let's understand this. A viewer asked about the sentence Khodorovsky is currently serving i.e. Putin was asked about Khodorovsky's last trial, back in May 2005. When Putin opines that Khodorovsky got what he deserved (and would one expect anything different to come out of his mouth?), this is "utterly irresponsible" and "prejudging" the current case?

Additionally, speaking of prejudging, how is this that different from President Obama and AG Holder suggesting (in response to Republican criticism of their proposals) that convictions would be all but guaranteed if/when "terrorists" would be tried in civilian courts ??

Ed note: OK, for those readers who are turning purple with apoplexy at this 'heresy', this blogger understands that it is not free in Russia.... that the administration there is an autocratic and authoritarian kleptocracy... that the courts do what they are told versus applying the law impartially, etc. , etc. The criticism here is directed at these NGOs (Freedom House, Amnesty International, etc.), who take a comment about the past and huff and puff as if it is about the future (Note: here I'm going by their own reporting of what transpired!!), and apparently need to gin up fake outrage when there's manifestly plenty of real outrages present that need to be exposed and denounced!!

Further "self-executing"

Picture credit: The Treaty of Velasco (Public)

The March 29th, 2008 blog entry 'Medellin' looked at 'Medellin v Texas' and noted the apparent difference between "self-executing" and "non self-executing" treaties. An article at Opinio Juris, 'A Head-Spinning Self-Execution Story' discusses the issue of self-execution (and related confusion) through the prism of two defense trade treaties agreed to with the United Kingdom and Australia...

In both of these cases language was inserted into the treaty preamble texts declaring them to be self-executing. However when the Senate took up the ratification of the two treaties it declared them non self-executing notwithstanding the included language. Given that in Medellin the Supreme Court looked to the language of the relevant treaty to determine if it was self-executing or not, this would seem to raise a number of questions and this is discussed in the article...

Random charts

Source: Afghanistan: U.S. Rule of Law and Justice Sector Assistance

Say what?

"We're dealing with human lives here, and if they could do anything to make their products safer, they ought to." - Henry Chanin.

"... the pharmaceutical companies were responsible for providing 50 ml vials of propofol to ambulatory centers that would require no more than 10ml to 20 ml bottles because profit dictated the decision to do so. The larger size vials encouraged multi-dosing becoming weapons of mass infection. The result is nearly immeasurable.” - Henry Chanin's lawyer.

"... They gave no warning to doctors, gave no warning to nurses, and that’s why we have all these outbreaks in eight different countries, 11 different institutions around the world..." - The lawyer for Henry Chanin's wife. Also "... What this jury has done may be the most important thing any jury anywhere has ever done for drug safety in the history of the United States ...”

By golly, apparently those greedy pharmaceutical companies continue to put out defective product... And this courageous couple has struck a decisive blow for the safety of all patients everywhere! Well, perhaps not. The facts of the case:

• It was discovered that the Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center in Las Vegas (Dr. Deepak Desai et. al) had infected a very large number of their patients with Hepatitis C. Apparently, in a racket to make as much money as possible, this 'doctor' had his employees a) Reuse single-use vials of the anesthetic propofol on multiple patients, b) Reuse syringes and other single-use instruments, c) Rush procedures to speed up throughput, and d) Neglect to ensure that his employees were trained on how to clean endoscopes between cases.
• One of Dr. Desai's victims, Henry Chanin, decided to sue... the drug companies that manufacture the propofol used.
• Why? Well, his lawyer argued that they "... endangered public safety by producing vials that were much larger than necessary for typical endoscopic procedures, which enticed nurse anesthetists to reuse the vials among patients instead of throwing away leftover sedative..." And the complaint against the companies "... alleged product liability, negligence and disregard of known and accepted medical procedures, resulting in Henry Chanin contracting hepatitis C from exposure to contaminated vials of the anesthetic propofol. Baxter was the distributor and Teva the manufacturer of the drug..."
• The jury found in Chanin's favor and awarded him and his wife $5.1 million in compensatory damages....
• Never mind that the drug is dispensed in single-dose vials and that Teva pointed out that "the label for its propofol product clearly states that it is for single patient use only and that aseptic procedures should be used at all times ..."
• Good grief! But wait, as they say in the infomercials, there's more...
• The jury went on to award Chanin $500 million in punitive damages ($356 million for Teva, and $144 million for Baxter)!
  
• Apparently the jury was so generous because they felt badly for Chanin. The school headmaster now suffers from lingering joint pain, and "... he and his wife had stopped having sexual relations, for fear that he would spread the disease to her..." Oh, well, in that case...
  

What a crock! Meet Henry Chanin, poster boy for tort reform. Best of all they trotted out that perennial chestnut: it wasn't about the money, but about getting two giant companies to change, and "... if we didn’t come forward and we didn’t pursue some kind of action, we weren’t doing all we could to make sure that what happened to me doesn’t happen to anybody else”

Drugmakers Lose Hepatitis C Trial
Patient says hepatitis lawsuit just start of public safety battle
Jury Orders Baxter, Teva to Pay $500 Million In Largest Award in Nevada’s History

First addendum:
Ran across this insta-poll on a local Las Vegas news outlet. Apparently seven percent of the people who took this poll feel that the award was "not enough"!

Second addendum:

Others injured in the same way by the same clinic are watching, Hep C Victims Watched Court Case Closely Another victim is "... glad Henry Chanin has justice, but wonders if he'll still be around to ever have justice of his own..." And "... with years of court appeals ahead, the 70-year-old may never see any large sums of money from the propfol drug companies he believes are partly to blame for the constant pain he faces..." Very unfortunate for this gentleman, who deserves justice. Unfortunately he's looking in the wrong place! This decision is "justice"? Teva and Baxter are "partly to blame"? What absolute nonsense.

Third addendum:
Apparently a number of the jurors wanted a higher award. According to reports "... "It was difficult to assess an amount to make someone wake up and make a change," (jury forewoman) Williams said. She said some jurors feared an award of $1 billion might be appealed.

Bomb - explosive, firearm, and WMD

An indictment has been returned against Flight 253 "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab... He is charged with six counts:

1. The attempted use of a WMD.
2. The attempted murder of 289 individuals ("within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the U.S.")
3. A willful attempt to destroy and wreck an aircraft.
4. Willfully placing a destructive device on an airplane that would be likely to endanger its safety.
5. That he "knowingly used and carried a firearm" in furtherance of one or more crimes of violence, and,
6. That he "knowingly possessed a firearm" in furtherance of one or more crimes of violence.

.... all of which he will be found guilty of and put away for a very long time. Per the law his bomb is considered an explosive device, a firearm, and also a weapon of mass destruction. As observed in the April 2008 blog entry, 'WMD ain't what they used to be...', the term "WMD" is cheapened by its promiscuous and indiscriminate use...

By his own words...

In Uganda a first-term parliamentarian has introduced a bill to penalize homosexuality. It would make the act of homosexuality a felony punishable by seven years in prison; and the act of "aggravated" homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment. (Ed note: In Uganda homosexuality is already illegal). The bill also includes penalties for not reporting (a fine and up to three years imprisonment); those who engage in same-sex marriage are imprisoned for life; while anyone who "aids and abets" homosexuality is liable for seven years....

Condemnation, rightly, has poured in from around the world... In defense of himself and his bill Bahati has said at various times:

"You are either anti-homosexual, or you're for homosexuals, because there's no middle point. Anybody who does not believe that homosexuality is a crime is a sympathizer..."

"The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is a nice piece of legislation. It is a consolidation of values of Ugandans and the country at large. It aims at holding the integrity of Ugandans high in the sky... The family is the epitome of creation. And anything that deviates from our family values is evil, unacceptable. This Bill is focusing on ways through which Uganda can keep her family values safe and sound... The divine role of man is that of procreation, a far cry from this mentality that man and man can live in the same house as husband and wife, or a woman marrying a fellow woman... Combating homosexuality is not easy. There is massive recruitment in schools—mostly single-sex schools...," and "... supporting the cause of this Bill will provide Uganda as a country an opportunity to provide leadership in this area of safeguarding the traditional family..."

What a piece of work!

Bill No 18 The Antihomosexuality Bill (text and link to original PDF)
David Bahati - Wikipedia
David Bahati - Ugandan Parliament page
Taboos Silence Opponents Of Uganda Anti-Gay Bill
David Bahati: Homosexuality is not a human right
Uganda MP Bahati defends gay-sex 'death penalty' bill

Misc updates...

Needed: vultures...

Photo credit: Radio Sai

The October 29th, 2008 blog entry, Science and side effects..., discussed a couple of the side effects of the massive vulture die-off in Bombay and India. One example was a huge surge in the population of wild dogs, resulting in an increase in rabies deaths among the population. According to this article, Is Decline in India’s Vulture Population Linked to Spread of Rabies in Humans? the Indian government has launched a plan to sterilize eight million stray dogs over the next ten years...

Needed: new legislation...

Picture source: Wikipedia

The March 29th, 2008 blog entry, Medellin, covered the SCOTUS decision in Medellin v. Texas, which allowed the state to go ahead and execute Jose Ernesto Medellin (who had been convicted of the rape and subsequent murder of two girls). Medellin had argued that the police had not informed him of his right (pursuant to the Vienna Convention) to have the Mexican consulate notified of his arrest. In an oped last week in the New York Times, "Lawlessness North of the Border", John B. Bellinger III (a lawyer, was the legal adviser to the State Department from April 2005 to January 2009) argues that the Obama administration should "seek narrowly tailored legislation that would authorize the president to order review of these cases and override, if necessary, any state criminal laws limiting further appeals, in order to comply with the United Nations Charter." Good luck with that! It is unlikely that the Obama administration will move on this issue - although it may be the right thing to do, you know that the "soft on crime" attacks would immediately begin, and the administration is unlikely to risk political capital on this issue...

Needed: outrage leading to action... (and a sense of perspective)

Photo source: Let's See Change

Apparently the "Skip Gates affair" has shocked... shocked... some, who are lamenting that the U.S. apparently is not post-racial, the election of Barack Obama as President notwithstanding... An example is one Lawrence Bobo... Now this blogger can't say that he has any idea at all who this gentleman is, other than that he has written an article on the incident, What Do You Call a Black Man With a Ph.D.? This blogger, for one, was not shocked that racism still exists in the United States. What he is shocked about, nay appalled, is that the folks like Bobo and many others are surprised, and acting as if this is a revelation! Are they so oblivious, wrapped in their academic coccoons? Almost four years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans the truth about what appears to be a series of racially motivated killings that occurred in the area at that time has not been full uncovered... and in fact is not even seriously being investigated.
Mr. Bobo, please read this article, "Katrina's Hidden Race War', find a true sense of outrage, write opeds, and petition the administration to do something to have this seriously investigated! Skip Gates is an erudite and well-spoken person, who is listened to and who has a friend in the White House. Please also get him engaged in this effort. Oh, and bye the bye, how about an explanation re why this does not outrage you as much as your friend's minor (in comparison) inconvenience...

Progress?

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Tribunal Spécial pour le Liban) has recently set up shop in the Netherlands (the official opening ceremony was held March 1st, 2009).

From its web site: "The mandate of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is to prosecute persons responsible for the attack of 14 February 2005 resulting in the death of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and in the death or injury of other persons. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction could be extended beyond the 14 February 2005 bombing if the Tribunal finds that other attacks that occurred in Lebanon between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005 are connected in accordance with the principles of criminal justice and are of a nature and gravity similar to the attack of 14 February 2005. This connection includes but is not limited to a combination of the following elements: criminal intent (motive), the purpose behind the attacks, the nature of the victims targeted, the pattern of the attacks (modus operandi), and the perpetrators. Crimes that occurred after 12 December 2005 can be eligible to be included in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the same criteria if it is so decided by the Government of the Lebanese Republic and the United Nations and with the consent of the Security Council."

On March 27th the STL/TSL issued "a request to the Lebanese authorities seized with the case of the attack against Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others (the “Hariri case”) to: 1) defer to the Tribunal’s competence, 2) hand over to the Prosecutor the results of the investigations, and a copy of the relevant court records and other probative material, and 3) submit to the Pre-Trial Judge a list of all persons detained in connection with the investigation” (the “Application”)" within 14 days. See CH/PTJ/2009/01. This seems like rather a formality given that the Prosecutor Daniel Bellmare has been the 3rd head of the International Independent Investigation Commission (following Detlev Mehlis and Serge Brammertz in that role) since January 2008.

Once the STL/TLS receives these materials it will have to decide "within a reasonable time" to either tell the Lebanese authorities to release the detained; or (if it wants the detainee(s) to continue to be held) it must hold a hearing to determine if the Lebanese should continue to hold the detainees or if the detainee should be transferred to the STL/TLS.

Four generals suspected of involvement in the Hariri assassination (February 14th, 2005) have been in custody without charge since August 2005 - Lebanese Armed Forces Intelligence head Raymond Azar, Mustapha Hamdan of the presidential guard, Internal Security Forces Director Ali Hajj, and Jamil al-Sayyed from General Security. If the STL/TSL decides (as is expected) to ask for the continued detention and transfer of these four, one would hope that they would speed things up and give them their day in court. However, the signs are not good, funding is being lined up for the first three years and scuttlebutt is that it may last until 2014 or longer... Guess this is "Guantanamo style."

Some previous blog entries on Lebanon:

UNIIIC progress (?!) - December 18th, 2008
Great quotes... - December 10th, 2008
Damned if you do... - November 18th, 2008
Lebanon - good grief - November 11th, 2008
Taking it back - October 28th, 2008
Litmus test quiz - September 2nd, 2008
Everything takes more time... - August 12th, 2008
At Last (Lebanon)! - July 11th, 2008
Self-examination - profound & shallow - July 7th, 2008
Some poll indicators - June 21st, 2008
Make that President Sleiman - May 25th, 2008
Le Sursis - May 21st, 2008
Lebanon - Doha noise - May 20th, 2008
Bad omen... good omen... - May 11th, 2008
Needed in Lebanon III - May 6th, 2008
Headed back down the toilet? - May 6th, 2008
Needed in Lebanon II - May 2nd, 2008
Needed in Lebanon - April 16th, 2008
Misc updates #3 - April 4th, 2008
Rogue's Gallery II - March 26th, 2008
A Rogue's Gallery - March 2nd, 2008