Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (13683)	10/24/2003 1:57:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793858

Victor Davis Hanson, quoted in Sullivan: "For some reason or another, a series of enormously important issues — the future of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States as both a strong and a moral power, the war against the Islamic fundamentalists, the future of the U.N. and NATO, our own politics here at home — now hinge on America's efforts at creating a democracy out of chaos in Iraq. That is why so many politicians — in the U.N., the EU, Germany, France, the corrupt Middle East governments, and a host of others — are so strident in their criticism, so terrified that in a postmodern world the United States can still recognize evil, express moral outrage, and then sacrifice money and lives to eliminate something like Saddam Hussein and leave things far better after the fire and smoke clear. People, much less states, are not supposed to do that anymore in a world where good is a relative construct, force is a thing of the past, and the easy life is too precious to be even momentarily interrupted. We may expect that, a year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States — a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian." nationalreview.com

To: FaultLine who wrote (13683)	10/24/2003 2:05:10 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793858

I've taken a pass through the material before for a case a few years ago involving a couple, both of whom lied about living in Indiana because one of them knew a cheap lawyer there, so they lied to the court in Indiana and got what appeared to be a valid divorce. Then the husband "remarried" and had kids. The upshot of the case was the judge ruled that they were estopped from arguing that they weren't divorced, under the principle of unclean hands. Which, I pointed out, would probably not be binding on their heirs. It was a mess. But at least they didn't have a substantial amount of money to litigate over. That would have been Jarndyce v. Jarndyce redux. Sometimes I think about what could happen if either of them won the lottery. And shudder.