Displaying posts published in

April 2017

Lindsey Graham The Tort Bar’s Senate Undertaker Someday, and that day will come soon, it will ask Mr. Graham for a favor.

It’s good to be a Senator, especially if you are a Republican who is the most important opponent of tort reform on Capitol Hill. Witness the largesse that the plaintiffs bar is bestowing on South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham in its moment of maximum political peril.

On Thursday Mr. Graham was feted in Houston at a fundraiser hosted by Mark Lanier, who can afford it. The Lanier Law Firm has vacuumed up some $13 billion in tort verdicts over the years from Vioxx to asbestos. The invitation asks Mr. Lanier’s tort comrades to share their wealth to the tune of $500 to $5,400 for “Team Graham.”

“Our goal is to show Senator Graham an appreciation from both sides of the bar for what he can help do, especially with tort reform running rampant from the house,” Mr. Lanier added in an email. “It will take Senator Graham to help educate folks and lead the charge from the Republican side.”

Mr. Graham has every right to take campaign cash from all comers, and in this case he is a true believer. He’s long fought tort reform, and his legal friends have rewarded him with some $3.7 million over his 24-year Senate career.

Now his services are truly needed, like Bonasera the undertaker in “The Godfather.” Mr. Lanier wants Mr. Graham to use all of his powers, all of his skills, to bury at least two bills that have passed the House that address major tort-bar abuses.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act would crack down on trial-attorney fees that are many times larger than the payout to the class of litigants they represent. The Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act would require the nation’s 60-some asbestos trusts to provide courts the records of trust payouts. This would reduce the plaintiffs bar practice of “double dipping”—secretly raiding the trusts while also pursuing claims via lawsuits. In court they claim the company they’re suing caused asbestos disease, but to the trusts they blame the defunct company financing the trust.

Senator Graham is on the Judiciary Committee where Republicans hold a mere 11-9 majority. His defection on any tort bill would result in a tie that could kill it. Chairman Chuck Grassley will be loathe to move bills that he knows will fail, so Mr. Graham can whisper to Mr. Grassley that he is undecided and perhaps never have to take a vote.

Mr. Graham’s office didn’t respond to our request for comment about the Lanier event, but Mr. Grassley should take his reform bills to the Senate floor despite a tie vote in committee. Even if the bills are defeated, Senators would have to go on record. In any case the trial bar will get its money’s worth from Thursday.

The Attack in France Islamic State claims responsibility three days before an election.

Three days ahead of the first round of France’s presidential election, terrorism has intervened. A gunman with an automatic rifle jumped from a car on the Champs-Élysée Thursday evening and poured bullets into a police car, killing one officer. Islamic State has claimed responsibility.

This event puts extraordinary pressure on a French electorate already trying to sort through difficult decisions about its vote on Sunday.

Conventional political wisdom would hold that the assault will benefit far-right candidate Marine Le Pen because last-minute events of this magnitude can influence voter sentiment, and Ms. Le Pen is running hard on the idea that France is under assault from Arab immigrants. In recent debates she has proposed that France suspend all legal immigration into the country.

The shooting may well tip sentiment in Ms. Le Pen’s direction, but at least two of her three opponents—conservative François Fillon and center-left Emmanuel Macron —have run on strong antiterror platforms. They have also run hard on the widespread sense of economic torpor among the French people. As we saw in the U.K.’s Brexit vote and the U.S. election last year, the sense of dimming economic opportunity is a potent political force. Polls indicate that is French voters’ number one concern.

Whatever the immediate effect of Thursday’s shooting in the heart of Paris, there is no avoiding the blunt reality at the heart of France’s momentous election, which is the general sense among the population that the nation’s elites—in politics and the French media—have become disconnected from the realities of the nation’s problems. It will be a pity if one shooting tips Sunday’s results, but it would not be a surprise.

Among Arabs, Diverging Views on Turkey’s Erdogan Amid concerns about democracy in the country, some in Middle East see strong Muslim leader By Nour Malas

ISTANBUL—Syrian merchant Bassel Fouad was once active in the opposition to his country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and sees him as a tyrant who destroyed Syria with his iron-fisted authoritarian rule.

Mr. Fouad, who now lives in southern Turkey, said he doesn’t understand intensified concerns in his host nation over the growing power of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the wake of Sunday’s constitutional referendum. He called Mr. Erdogan “a reformer who led his country forward.”

His view reflects a paradox on Turkey among its Arab neighbors: Even as Mr. Erdogan’s moves have raised concerns over the direction of Turkey’s democracy, some still see him as a fair and strong Muslim leader in a region largely ruled by dynasties and resurgent autocrats.

The results of the referendum, in which Turks voted by a slim margin to concentrate more power in the presidency, were met with supportive nods in corners of the Arab world, though the vote was marred by allegations of irregularities.

Some of the nods came from citizens of countries led by monarchs, stagnant governments or repressive regimes—a sign of how deeply split the Middle East is over ideas of reform and Islamist rule, and how relative and fluid those notions can be.

“As long as the changes came through the ballot boxes, why all this fear?” said Mohammad Diab, a Syrian refugee in northern Germany. Mr. Diab said he believed the Turkish president “will lead an Islamic awakening in Turkey and the region.”

Barakat Alshamrani, who was visiting Istanbul from Saudi Arabia, said he realized Turkey was divided over Mr. Erdogan and whether to grant the president more power, but he shrugged off the debate.

“What we know is that he is a good, fair, popular Muslim leader,” said Mr. Alshamrani. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump Joins Criticism of Iran; Questions U.S. Role in Libya U.S. president says Tehran is ‘not living up to the spirit’ of nuclear dealBy Felicia Schwartz and Rebecca Ballhaus

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump, adding to strong criticism of the Iran nuclear deal voiced by his administration, said on Thursday that Tehran is “not living up to the spirit of the agreement.”

His comments, in a joint press conference with Italy’s Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, added to signals from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others that the Trump administration could back away from the landmark deal reached in 2015 between six world powers and Iran.

“We’re analyzing it very, very carefully and we’ll have something to say about it in the not-too-distant future,” Mr. Trump said. “Iran has not lived up to the spirit of the agreement and they have to do that.”

The Trump administration certified to Congress earlier this week that Iran is abiding by the accord, but senior officials have said they are reviewing whether to stick with the deal.

Mr. Trump’s comments come a day after Mr. Tillerson made a rare public appearance to list U.S. complaints against Iran, complaining about its destabilizing activities in the Middle East, and Next week, Tom Shannon, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, will attend a meeting in Vienna with Iran and the other world powers who were party to the accord in what will be the first session with Trump administration representation.

Mr. Trump on Thursday also questioned another key U.S. policy position in the Middle East—its role in Libya. The Obama administration had carried out strikes against Islamic State and backed the Government of National Accord, which stemmed from a 2015 U.N.-brokered deal. The internationally recognized Government of National Accord has struggled to assert itself since then.

“I do not see a role in Libya,” Mr. Trump said Thursday. “I do see a role in getting rid of ISIS.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Terror Strikes Champs-Élysées Days Before French Vote One police officer killed, two wounded in attack before assailant is killed; Islamic State claims responsibility By Nick Kostov, Matthew Dalton and Joshua Robinson

PARIS—A gunman opened fire on the Champs-Élysées on Thursday, killing a police officer and wounding two others in an assault authorities said was likely a terror attack, just days before France’s presidential elections begin.

French officials said the assault began at 8:50 p.m., when a car pulled alongside a police patrol and the gunman jumped out wielding an automatic rifle. Police returned fire, killing the gunman, who was identified by an official as Karim Cheurfi, a French national.

A spokeswoman for antiterrorism prosecutors in Paris said they had opened an investigation into the assault. French President François Hollande said authorities were convinced it was a terror attack and expressed “great sadness” over the police officer’s death.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the suspected terror attack, said SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors the extremist group’s communications. “We can’t exclude whether there’s one or several accomplices,” Pierre-Henry Brandet, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.

The attack sent immediate ripples across the political landscape as the closely fought election was entering its final stretch. France 2, the state TV channel, briefly interrupted a live broadcast in which the 11 presidential candidates were outlining their platforms to broadcast footage showing the Champs-Élysées in lockdown. CONTINUE AT SITE

Europe: Making Itself into the New Afghanistan? by Giulio Meotti

“Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan,” said Algerian writer Kamel Daoud. Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan.

The West used to be proud of being the land of the free. European museums, instead, are rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition “Passion for Freedom” at the Mall Gallery in London censored the light box tableaux of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley.

“The Louvre will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern Christians”, then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the project was scrapped by the museum’s new management, with the approval of President Hollande’s culture ministry. So today, the Louvre has a section dedicated to Islamic art, but nothing on Eastern Christianity.

Maastricht, in the Netherlands, is the picturesque city that gave its name to the famous treaty signed in 1992 by the twelve nations of the European Community at the time, and which paved the way for the foundation of today’s European Union and the single currency, the euro.

Maastricht, however, is also the home of “Tefaf”, the most important art and antiques fair in the world. The art work “Persepolis” by the Italian artist Luca Pignatelli was already scheduled when the commission ordered it removed. The work, built in 2016, combined a Persian Islamic rug and a female head. “We are all humbled and speechless”, Pignatelli declared, pointing out that his work had initially aroused the enthusiasm of the commission. The fair’s explanation was that Pignatelli’s work was “provocative”.

The officials of fair presumably did not want to offend Islam and possible Muslim buyers with Pignatelli’s combination of the mat (used by Muslims for prayer) with the woman’s face. “We are shocked, this is the first time this has happened and I think it is legitimate to talk about it”, Pignatelli said. “If in Rome it can happen that you decide to veil art works to avoid offending foreign visitors, well, I do not agree”. The reference is at the Italian government decision to veil the antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran’s visiting President Hassan Rouhani.

If Europe wants a future, it should be less ideological about Maastricht’s treaty and more against Maastricht’s capitulation to fear. The brave Algerian writer Kamel Daoud said:

“Those (migrants) who come to seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan”.

Right. But it is the European mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another Afghanistan. The Taliban have killed artists and destroyed art works. The West used to be proud of being the land of the free.

U of Alaska: We Won’t Take Down Painting of Beheaded Donald Trump By Jillian Kay Melchior

The University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove a professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump, saying it was important to protect even objectionable artistic expression.https://heatst.com/culture-wars/u-of-alaska-we-wont-take-down-painting-of-beheaded-donald-trump/

The painting shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, hangs on campus as part of an art exhibition this month.

But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.

Berger’s post soon prompted outrage, including several calls for the university to remove the painting. By deadline, neither Chung nor school officials responded toHeat Street’s request for comment.

But in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department defended his decision to keep the painting up.

“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

The University of Alaska Anchorage has at least one policy in place that “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” on campus, according to theFoundation for Individual Rights in Education.

And in recent years, art has also been censored at the university a handful of times. Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.

But the university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”

— Jillian Kay Melchior writes for Heat Street and is a fellow for the Steamboat Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum.