“Something in the way he ruled yesterday attracts attention like no other judge.

It was a flamboyant first, from any judicial bench: a ruling in rhyme which parodied the best loved song ever written by the late Beatle, George Harrison: ‘Something’, with a sleight-of-hand reference to While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

And it was apparently appropriate, since the defendant in the case was none other than Gil Lederman – the doctor who once treated Harrison himself, and won infamy by asking the dying Beatle to sign a guitar which was later subject to a legal dispute.

‘Something in the folks he treats …’ began the judge’s ruling.” (Guardian.UK)

“Under a ballot measure approved on Nov. 2, property owners who can prove that environmental or zoning rules have hurt their investments can force the government to compensate them for the losses – or get an exemption from the rules.” (New York Times )

“In my next life, I want to be Tom DeLay, the House majority leader.

Yes, I want to get almost the entire Republican side of the House of Representatives to bend its ethics rules just for me. I want to be able to twist the arms of House Republicans to repeal a rule that automatically requires party leaders to step down if they are indicted on a felony charge – something a Texas prosecutor is considering doing to DeLay because of corruption allegations.

But most of all, I want to have the gall to sully American democracy at a time when young American soldiers are fighting in Iraq so we can enjoy a law-based society here and, maybe, extend it to others. Yes, I want to be Tom DeLay. I want to wear a little American flag on my lapel in solidarity with the troops, while I besmirch every value they are dying for.

If I can’t be Tom DeLay, then I want to be one of the gutless Republican House members who voted to twist the rules for DeLay out of fear that ‘the Hammer,’ as they call him, might retaliate by taking away a coveted committee position or maybe a parking place.” — Thomas Friedman (New York Times op-ed)

“Airport screening procedures are more reactive than imaginative. There’s an attempted shoe bombing, so all passengers must shed their shoes. Two female Chechens may or may not have sneaked explosives onto Russian planes, so now some T.S.A. genius decides all women are subject to strips and body searches.

I get flagged for extra security every time I buy a one-way ticket, which seems particularly lame. Doesn’t the T.S.A. realize that a careful terrorist plotter like Mohammed Atta could figure this out and use his Saudi charity money to pop for round trips even if the return portion gets wasted?

In two articles in The Times, Joe Sharkey has chronicled the plaints of women angry about new procedures in airport security that have increased both the number and intensity of the airport pat-down, or ‘breast exam,’ as one woman put it.” — Maureen Dowd, (New York Times op-ed)

“To see how the hucksters of the right work their “moral values” scam, there could be no more illustrative example than the Nicollette Sheridan episode.

…It’s beginning to look a lot like Groundhog Day. Ever since 22 percent of the country’s voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about “moral values,” opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.” — Frank Rich (New York Times )

“Amgen’s move has provoked an outcry from patients who say the company is robbing them of their only hope. ‘It’s almost the same thing as a diabetic losing their insulin’…

The story of Amgen’s drug shows the clash between the faith of patients and the cold logic of science and business. At a time when public debate is focused on whether unsafe drugs like Vioxx are remaining on the market too long, this story shows patients who are more than willing to accept risks to get a drug. Their willingness also raises an ethical question: If a company stops developing a drug for safety or efficacy reasons, is it obligated to continue supplying it to patients from its clinical trials?” (New York Times )