August 22, 2009
Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon to Oppose Google Book Settlement
The news appeared at the end of this week that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon are joining forces to oppose the Google Book Rights Registry. The three are joining the Open Book Alliance, an umbrella organization that opposes the settlement, at least in its current form. This move comes as no surprise given how implementation of the settlement would drive traffic to Google. I suppose it's easier to fight the prospect than to actually compete against it. Google has noted that the settlement is non-exclusive. Whether or not there are problems with the edges of the settlement is another matter from stopping one company from doing something that three others could do and so far choose not to do. This is especially true of Microsoft who had their own scanning project and abandoned it. There is nothing in the settlement that cuts out other companies from capitalizing a similar project. I doubt the publishers would object as they would have another major outlet to sell the same materials. As far as the notion that Google is being rewarded for breaking the law, both sides are part of this settlement. The publishers and authors could have fought to the very end as a way of vindicating their rights. It happens all the time. I suppose if Microsoft settles a patent suit against it by paying favorably to license the disputed technology (custom XML in Word anyone?), would they be rewarded for breaking the law by keeping the offending application for sale?
The initial story on the opposition to the settlement is in the New York Times. The Register has a broader overview of what's going on with links to other sites and documents. Wired has an interesting post on its site noting how the New York Law School's advocacy on the settlement is funded in part by, gasp, Microsoft. I wonder what position the school favors? [MG]
Survey of Reaction to Model Unmasking Blogger Via Court Order
Another case affecting the anonymity of blogging came to a head when model Liskula Cohen pressed for and received a court order forcing Google to turn over information leading to the identity of the owner of the Skanks in NYC blog. The huffing and puffing from the blogosphere on that one tended towards the outrage that the First Amendment is being compromised by this case. My take on it is that the First Amendment does not protect allegedly defamatory speech, and the fact that it was said on an Internet destination doesn't change the character of the legal issues. We're not talking Thomas Paine political speech here. But that's me. I suspect my view is in the minority on this one.
For those interested, the Atlantic Wire has a nice compilation of thoughtful opinions on the legal and moral ramifications of the case. It is available here. [MG]
Samuelson Takes the Case Against the Google Book Search Settlement to the Masses
UC Berkeley law prof Pamela Samuelson is taking her critique of the Google Book Search Settlement to the masses in a series of articles in The Huffington Post. OK, maybe not the masses, to the readers of ...
The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement, August 10, 2009. ("Sorry, Kindle. The Google Book Search settlement will be, if approved, the most significant book industry development in the modern era.")
Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement? August 19, 2009 ("My concerns about the competition-policy consequences of the settlement center on the market for institutional subscriptions. ... A monopoly over institutional licenses would allow Google to charge monopoly rents. Even if it doesn't plan to do this immediately, Google may come under pressure to do so over time because BRR [Book Rights Registry] has to agree on the price of institutional licenses. Publishers and authors registered with BRR may think they deserve ever higher returns.")
August 21, 2009
Scholarship alert: Legal Reference Services Quarterly special volume devoted to teaching legal research
Volume I of the Legal Reference Services Quarterly is devoted exclusively to articles about teaching legal research. Links to the individual articles, set forth below, can be found here.
Here's the bibliography:
Bintliff, Barbara. Legal research: MacCrate's "fundamental lawyering skill" missing in action. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 1-7 (2009).
Chiorazzi, Michael and Shaun Esposito. Commentaries on Hicks' 'Teaching Legal Bibliography': with an addendum by Robert Berring. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 9-30 (2009).
Legal Research Theory
Callister, Paul D. Thinking like a research expert: schemata for teaching complex problem-solving skills. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 31-51 (2009).
Berring, Robert C. and Kathleen Vanden Heuvel. Teaching advanced legal research: philosophy and context. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 53-62 (2009).
Gilliland, Kris. A motivational perspective on first-year legal research instruction. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 63-75 (2009).
Best Practices in Teaching Legal Research
Johnson, Nancy P. Best practices: what first-year law students should learn in a legal research class. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 77-99 (2009).
Knott, Christopher A. On teaching advanced legal research. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 101-131 (2009).
Rumsey, Mary. The skills they need: international and foreign legal research. 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 133-149 (2009).
Trotta, Victoria K. and Beth DiFelice. State-specific legal research instruction: curricular stepchild or core competency? 28 Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 151-177 (2009).
Alert law librarian at Louisville's Brandeis U. averts potential tragedy
This librarian deserves a medal for preventing what may have turned into yet another on-campus shooting rampage reports the Louisville Courier-Journal (with a hat tip to Above the Law for cluing me into the story). According to the paper, a former Brandeis student, who was banned from campus last December, entered the law library this morning carrying two concealed guns and ammo. An alert law library staff member recognized the person as a blacklisted student and called the police who arrested the suspect without incident. The ex-student has been charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon and criminal trespass.
You can read the rest of the story here.
Quicklaw Founder Hugh Lawford, 1933-2009
Hugh Lawford, former law professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario and the founder of the Quicklaw database, passed away Monday, August 17, 2009 at the age of 76. Library Boy observes "one indication of his immense influence is the fact that the Canadian Association of Law Libraries has named its annual Award for Excellence in Legal Publishing after Prof. Lawford." About Hugh Lawford, Slaw's Simon Chester writes:
[A]nyone who encountered Hugh from the pioneering days of the late Sixties to his retirement in 2004 will have been struck by his vision, his tenacity and his commitment to making legal information more accessible.
Hugh was indefatigable in his pursuit of content for his system. He would talk to any group of judges, and more importantly judges’ secretaries who were then gatekeepers to the law. Hugh had nothing to offer them but his enthusiasm and discounted access to his service. Court by court, province by province, sector by sector he built the largest Canadian legal information service.
For much more, see Lawford's obituary by Simon Chester, Hugh Lawford, 1933-2009. [JH]
I qualify premise this article by saying there is something about Thomas Cooley Law School that is cool and intriguing to me. I just like schools that are rebels with the status quo (I think Charleston also fits in this boat).
In some of the latest Cooley news is this article by the Lansing City Pulse that briefly discusses a library construction project. I say briefly because Cooley refused comment when asked about the project. This rings somewhat odd in comparison to many school administrations (perhaps to up their mystery quality) who perk up to any mention of talking to the press and getting their name out there in the community. Additionally, this comes on the heels of news announcements that Cooley is expanding its broad reach by taking over the space that was vacated in Ann Arbor by Ave Maria Law.
Fordham Law School Bans
Military Reed Smith from Campus Interviews for 5 Years
Fordham Law School Dean William Michael Treanor recently decided to ban Reed Smith from recruiting on-campus for the next five years because the firm's last-minute withdrawal from on-campus interviewing was unprofessional. Above the Law broke the story Wednesday. The Dean's memo to the Fordham Law community was published in ATL's Fordham Law Lashes Out at Reed Smith Rudeness Dean Treanor to firm: Don't come 'round here no more. "In my seven years as Dean," writes Dean Treanor, "no other firm has canceled its interviews after the schedule was released. Thus, we have informed the firm that it will not be invited to participate in our OCI program for the next 5 years. I have never imposed such a sanction on an employer, and I was saddened to do so." Reed Smith's response can be found in Gina Passarella's Fordham bans Reed Smith for The Legal Intelligencer. See also ATL's follow-up post.
ATL ran a poll on Fordham's ban. 80% say the school's response was appropriate but Drexel Senior Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs and Professor of Law Dan Filler has his doubts:
It strikes me that the sanction is awfully strong and will only hurt the students. I imagine that Treanor is figuring that the ban will send shivers down the spines of other firms considering such pullouts. He's counting on deterrence, and assuming that fear will outweigh the scorn this decision may generate among hiring partners.
It sounds like the firm doesn't intend to do a ton of hiring this year. It makes sense that, if the firm wants to hire a small number of attorneys, it would reduce the overall number of people it interviews. The cost of that reduction may fall disproportionately on Fordham (as opposed to, say, Columbia), but that doesn't strike me as unprofessional.
See Filler's Faculty Lounge post, Fordham Law v. Reed Smith, Or, How To Scare Away Firms From OCI, for more. [JH]
Friday Fun: Follow Me to Pointless Babble
In 'Pointless Babble' Tops Twitter Use, Information Week's Antone Gonsalves reports the findings of Pear Analytics Twitter Study - August 2009 report: "40% of the tweets flowing on the site were about someone eating a sandwich or some other "pointless babble," and 37% were parts of conversations. A distant third were re-tweets, or messages with "pass along value," accounting for 9% of traffic; followed by self promotion, 6%, spam, 4% and news 4%." See also A Tale of Two Twitters by Tom Peters on ALA Tech Source ("It was the best of Twitter, it was the worst of Twitter, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity.")
Just a lead-in to today's Friday Fun video featuring DeStorm's Twitter song. [JH]
Guide to Wisconsin Legal Information Sources for Practitioners
Check out Bonnie Shucha and Heidi Yelk's Guide to Wisconsin Legal Information Sources. Using LibGuide's great app, it is a compilation of legal information sources for Wisconsin attorneys that emphasizing sources of free and low-cost information for case law, citators, legislation, regulations, and articles. Plus vendors, Wisconsin law libraries and document and book delivery services are listed. Pricing structures for suppliers of legal information and services are included as available. Note the very useful links for LexisNexis and Westlaw services by credit card, an excellent feature for practitioners. [JH]
Users Claim Facebook Violates Privacy Because It's a Social Networking Site
Apparently not understanding what a social network is, five Facebook users are suing the Company for violating California privacy laws because other users are looking at the photos they post, read their updates, etc. Hello plaintiffs, adjust your privacy settings and read the TOS.
In New Privacy Lawsuit Throws The Kitchen Sink At Facebook, TechCrunch's Jason Kincaid writes "it’s sort of like jumping into a pool and then complaining that you’re wet. ... The plantiffs are complaining about many of the very mechanisms that make Facebook a social network. ... There may be some nuggets of validity hidden in here, but you’re going to have to look hard to find them." Look hard indeed. The text of the complaint filed in Superior Court of California in Orange County is published in Kincaid's post. [JH]
CrimProf Blog is Back
The Law Professor Blogs Network's CrimProf Blog is back. Edited by Kevin Cole, Dean & Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law, and five USD Law criminal law profs, the blog was relaunched on Monday, August 17th. See Greetings from the CrimProfs at the University of San Diego. Welcome to the legal blogosphere. [JH]
August 20, 2009
CRS on Health Care Topics
The Congressional Research Service tackles the issue of health care reform in reports dated April 19, 2009 and updated to July 29, 2009. The reports are called Health Care Reform: An Introduction. Related issue briefs on topics such as care quality, Medicare, health savings accounts. COBRA, and more are at the Public Forum Policy Network. Paul Caron at the TaxProf Blog notes an early August report fro CRS on Tax Options for Financing Health Care. [MG]
Tintin Book "Removed" by Brooklyn Public Library
The New York Times is reporting that the Brooklyn Public Library has removed a copy of Tintin au Congo to a collection that is kept under lock and key. An appointment days in advance are necessary to view the title. No word on whether one needs a reason to actually see the book. The cause is that the illustrations in the book are offensive, depicting African natives in a racially insensitive way. The Times article includes graphic samples from the work which easily lead to that conclusion. The cartoonist Hergé stated later in his life that he regretted the presentation. His editor in 1929, he said, pushed him to depict the glories of Belgian colonialism in Africa through the Tintin books.
The rest of the article examines other titles that may also be offensive but still find their way in the generally accessible collection (Mein Kampf, anyone?). The application of BPL's book removal policy tends towards access to controversial materials, at least as detailed by the Times. Tintin, obviously, did not survive the process. One note worth mentioning is that the removal took place in 2007. It's strange that a spate of articles on the move are just appearing in the press within the last few days. Where were they two years ago when this actually happened? It may have something to do with the Tintin character appearing in a Spielberg movie to coming out in 2011. The article is a nice read on how public libraries struggle with negative public reaction to controversial titles. [MG]
U.S. News 2010 College Rankings Now Available
Confidential Settlement Requires Federal Court Judge to Pull Eight Published Rulings from Westlaw and LexisNexis
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel vacated his opinions and directed Westlaw and Lexis to pull eight of his published rulings in Klein v. Amtrak, an attractive nuisance case, to honor the terms of a confidential settlement after the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to him. "Exactly how the lawyers went about persuading Stengel to take such an unusual step is impossible to say because all of the court papers are under seal and none of the lawyers will talk about it," writes The Legal Intelligencer's Shannon Duffy in After Settlement in Amtrak Case, Opinions Erased From Lexis and Westlaw. From Duffy's story:
Ordinarily, the decision to settle a case while an appeal is pending means giving up the opportunity to set a legal precedent as well as forgoing the chance to win a reversal of any unfavorable published decisions handed down by the lower court.
But a team of defense lawyers fighting to overturn a $24 million verdict have figured out a way to have their settlement cake and eat their jurisprudence, too.
The confidential settlement in Klein v. Amtrak -- a case in which two trespassing teenagers climbed atop a parked train car and suffered serious burns when they got too close to a 12,000-volt catenary wire -- included an unusual provision that called for the trial judge to vacate all of his published opinions and have them removed from Lexis and Westlaw.
And it worked.
A few months after holding an hour long oral argument, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in late July to remand the case to the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to "direct" Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databases.
A first? Westlaw and LexisNexis are expected to comply. [JH]
Disclaimer for Providing Public Access to Commercial Legal Research Service Databases
LC's Michael Ashenfelder reports on the transfer of digital content from universities, publishers, web archivists and other organizations to the Library of Congress in 21st Century Shipping, D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2009. The amount of data is amazing. Between 2008 and 2009 the Library of Congress added approximately 100 TB of data to its digital collections. Ashenfelder reports that most of the data is transferred over the Internet instead of by hardware media now. The network data-transfer process is pretty simple: (1) download the data and (2) verify that the data is intact.
Data Verification.The second step reminded me of a time when I worked for the Chicago Tribune in the early 1990s. Our job was to prepare the in-house electronic copy of Trib stories for redistribution to online vendors including Nexis. We transferred anywhere from 250 to 450 stories to Nexis servers electronically daily and verified that the entire data transfer was received and uploaded. When it wasn't, we were on the phone to Nexis staffers immediately to arrange for a re-transmission. What I learned was how infrequently, as in almost never, other content suppliers performed any verification whatsoever. I was shocked and began to wonder whether suppliers of legal content to online search services, outside or in-house, were verifying their data transfers. Don't know the answer.
We've all experienced moments where we locate primary legal content on one of our two major online legal research services that's not available on the other. Oftentimes, particularly with unreported state opinions from the 1980s, this can be explained away by the differences between LexisNexis and Westlaw. Back then, Westlaw was not loading unpublished opinions into its database while LexisNexis was. But the data transfer verification issue still nags me. What if something slipped through the cracks and was never spotted? What if the databases we rely on daily aren't as comprehensive as we think or are led to believe they are?
Auditing Commercial Legal Databases. Surely our vendors who "claim to have 'comprehensive' collections of cases to be more specific about their claims," writes Slaw's Gary Rodrigues in Vagueness and the scope of caselaw databases. It's not like omissions have never happened. Rodrigues reports that LexisNexis executed a database audit when Canada Law Book announced that it would remove its criminal and labor arbitration databases from Quicklaw. By the time the proprietary databases were removed, LexisNexis had identified missing cases in its own databases and replaced the content. Based on my Chicago Tribune experience, I concur with Rodrigues: "Auditing databases is not a difficult task. It is merely time consuming."
"A major commercial advantage should ensue to the legal publisher that can claim that it has audited its databases and can clearly state the scope of its databases in terms that can be easily understood by the user," writes Rodrigues, "The era of claiming that a publisher has 'lots of cases' or a 'a critical mass of cases' or 'more cases' than the next guy should be coming to an end. Meeting customer needs includes letting them know exactly what they are getting for their money."
Disclaimer for Making Westlaw and LexisNexis Databases Available to Public Users. Until LexisNexis and Westlaw meet the conditions outlined by Rodrigues by regularly performing database audits and informing their customers with specificity as to (1) when the audits were performed; (2) what the findings were; (3) identifying missing materials that have been added and inaccurate files that have been corrected; and hopefully (4) doing so by 21st Century communications like something as simple as an RSS feed, here's some disclaimer language one might want to post by each public access workstation:
Information available through Law Library licensed electronic resources is not warranted by the Law Library to be accurate, authoritative, factual, or complete. The availability of electronic information licensed and provided by the Law Library does not constitute any endorsement or ratification of that information. The Law Library is not responsible for the content of electronic information made available.
All users of law library computers agree to hold the Law Library harmless from any and all claims, losses, damages, obligations, or liabilities directly or indirectly relating to the use of licensed electronic resources provided by the Law Library, caused thereby or arising therefrom. In no event shall the Law Library have any liability for lost profits or for indirect, special, punitive, or consequential damages or any liability to any third party, even if the the Law Library is advised of the possibility of such damages.
Sue the Vendors, Not Us (Better Read Vendor Disclaimers First). We've got no clear idea what we are providing you. We just pay the invoices. And if the service being provided is Westlaw Patron Access, one might want to add in big bold letters to the disclaimer poster, "sorry, you cannot email Weslaw files because Thomson West is worried that they could not hunt you down should you post their content to the Internet." [JH]
Harvard Law Review Speech Code Comment Ignites FIRE-storm
At issue, an April 2009 Harvard Law Review comment which argues that DeJohn v. Temple University, 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008), the most recent and leading federal court of appeals precedent to strike down a campus speech code, was decided incorrectly. Members of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, take the student author and Harvard Law Review to the woodshed because "the comment takes the shocking position that speech codes on campus are constitutional. Even more surprising than the conclusion, though, is the shoddy analysis supporting it." Quoting Kelly Sarabyn in 'Harvard Law Review' Gets Lazy: Prestigious Journal Publishes Article Ignoring Case Law, Defending Speech Codes. Sarabyn continues, the author and Harvard Law Review editors appear "completely unaware of the larger legal landscape concerning campus speech codes. Amazingly, the analysis does not acknowledge that any case law on speech codes exists, let alone the fact that prior to DeJohn, eight different federal courts struck down speech codes as unconstitutional." Sarabyn offers the following errata for the comment:
Here are the citations for cases the comment's author and editors missed: Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 55 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995) (declaring university discriminatory harassment policy facially unconstitutional); College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (enjoining enforcement of university civility policy); Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (finding university sexual harassment policy unconstitutionally overbroad); Bair v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (enjoining enforcement of university harassment policy due to overbreadth); Booher v. Board of Regents, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11404 (E.D. Ky. Jul. 21, 1998) (finding university sexual harassment policy void for vagueness and overbreadth); The UWM Post, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991) (declaring university racial and discriminatory harassment policy facially unconstitutional); Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (enjoining enforcement of university discriminatory harassment policy due to unconstitutionality).
In Pushback on Speech Codes?, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel and former FIRE president David French says the comment "could have been ghost-written by Temple's attorneys." William Creeley adds "the real problem with this bogus comment seeing the light of day in a prestigious journal like the Harvard Law Review is that lawyers and scholars arguing on behalf of unconstitutional speech codes now have a piece of purportedly reputable 'scholarship' to point to as some kind of authority for their argument." And that's already happened; French reports that the comment has been cited by Los Angeles City College in a motion asking Judge George King to reconsider his injunction against the College's speech code.
Obviously FIRE is trying to minimize the impact the comment may have by all means possible. For the moment, French has the last word in this firestorm over the comment:
the truth of the matter is that there is simply no credible constitutional argument for speech codes ... that relies on historic free-speech jurisprudence, controlling precedent, or the fundamental nature of the public university. The only real argument is ideological. So the speech code's ideological defenders are left doing just what the students at the Law Review did — try mightily to pound the square peg of workplace harassment concepts into the round hole of the university's marketplace of ideas.
When was the last time you saw a student comment achieve this level of debate or be cited in pleadings so quickly? [JH]
Just Released, The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror
The Case for Congress: Separation of Powers and the War on Terror (Ashgate, August 2009) examines the constitutional relationship between Congress and the President in the post-September 11 world. The authors, Victor Hansen and Lawrence Friedman, argue that Congress should exercise its legitimate authority in guiding United States policy as a check on executive power. From the blurb:
Unlike scholarly work devoted either to detailing or criticizing the Bush administration's policy decisions, this accessible and balanced book focuses on the policies themselves, and on the way in which Congress can influence those policies for the better. The authors further offer specific and useful recommendations for legislative measures that may correct existing policy deficiencies and promote sounder decision-making in the area of national security and foreign affairs.
August 19, 2009
The Beloit College annual "mindset" list describing the life experience of this year's college freshmen
Yes, friends, it's that time of year again when we get reminded just how old - and out of touch - we are compared to this year's crop of entering freshmen college students. So grab your anti-depressant of choice and read along with me. According to the annual Beloit College Minset list, the class of 2013 is defined by the following:
Most students entering college for the first time this fall were born in 1991.
- For these students, Martha Graham, Pan American Airways, Michael Landon, Dr. Seuss, Miles Davis, The Dallas Times Herald, Gene Roddenberry, and Freddie Mercury have always been dead.
- Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Kevorkian, and Mike Tyson have always been felons.
- The Green Giant has always been Shrek, not the big guy picking vegetables.
- They have never used a card catalog to find a book.
- Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister.
- Salsa has always outsold ketchup.
- Earvin "Magic" Johnson has always been HIV-positive.
- Tattoos have always been very chic and highly visible.
- They have been preparing for the arrival of HDTV all their lives.
- Rap music has always been main stream.
11. Chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream has always been a flavor choice.
12. Someone has always been building something taller than the Willis (née Sears) Tower in Chicago
13. The KGB has never officially existed.
14. Text has always been hyper.
15. They never saw the “Scud Stud” (but there have always been electromagnetic stud finders.)
16. Babies have always had a Social Security Number.
17. They have never had to “shake down” an oral thermometer.
18. Bungee jumping has always been socially acceptable.
19. They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P.
20. American students have always lived anxiously with high-stakes educational testing.
21. Except for the present incumbent, the President has never inhaled.
22. State abbreviations in addresses have never had periods.
23. The European Union has always existed.
24. McDonald's has always been serving Happy Meals in China
25. Condoms have always been advertised on television.
26. Cable television systems have always offered telephone service and vice versa.
27. Christopher Columbus has always been getting a bad rap.
28. The American health care system has always been in critical condition.
29. Bobby Cox has always managed the Atlanta Braves.
30. Desperate smokers have always been able to turn to Nicoderm skin patches.
31. There has always been a Cartoon Network.
32. The nation’s key economic indicator has always been the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
33. Their folks could always reach for a Zoloft.
34. They have always been able to read books on an electronic screen.
35. Women have always outnumbered men in college.
36. We have always watched wars, coups, and police arrests unfold on television in real time.
37. Amateur radio operators have never needed to know Morse code.
38. Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania, and Estonia
have always been independent nations.
39. It's always been official: President Zachary Taylor did not die of arsenic poisoning.
40. Madonna’s perspective on Sex has always been well documented.
41. Phil Jackson has always been coaching championship basketball.
42. Ozzy Osbourne has always been coming back.
43. Kevin Costner has always been Dancing with Wolves, especially on cable.
44. There have always been flat screen televisions.
45. They have always eaten Berry Berry Kix.
46. Disney’s Fantasia has always been available on video, and It’s a Wonderful Life has always
been on Moscow television.
47. Smokers have never been promoted as an economic force that deserves respect.
48. Elite American colleges have never been able to fix the price of tuition.
49. Nobody has been able to make a deposit in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International
50. Everyone has always known what the evening news was before the Evening News came on.
51. Britney Spears has always been heard on classic rock stations.
52. They have never been Saved by the Bell.
53. Someone has always been asking: “Was Iraq worth a war?”
54. Most communities have always had a mega-church.
55. Natalie Cole has always been singing with her father.
56. The status of gays in the military has always been a topic of political debate.
57. Elizabeth Taylor has always reeked of White Diamonds.
58. There has always been a Planet Hollywood.
59. For one reason or another, California’s future has always been in doubt.
60. Agent Starling has always feared the Silence of the Lambs.
61. “Womyn” and “waitperson” have always been in the dictionary.
62. Members of Congress have always had to keep their checkbooks balanced since the closing
of the House Bank.
63. There has always been a computer in the Oval Office.
64. CDs have never been sold in cardboard packaging.
65. Avon has always been “calling” in a catalog.
66. NATO has always been looking for a role.
67. Two Koreas have always been members of the UN.
68. Official racial classifications in South Africa have always been outlawed.
69. The NBC Today Show has always been seen on weekends.
70. Vice presidents of the United States have always had real power.
71. Conflict in Northern Ireland has always been slowly winding down.
72. Migration of once independent media like radio, TV, videos and compact discs to the
computer has never amazed them.
73. Nobody has ever responded to “Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.”
74. Congress could never give itself a mid-term raise.
75. There has always been blue Jell-O.