Anne Grant’s subscriber list and Jane Austen’s character names

Posted on February 21, 2018 by Margie Burns

Only two of the books in the library in Jane Austen’s home were published in 1803. In hindsight, Austen’s family may not have considered 1803 a very good year for literature: that was the year of Austen’s infamous first success, when a publisher bought her anonymous two-volume novel Susan, for ten pounds–and then sat on it for the rest of Austen’s life.*

There are some ironies in the fact that Austen now graces Britain’s ten-pound note; she rarely saw ten pounds herself.

UK new ten-pound note, 2017

One of the 1803 publications was Poems on Various Subjects, by Scots author Anne MacVicar Grant (21 February 1755 – 7 November 1838).* Today is Grant’s birthday.

An homage to both nineteenth-century women authors would note that Jane Austen took a continuing interest in the writing of Anne Grant. In a letter dated 21 February 1807, Austen jokingly recommended Grant’s published letters to her sister Cassandra “as a new and admired work,” clarifying that she had not read them herself and knew nothing about them. (These references found in Deirdre Le Faye’s authoritative edition of Austen’s letters.) On 11 January 1809, the family was reading Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady, though with mixed feelings. (Scots-born Grant had grown up in Albany, New York, then returned to Scotland with her family.) In February 1813 she lent a three-volume work by Grant to a family acquaintance. She also bought Anne Grant’s poems.

Mrs. Grant’s subscriber list

Anne Grant herself did well in 1803. Books were often published with the help of subscribers (crowdfunding), gathered beforehand, and Grant raised quite a healthy list. She was already a successful author–good thing, since she and her family needed the income.

In my scenario, Austen culled Grant’s subscriber list for character names–fictional characters, actual names. Call it an Austen-themed parlor game: Grant’s book with the subscriber list is accessible online, full-text, digitized by Google (originals in U Michigan, NY Public Library and elsewhere); free to test it.

Obviously these would be individuals of a certain literary caliber–people capable of appreciating Grant’s writing and willing to underwrite it with a modest advance, and willing to have their names printed at the back of the book in a 33-page list. (A few subscribers are anonymous, and the list includes at least one book club.) They would also be men and women not averse to their surname’s appearing in a book, since it just did. Austen’s little joke.

Thus the list features some members of the nobility, but only some; predictably some relatives of Grant’s; and a hefty, not to say dominant, proportion of Scots. Grant was born in Glasgow, and after her family’s return to Scotland lived and worked in Laggan, Stirling, and Edinburgh.

WARNING: only fans of Jane Austen’s novels should read on. Take the novels one by one and cross-check Grant’s subscriber list for character names.

This excludes Northanger Abbey, originally named Susan, which Austen had finished and revised in 1803. When someone else published a novel titled Susan, she re-named her heroine and re-titled the book (Catherine); her brother and sister brought it out, re-titled again, after her death. (Critic Ian Sansom got this wrong in TLS. While Austen was concerned about finance, pay, and book sales, she was not the one who chose the title Northanger Abbey. It was Henry Austen and perhaps Cassandra Austen who targeted the ‘gothic’ demographic by putting the abbey into the title.)

Note: Sense and Sensibility is dealt below; scroll down.

Moving on instead to the other famous Austen novels–

Pride and Prejudice. (remember your character names here)

⊂ ON the list: Bennet. (We knew that; Mr. Bennet is a great reader, and Elizabeth is accused of being one. However, there is no female Bennet on the list, only some Mr. Bennets. Btw do we ever learn Mr. Bennet’s first name in Pride and Prejudice?) There are subscribers named Forster and Millar (colonels in the novel, past and present), and several named Hill, like the Bennets’ sensible housekeeper, evidently a representative of upward mobility as well as of appropriate behavior. A Miss King. Maybe Mary King had more time to read, and/or more disposable income or pocket allowance to spend on books, after she escaped the clutches of Wickham. Speaking of whom . . .

⊂ NOT on the list: notorious rogue Wickham. Unlike fellow rogues John Thorpe and Willoughby in the earlier books, and Henry Crawford and William Elliot in the later, Wickham does not refer to poetry or novels. Also not on the list: Bingley. There is no Mr. or Miss Bingley–remember Caroline Bingley’s picking up Volume II of the book Darcy is reading? No Mr. or Mrs. Hurst. (There’s not even a Mrs. Bingley; Jane Bennet may read less than Elizabeth, especially after she marries Bingley.) NO Mr. Collins–remember Mr. Collins’ picking up a large folio and talking instead of reading? No Mrs. Collins, before or after marriage; the surname Lucas is also not on the list. More surprisingly, no Gardiner, despite the Gardiners’ taste and intelligence. (Mr. Gardiner may be too busy with business and Mrs. Gardiner with family matters.) No Mr. or Mrs. Phillips, either. (Uncle and aunt Phillips? Not likely.) On the other hand, the bluest blood in P&P is also conspicuous by its absence: the names Darcy, Fitzwilliam, and De Bourgh are not on Grant’s subscription list. (The pompous, ill-bred Lady Catherine’s absence is not surprising. Perhaps Darcy and Fitzwilliam are anonymous subscribers.)

Mansfield Park.

⊂ ON the list: Crawford. The flawed Henry Crawford and Mary Crawford are smart readers. Bertram. Naturally: the house has a fine library, and everyone in it reads, except Lady Bertram and possibly her pug dog. Grant. –Anne Grant’s relatives contributed as subscribers; but surely the Reverend Mr. Grant in MP was a reader as well. Fraser. Yes–including “The Honorable Mrs. Fraser, London“–like Mary Crawford’s discontented bird-in-a-gilded-cage friend. (Is this one of Mrs. Fraser‘s complaints? –that her wealthy older husband, proud of a fine library, wishes her to read more? Or to support authors, but without sleeping with them?)

⊂ NOT on the list: Price. Odd; no one would expect Mr. and Mrs. Price to be readers, but Fanny Price has steeped herself in reading. However, her name changes when she marries. Rushworth. –No Rushworth on the list. (Again, not a surprise.) Yates. The baron may be more interested in scenery-chewing than in reading. Norris? I bet myself that Mrs. Norris’ name would not appear in a list of book subscribers, given her lack of literary bent and her marked aversion to spending her own money. I half-won: no Mrs. Norris, but some Mr. Norrises.

Emma.

⊂ ON the list: Campbell. Cf. “my excellent friend, Colonel Campbell,” the man who didn’t give Jane Fairfax the piano. (There are many, many Campbells on this Scots list). There is also many a subscriber named Brown (a better name in Scotland than in Hartfield). There is also a Mr. Dixon, though no Mrs. Dixon. (Enough said.) The name Martin is also on the list–score another point for the upwardly mobile. Remember the ball scenes, before and during the ball? –There are two Gilberts on the list, an Otway, and a Mrs. Cox.

(N. B. This list of subscribers is not being seriously presented as the sole source for so many Austen character names. In Emma, for example, the ball scenes would give Austen a perfect opportunity to gratify requests from locals to have a character named after them, in a cluster, without interfering with the story line.)

⊂ NOT on the list: Elton? –Surely you jest. Mr. Elton is too busy rich-wife-hunting to read. No Miss Hawkins, either. (No surprise there.) No Suckling, whether Mr., Mrs., or Miss. Few of Mrs. Elton’s friends make the cut–there is no Jeffereys, Partridge, Milman, Smallridge, or Bragge. (Austen’s names get a bit unsubtle in connection with Mrs. Elton.) A bit more surprisingly, no Miss Bates, and no Mrs. Bates. But then Miss Bates and her elderly mother probably cannot afford to subscribe. As to the most prominent names in the novel, all are missing. There is no Woodhouse on the list, although there is a Woodhouselee; conversely, there is no Knightley on the list, although there are several subscribers named Knight. (Knight is also a surname in Austen’s family tree, and very close to home; one of her brothers took the name.) No Fairfax. No Churchill.

Persuasion.

⊂ ON the list: Elliot. –Certainly. Persuasion, like Northanger Abbey, is very much about books, and Austen plugs other authors in it; the lovely Anne Elliot is a reader both natural and cultured, and even her sister Mary gets books at the circulating library. Dalrymple is on the list–presumably a dignified family willing to emblazon the list to benefit the author. Smith. Contradicting Sir Walter Elliot’s snobbery–“Mrs. Smith, such a name!”–several subscribers with the ordinary name of Smith do appear. Also, Byron is on the list of subscribers–a “Miss Byron.”

⊂ NOT on the list: Mrs. Clay. –Not a chance. Mr. Shepherd. (However, there is a “Miss Shepherd.”) No Croft, no Wentworth, no Harville. Sorry to say, their many virtues do not extend to underwriting books; maybe 1803 was before their promotions or retirement would enable them to do so. And the younger Captain Benwick, lover of morbid and lachrymose poetry? –No. No Carteret, either. No Musgrove.

This short exercise is tongue-in-cheek. All of Austen’s character names have multiple (possible) sources. I think, in fact, that Austen made a point of literary thrift, or literary multi-purposing. One could call it great art; a person, place, or thing does not feature in Austen’s novels for only one reason. This is not only a matter of sources and analogues.

However, a surprising proportion of the time, this little game works. If a character’s name (after 1803) does not appear on Mrs. Grant’s subscription list, the character turns out to be less than a genuine reader.

Fans of Sense and Sensibility may notice that S&S is the exception. –It would be ridiculous to argue that Marianne Dashwood is less than a genuine reader. But if Austen as a struggling author looked at one list of subscribers, she looked at more than one. And as it happens, another list came out in 1803. The Catalogue of the Brompton Botanic Garden, published by Bulmer and Co., Cleveland Row, St. James’, contained a “List of the Subscribers to the Brompton Botanic Garden.” This shorter list includes Dashwood, Willoughby, Palmer, Williams, Mrs. Smith, and the Earl of Morton. No Allenham–but an Allen immediately follows an Ashburnham on the list, a tempting vanity-bait to Austen’s fondness for jumbles or anagrams.

(Even place names can be part of the game. The evocative Cleveland, in the publisher’s address, resonates powerfully with Marianne Dashwood in S&S. Cleveland Row and nearby Cleveland Court, around the corner, also had real-life importance for the Austen family.)

Checking the list, checking it twice, to see who’s naughty or nice, or at least literate, works again.

*The other was the six-volume Female Biography, by Mary Hays. Both by women, although there’s more to the story than that.

Another mass shooting at a school

Posted on February 14, 2018 by Margie Burns

February 14, 2018. Valentine’s Day ruined for the rest of their lives for a number of families in Parkland, Florida.

At the scene

The exact number of high school kids killed by this mass shooter remains to be disclosed. The names, the smiling faces in school photos and family videos, have yet to be released.

Authorities reportedly say that there have been fourteen victims. The shooter is in a nearby hospital, taken into police custody and then loaded onto a stretcher.

This is the eighteenth school shooting in 2018.

UPDATE February 16:

The number of dead has been verified. Seventeen people were killed by the shooter, Nikolas Cruz. Cruz turned out to be a disturbed former student expelled from Douglas High last year. The murdered include fourteen students–kids whose parents sent them to school that morning who never came home–aged fourteen to eighteen. The other three are teachers. Assistant football coach Aaron Feis put his life on the line, and lost it, running to help and shielding students with his own person.

Once again millions of people in the U.S. are wondering why we are not allowed to have even the most minimal regulation of weapons of deadly force. Speaking of ‘self-defense’, why did this disturbed kid have the key to where his weapon was locked up? A better question–why did this disturbed kid have such a weapon in the first place?

In plain English, a semi-automatic AR-15 is not ‘self-defense’. Allowing a distressed individual who obsesses over weapons to acquire a cache of weapons is not ‘self-defense’.

(I dealt with this argument briefly in one section of my book, Firearms Regulation in the Bill of Rights: Eighteenth-Century English Language and the U.S. Constitution.)

As ever when innocent people are killed by yet another gratuitous and unnecessary act of violence, many are again raising

Inevitably, though, the push-back against any improvement, any improvement in public safety at all, has already begun. And some of it comes from our news media. Today’s Washington Post splashily rejects Everytown USA’s statistic that there have been eighteen school shootings in 2018. I cited the stat myself, above. WaPo is caviling. Everytown counts any and every firing of a gun at or in a school. The gist of the WaPo article seems to be that anything short of bullets penetrating flesh in a school should not be characterized as a school shooting.

This is fact-checking? A gun at or in a school brings its lethal potential. One could as fairly mention that the count of eighteen excludes all the school shootings that get forestalled.

We had an example Tuesday. As has been widely reported, a grandmother in Washington state prevented another shooting–or massacre–from happening. It’s wonderful news, an act worthy of public gratitude, and just plain a good idea all around. But neither this nor any other incident of guns and weapons commandeered before they hurt anyone, in a school, makes it into the “eighteen” tally.

Roy Moore

Posted on November 14, 2017 by Margie Burns

Dating Virgins, to an Extreme

ROY MOORE

What a difference thirty-eight years can make. I’ll keep this short. I have my own theory about the behavior of Judge Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for senate in Alabama, in 1979 and 1980. In short, the theory is that Moore wanted to be sure that the young women he dated were virgins. Consequently, he would tend to focus on very young women, particularly in the (from his point of view) go-go seventies and eighties.

Moore today

Allegations against Moore have now been aired in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the New Yorker. Of the three, by far the most damaging and detailed reporting appeared in the original WaPo piece, with its graphic narrative from a woman who was fourteen at the time Moore allegedly took her out on dates involving inappropriate touching. WaPo also incorporated three accounts from teenage girls sixteen to eighteen whom Moore dated when in his thirties, a different kind of narrative, since all three women said there was no force, seduction, or inappropriate physical contact.The NYTimes beefed up its account from a fifth accuser–unnecessarily–with a link to the New Yorker piece.

The New Yorker article is by far the worst. With its reliance on unnamed sources, and on rumors from unnamed sources at that, it probably would not have run if Moore had been anyone else. The core narrative in the New Yorker article, the account that Moore as a 32-year-old attorney cruised for dates at the local mall–one of the few social destinations in town–is less than shocking. The New Yorker did not come up with more accusers or more accounts of physical contact. This is not another Harvey Weinstein blockbuster. So, somewhat pushing aside Moore’s apparent preference for teenage girls, the magazine opted to focus on a rumor that Moore was “banned” from the local mall, and ran with the story with no documentation or firsthand corroboration of the ‘banning’.

This is the kind of piling-on bandwagon effect that threatens to undermine the credibility of reporting on a matter of intense importance–broadly, the treatment of young women in the United States; and more narrowly, the sexual invasiveness of some of that treatment, even in the workplace, as at the New Republic. A preference for young and inexperienced women–when women are allowed into the picture at all–seems to be fairly widespread among people who consider themselves powerful.

Moore in 1982

Given Moore’s prominent religious views, it would be natural to connect an orientation toward virginity with his religion. There may indeed have been a religious connection, at least in his own mind; that is, Moore may have sought out teenagers partly for religious reasons. However, it is essential to clarify that the same behavior–a hyper-intense focus on the virginity of a partner or potential future spouse–is not confined to any one sect or to any one denomination or to any one religion. Neither is marrying a very young partner for the same reason. Moore is now 70, and the news reports do not conceal that the allegations against him date from almost forty years ago, but not since. (Moore has now been married for decades.) At the time, ‘hillbilly’ relationships involving young partners were still a cliche in popular culture. (They probably are a cliche now, behind the scenes, and not just in Appalachia.) And aside from some perception of regionalism, May-December relationships in general were more a cliche–a stereotype, but more acceptable, from either a Hugh Hefner perspective or a religious perspective–than they are now, maybe. In any case, if early marriage was at all in fashion in 1979 or 1980, it is not now.

McConnell in the Senate

Although a fourteen-year-old is under age by any definition, Moore is undoubtedly genuinely shocked at being termed a pedophile. He is also genuinely unable to defend himself–as the Mitch McConnells of the world seem to have noticed. After all, there is no bully pulpit for saying ‘I wanted to be sure I was dating a virgin’, even if he did. The ghastly opportunism and hypocrisy of McConnell’s piling on, by the way, beggar description. When was the last time Republicans in Congress addressed the nationwide problem of rape kits backlogged? Come to think of it, when was the last time anyone did?

Current director of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement previously sold Microsoft counterfeits

Posted on July 12, 2017 by Margie Burns

Who vets hiring and recruitment in the Prince George’s County government?

Long before he became director of the Prince George’s County Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (DPIE), but while working for the county, Haitham Hijazi and his relatives were in business selling counterfeit Microsoft products.

Hijazi had already become chief of the county’s engineering services. In 1994, he was promoted to associate director of the Department of Public Works and Transportation’s office of engineering. In 1995, in federal court, Microsoft sued Hijazi, his wife, other relatives, and their companies engaged in selling Microsoft knock-offs, and won. See case linked here and here.

The lawsuit, titled Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, et al., was filed December 21, 1995, in Baltimore (United States District Court, Southern District of Maryland). The published ruling can be found in LexisNexis. (910 F. Supp. 1077, Civ. A. No. AW 94-221.)

Plaintiff’s attorneys were Preston, Gates, now after mergers named K & L Gates.

The defendants were Grey Computer, Inc., owned and controlled by the Hijazis; Haitham Hijazi; his wife, Adieba Hijazi; Bilal Hijazi; Husim Hijazi; and Integrated Computers Electronic, Inc., another Maryland corporation owned and controlled by the Hijazi family.

The memorandum opinion by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., lays out the case with laudable clarity:

Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) instituted this civil action against Grey Computer, Inc. (“Grey”), Integrated Computer Electronic, Inc. (“ICE”), Intelligent Data Systems (“IDS”) and their respective principals.[1] Microsoft claims that Defendants infringed upon their copyrights and trademarks by selling or distributing counterfeit copies of Microsoft’s software products.

Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Williams had served as a States Attorney, a public defender, and a Juvenile Master in P. G. He became a federal judge the same year Haitham Hijazi became a public official in the P. G. County Office of Engineering.

Opening of DPIE

From the county press release announcing Hijazi’s appointment as director of the newly created DPIE:

Earlier in his government career, Dr. Hijazi served as the Associate Director of DPW&T’s Office of Engineering from July 1994 – October 2004; and, prior to that, he was the Chief of the Engineering Services Division within the Office of Engineering. Before joining Prince George’s County Government, Dr. Hijazi was the Chief Engineer and Operations Manager for Light, Elliot and Associates, a private engineering consulting firm located in Adelphi, Maryland.

Microsoft discovered the counterfeits:

On 31 January 1994, Microsoft commenced this action by filing its Complaint against Grey Computer, ICE and their respective principals, among others. In its original complaint Microsoft alleged copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition arising out of the Defendants’ purported sale of counterfeit copies of Microsoft’s software products. On 1 February 1994, Microsoft personnel accompanied the U.S. Marshal Service as it executed a Writ of Seizure and Impound issued by this Court against Grey and ICE. Consequently, Microsoft obtained information indicating that Grey and ICE were involved in unauthorized distribution of counterfeit versions of Microsoft MS-DOS and Windows software products. Such information included a recently arrived shipment of approximately 1,000 units of alleged counterfeit Microsoft software products from Direct Wholesale. The information also included business records of Grey and ICE which confirmed that Direct Wholesale was the source of supply for the seized units of unauthorized Microsoft software products.

Microsoft then went farther back up the distribution pipeline:

On 2 February 1994, Microsoft filed its First Amended Complaint adding Direct Wholesale as a party defendant and obtained a Supplemental Writ of Seizure and Impound against Direct Wholesale. On 4 February 1994, the U.S. Marshal, accompanied by Microsoft’s attorneys, seized a box of eighteen diskettes containing Microsoft Windows software and along with various business records from Direct Wholesale. The records suggested that Direct Wholesale distributed counterfeit Microsoft software products nationally, as well as to Grey and ICE. The records, some of which were cryptically coded, also indicated that Direct Wholesale purchased and distributed unauthorized Microsoft software products in an unusual and suspicious manner. The seizures eventually revealed that Direct Wholesale purchased and distributed approximately 45,848 units of counterfeit Microsoft software products. Thereafter Microsoft filed another amended complaint adding Direct Wholesale’s sole shareholders and officers, Dewitt Williams and Timothy Mazoch, as party defendants.

Microsoft also won its amended case against the other individuals and another company involved in the production and sale of Microsoft knock-offs, moving for

summary judgment on issues of liability and damages against Direct Wholesale, Dewitt Williams and Timothy Mazoch (collectively “Defendants”). It also seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Defendants from further distributing, offering for sale or selling counterfeit computer software bearing Microsoft’s marks.

As Judge Williams summarized the two opposing positions in our adversarial court system,

Microsoft urges that this is a clear cut case of copyright and trademark infringement. Microsoft alleges Defendants distributed counterfeit goods, bearing Microsoft’s marks. Microsoft asserts that Defendants distributed poor quality copies of its copyrighted works and deceived consumers.

Defendants urge that they were innocent infringers. Williams and Mazoch posit that they conducted Direct Wholesale’s business according to the practices and procedures they learned while working as salesmen/brokers in the computer software field.

The Hijazis and their companies then sued their suppliers. They were able to settle out of court with Microsoft, but the unambiguous court’s ruling enjoined them from selling any more of the pseudo-Microsoft products.

Microsoft subsequently examined about 1,000 units of the seized software. The examination confirmed Microsoft’s suspicions that the software products were unauthorized and counterfeit reproductions of Microsoft software products. ICE and Grey, among others, filed crossclaims and a third-party complaint against Direct Wholesale. Microsoft settled its dispute with ICE, Grey, Adieba Hijazi, Bilal Hijazi, Hiatham Hijazi, Husim Hijazi, Intelligent Data Systems, Inc. and Nasser Faraj. Accordingly, the Court entered separate stipulated permanent injunctions against each of these defendants.

The recovered counterfeits were ordered turned over to Microsoft for destruction.

Based on information it gathered during the seizures and other relevant information, Microsoft moved for summary judgment against Direct Wholesale, Williams and Mazoch on its claims of copyright and trademark infringement, unauthorized distribution, false designation of origin and unfair competition. On 25 September 1995, the Court heard oral argument regarding Microsoft’s and ICE’s motions for summary judgment. Despite notice, Defendants chose not to attend the hearing. For the reasons set forth more fully below the Court will issue a written order granting Microsoft’s and ICE’s motions for summary judgment as to their third-party complaint. The Court will also grant Microsoft’s request for a permanent injunction and will order the impounded counterfeit software products delivered to Microsoft for destruction.

The case seems to have been relatively clear. The defendants did not dispute Microsoft’s ownership “of all of the software products at issue.”

Microsoft has provided the Court with evidence showing that the copyrights in all of the Microsoft products involved were registered with the United States Copyright Office in compliance with the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 and regulations flowing therefrom. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. Microsoft has valid Certificates of Registration for all of its software products. Moreover, it has been and still is the sole owner of all right, title and interest in, and to, the relevant copyrights and Certificates of Registration.

The defendants also did not dispute that “they were involved in copying Microsoft’s software products.”

Defendants Williams and Mazoch admit that from November 1993 through January 1994, ninety to ninety-five percent of their business involved the distribution of software products. While Williams and Mazoch claim that only eighty-five to ninety percent of their software sales involved the distribution of Microsoft software products, the invoices seized from Direct Wholesale indicate that nearly all of its business involved the distribution of counterfeit Microsoft software products during that time period.

Such arguments as the defendants did present were rejected by the court. For example,

Defendants argue that they did not intentionally copy Microsoft’s products. They posit that they had never seen and had no knowledge of Microsoft’s prerequisite licensing practices or of any of the limitations Microsoft imposed upon product distribution.

As the court wrote,

There is no dispute that Williams and Mazoch received the news releases regarding the sale of Microsoft’s software products and the restrictions. Williams and Mazoch are experienced computer software professionals with experience in the software industry dating back to 1989. They both had enough business savvy to engage in a successful, albeit, illegal business venture.

Regarding the thousands of computer products being distributed through ICE, the Hijazis’ company,

Finally, Defendants urge that Microsoft has only presented circumstantial evidence of copying. Defendants contend that there is no factual basis for Microsoft’s conclusion that the various units of software it examined “appeared identical” to Microsoft’s software products. They further contend that when Microsoft seized the software shipment from ICE, it had no way of knowing if the boxes had been previously opened or unsealed. Thus, according to Defendants, Microsoft had no way of knowing if the boxes had been tampered with after leaving Direct Wholesale.

This argument was also rebuffed by the court:

Microsoft counters that the facts of this case coupled with Defendants’ admissions clearly establish that the units shipped by Direct Wholesale and seized at ICE on 1 February 1994 were from Direct Wholesale and were counterfeit. Microsoft directs the Court’s attention to Williams’ statements that Direct Wholesale regularly shipped software products to ICE; that the products were normally shipped out of California; and, that prior to the seized shipment, Direct Wholesale had very little difficulty with ICE in terms of payment. (Williams Dep., p. 48-49).

The Court is satisfied that Microsoft has demonstrated that Defendants were engaged in copying Microsoft’s software products. “Copying can be shown by circumstantial evidence of access to the copyrighted work, and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the infringer’s work.” Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1176) (citations omitted). Defendants do not dispute that they had access to Microsoft’s copyrighted work. Nor do they deny the substantial similarity between the seized software and Microsoft’s copyrighted work.

Moreover, nothing in the facts support Defendants’ conspiracy theory that some unidentified person or persons removed the units shipped from Direct Wholesale and replaced them with the seized units. The counterfeit software from Direct Wholesale was seized upon delivery. At no time did anyone other than the United States Marshal’s Service or the court-appointed custodian have possession, custody or control over the counterfeit Microsoft Software Products once they were delivered to ICE. This is self-serving conjecture on the part of Defendants and mere conjecture is not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. See Thompson Everett, Inc. v. National Cable Advertising, L.P.,57 F.3d 1317, 1323 (4th Cir.1995).

Indeed, the court found that the companies’ copyright infringement was extensive:

Moreover, Microsoft conducted a thorough examination of the business records seized from Direct Wholesale. See Agranov Declaration. Using sales invoices seized from Direct Wholesale on 4 February 1994, Microsoft was able to determine that Direct Wholesale distributed counterfeit versions of Microsoft’s software products. Based on Microsoft’s depositions of Mazoch and Williams, Microsoft further determined that Direct Wholesale used Allstates Air Cargo for shipping software. The evidence Microsoft provided to the Court is clear and overwhelming that Direct Wholesale distributed tens of thousands of the counterfeit software products.

Commenting that “‘The hallmark of any trademark infringement claim’ is consumer confusion,” the court found that

Defendants’ infringing activities caused consumer confusion. Microsoft’s marks are world renowned and Defendants do not dispute the strength or the distinctiveness of the marks. Defendants also do not, as they cannot, dispute that the marks they used in distributing the counterfeit software products were virtually identical to Microsoft’s marks. Based upon a review of the evidence, including deposition testimony and seized business records, Defendants clearly intended for the consuming public to believe that the marks they used were the valid and incontestable Microsoft marks. Based upon Direct Wholesale’s sales invoices, Defendants achieved their purpose.

In addition to the likelihood of confusion, moreover, the court found that “Microsoft has demonstrated actual confusion.” Prince George’s County’s future director of permitting and inspections was one customer who expressed that he was confused:

According to one consumer, ICE, it believed that it was purchasing bona fide Microsoft computer software from Defendants. Recognizing the deception, ICE has also filed a motion for summary judgment regarding issues of liability and damages. Upon all the evidence, Microsoft is entitled to summary judgment for unfair competition.

Thus during the litigation, ICE (Intelligrated Computers Electronic, Inc.), the Hijazis’ company, basically joined Microsoft’s side. The Direct Wholesale defendants continued to claim that they were innocent infringers. This part of the case, with the court’s opinion, is juicy enough to warrant extended quotation:

The Court disagrees.

The facts indicate that Defendants Williams and Mazoch were very familiar with the software industry at the time they opened Direct Wholesale. Defendants were also familiar with licensing and distribution practices among the industry. They knew Microsoft had specific guidelines regarding licensing and distribution for its software products and they do not deny that they received news releases which outlined Microsoft’s licensing practices.

Defendants knew that Microsoft did not distribute its software without an accompanying personal computer. Indeed, each unit of the purported Microsoft software bore the legend that the software was “for sale only with a new PC”. Yet, Defendants never questioned any of their suppliers. Instead, they turned a blind eye to the business practices of their suppliers and other software manufacturers. This alone is enough to defeat Defendants’ claims that they were innocent infringers. See Microsoft Corp.,872 F.Supp. 1329, 1340-1341 (D.N.J.1994); Little Mole Music v. Spike Investment, Inc.,720 F.Supp. 751, 755 (W.D.Mo.1989).

Yet, even more damaging is Defendants’ very own business records and practices. Direct Wholesale used a cryptic coding system to hide what brand of software product they were selling. When compared with the sales invoices the coding system was easily decipherable, and what Direct Wholesale was masking was counterfeit Microsoft software products.

Williams and Mazoch testified that while A-Tech, Hypertec and Fantasy Unlimited were three suppliers from whom they purchased the counterfeit Microsoft software products, they regularly called their contacts from the different companies using a single company phone number, A-Tech’s. Williams Dep., pp. 20-21. They knew that A-Tech, Fantasy Unlimited and Hypertec were really one operation. Id.; Mazoch Dep., pp. 45, 77-78. In at least one transaction, Direct Wholesale purchased counterfeit Microsoft products from Hypertec and was first instructed to make a certified check payable to Hypertec, then to A-Tech and then to Fantasy Unlimited. Williams Dep., pp. 20-21. Mazoch also testified that he knew that Microsoft had cancelled the licenses of several original equipment manufacturers.

A typical Direct Wholesale transaction involving counterfeit Microsoft products involved a shipping scheme specifically designed to disguise the true nature of the goods that were being purchased and distributed by Direct Wholesale. On every shipping order, Direct Wholesale described the boxes containing the counterfeit software as containing “manuals.” Direct Wholesale also typically paid its California suppliers by wiring cash to the personal bank account of Willie Banks, an Allstates Air Cargo truck driver. Banks then converted the wire transfer to cash or check and paid for the goods when picked up. The pick-up locations was rarely the same for the supplier and Allstates usually called the California supplier to ascertain the exact location. Williams Dep., pp. 17-18. Once he picked up the counterfeit software, Banks placed a Direct Wholesale shipping label on the boxes of “manuals” in order to hide the true origination of the boxes. Mazoch Dep., p. 49. Indeed, according to Williams, during the entire time in which Direct Wholesale sold the counterfeit Microsoft products, it never stored, or even saw, a single unit of the 45,848 units of counterfeit products it distributed. Williams Dep., p. 36.

The Court finds that Defendants intentionally distributed 45,848 units of counterfeit Microsoft software products.

The numbers became rather impressive. The court awarded Microsoft “equitable damages,” a calculation of profits lost based on number of counterfeit products sold.

Per unit profits is “what a willing buyer would have been reasonably required to pay to a willing seller for” the infringing works.

“Direct Wholesale distributed the infringing software products from February 1993 through January 1994.”

The evidence, including Williams’ and Mazoch’s admissions, clearly establishes that Direct Wholesale distributed 660 units of MS-DOS in the period covering the third quarter of the 1993 fiscal year; 2,302 units in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1993; 4,972 units in the first quarter of fiscal year 1994; 7,822 units in the second quarter of fiscal year 1994; and 1,748 units in the third quarter of fiscal year 1994.

Microsoft also seeks damages for lost profits due to Direct Wholesale’s distribution of infringing Windows products. The evidence clearly establishes that, at a minimum, Direct Wholesale distributed 258 units of Windows during the period covering the third quarter of fiscal year 1993; 1,709 units in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1993; 8,962 in the first quarter of fiscal year 1994; 9,235 units in the second quarter of fiscal year 1994; and, 8,170 units in the third quarter of fiscal year 1994. Direct Wholesale also distributed eight units during the period from February 1993 through January 1994.

Based on the documentation Microsoft submitted to the Court, it suffered $458,454.26 and $838,067.46 in lost profits due to Direct Wholesale’s distribution of counterfeit MS-DOS and Windows, respectively. Microsoft’s total loss for both products is $1,296,521.72. Microsoft sustained this loss due to Defendants’ willful violation of the Lanham Act.

As noted, the Hijazis’ company was a regular paying customer for these products: “From 23 July 1993 through 27 December 1993, ICE paid Direct Wholesale $195,773.63 for the purported Microsoft software to use in its PC sales.” Again,

Microsoft directs the Court’s attention to Williams’ statements that Direct Wholesale regularly shipped software products to ICE; that the products were normally shipped out of California; and, that prior to the seized shipment, Direct Wholesale had very little difficulty with ICE in terms of payment. (Williams Dep., p. 48-49).

Integrated Computer Electronics, Inc., thus paid almost $200,000 for the Microsoft knock-offs in one six-month period.

Integrated Computer Electronics was incorporated in the state of Maryland in 1992. It is now listed as “Not in Good Standing” in the state corporations database (under “Integrated Computers Electronics”). The name changed in 2002 to Stallion Technology, Inc., with Adieba Hijazi, Haitham Hijazi’s wife, as president. It has forfeited its registry in the state corporations database at least three times for not filing required documents. The company with the very similar name and sharing one of the Hijazis’ business addresses is also listed as “Forfeited” in the Maryland database, INTEGRATED COMPUTER CONCEPTS, INC., formed in 1987. “Grey Computer” is not listed in the Maryland state database.

Emailed and telephoned requests for comment to Hijazi’s office have not been returned. There is no indication in county records that Hijazi as a public servant was questioned about his side businesses, even after Microsoft sued him individually and through his family’s companies in federal court. Nor were questions raised about Hijazi’s expertise in inspecting and permitting, following his six-figure purchases of counterfeit products from fellow defendants Timothy Mazoch and DeWitt Williams. Questions for Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker’s office have also not been returned.

More to come.

Have you had work done on your house in Prince George’s County?

Posted on June 28, 2017 by Margie Burns

This is a new wrinkle. My own house was built c. 1941–smaller rooms than a California-style great-room-type space but fairly high ceilings, brick rather than brick facing, fireplace and some of the original plaster walls. It came from a patriotic period in U. S. history; the style is usually dubbed ‘Washington colonial’, but I call it ‘Federal Revival Revival’.

Thus, several significant construction jobs over the years, including some electrical work and enclosing the back porch with glass. So permits were pulled.

There is no indication of same in the pertinent County website, however.

The County Department of Permitting, Inspections, and Enforcement (DPIE) publishes a pamphlet titled Homeowner’s Guide to Permits. Some jobs require a permit in renovation and/or remodeling; others do not. Electrical work that involves installing new outlets requires a permit; so does a patio above grade. Installing a new kitchen counter does not. And so forth. The brochure gives a pretty comprehensive list.

DPIE photo

According to DPIE, the County website can show you the record of your work, that is, through the track of the permits pulled. Web page here, headed “Permit search.” (Type in the ‘code’ below the search boxes.)

Testing the page with my own address and clicking the “Search Permit” box, I was a bit surprised to get a “No Permit Record/s Found !” message.

I had better luck clicking the link for “History By Address” in the drop-down menu. Up top, beneath the “Permit” tab. This time a page turned up with twelve links, all to my address in different jurisdiction names.

They were all for the same permit–pulled in 1986. So County records include nothing on my property since 1986, the year I bought the house? Or nothing online, where they would be accessible?

You could run this simple check on your own residential address. Again, the “Permit Search” page is found here:

https://dpiestatus.princegeorgescountymd.gov/Site/Public/Citizens/CaseSearch.aspx

The more successful “Permit History By Street Address” page is found here:

https://dpiestatus.princegeorgescountymd.gov/Site/Public/Citizens/ActivitySearch.aspx

Some quick checks on other addresses turn up mixed results. The mayor of my town suggested I check his address, so I did; the permit records on his recent jobs actually turned up. (Someone was careful.) One next-door neighbor not; the other some. Other addresses tend to fall into the no-results or no-recent-results categories.

Looking up for example the residential address of the head of DPIE, Haitham Hijazi, turns up multiple links to the address, but all links again are copies of the same record, and no work indicated since 2004.

Looking up the addresses of houses flipped by Integrity Professional Contracting and Secured Improvements LLC, the business entities headed by Mr. Hijazi’s son Abdullah Hijazi, very few show any indication of DPIE permitting. Thus far I have found no records of DPIE permits for renovation work on any of the bought-and-sold houses, except for one property where a fire broke out. There are some records of rental permits applied for and granted.

Over-all, a preliminary check suggests that, for any residential property in P. G., records for rental licenses and in-home business (commercial) licenses are more likely to turn up than are records for construction permits. The permitting website gives no such record for the Hijazi residence, the mailing address for at least two family-owned businesses.

Further calls to Mr. Hijazi’s office have not been returned.

It would be helpful to know how much of this gap in the public record is a website issue. By all accounts, the County website has serious problems. Citizens in the County have a fairly hard time reaching the relevant agency or individual by looking up contact information on the website. People working in County government themselves, including people in the Ethics and Accountability office, are frustrated by the problems. The unreliability and obsolescence of department website information and other web pages stymies anyone’s effort to look up anything and get accurate results. The gaps are the more galling in that P. G. residents have paid for the creation and maintenance of the websites, with the stated aim of improving transparency and accountability and responsiveness in government. I dialed the number for permitting issues given in the pamphlet linked above today–and was re-routed by recorded message to the County’s new 3-1-1 automated line.

Problematic as all this is, there are also other issues beyond technology.

Looks as though the former longtime County worker who called DPIE “the laughingstock of the state” had a point.

More to come.

“The most epic and consequential story of the past 40 years”?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Margie Burns

On June 19, Politico media reporter Joe Pompeo wrote that New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron “are the two most important newspaper editors in America right now, at a time when the news media are tackling the most epic and consequential story of the past 40 years.”

Concerning the United States’ ‘most important’ newspaper editors, I have no opinion. I try to sidestep argument about which human being is more important than his (usually, his) fellows. For one thing, this is grounds-of-conscience territory. For another, it is in poor taste. (I can be as stuffy as anyone else.) For another, I do not care. Also, ‘most important’ too often translates into ‘stupidest’. Take for example the context of the quoted statement, explained by Pompeo:

. . . Baquet was being grilled by his own media columnist recently during a sardonically titled talk, “Covering POTUS: A Conversation with the Failing NYT,” when someone in the audience asked: “Better slogan: ‘The truth is more important now than ever,’ or ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness?’”

The former was from a brand campaign the Times kicked off during the Oscars; the latter was the Washington Post’s new motto, an old saying that had been invoked by owner Jeff Bezos in an interview last year with Marty Baron, the Post’s editor.*

Having fun with slogans is a good idea. As part of the new save-journalism movement, I have a couple of NYTimes and WaPo mottos myself. For the Times, how about ‘Judith who?’ For the newspaper I subscribe to, how about ‘Journalism Dies in Stupidity’? Or just ‘We killed the printers’ unions’?

Fun aside, it’s the last part of the quoted sentence that horrifies. Here it is again:

at a time when the news media are tackling the most epic and consequential story of the past 40 years.

There are two realistic explanations for this statement, and only two. The first is that the author really believes we are now in the midst of a story more important than the attacks of September 11, 2001; more important than the non-precedent Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore that gave George W. Bush the White House; more important than the Washington Post Company’s epic and consequential financial stake in the Bush campaign and its ‘education reforms’; more important than the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing Iraq War and the rest of the ensuing carnage in the Middle East.

September 11, 2001

The other is that the author made a thoughtless comment without realizing the implications. I’m hoping for the latter, but even that means some lack of thought about the horror, tragedy, and dishonor blithely swept under the rug.

Backing away somewhat from the bloodshed of 9/11 and the Iraq War, let’s quickly review the past 40 years.

Well, June 19, 1977, featured Led Zeppelin and Elvis in concert. Pass.

Broadening the scope, 1977 and the late 1970s involved the continued unwinding of the Vietnam War, with its continuing suicides, substance abuse and other results of post-traumatic stress disorder, and strain on social services and on communities. The same period also involved climbing out of the recession of 1973-1975, the longest and deepest economic depression since the end of World War II according to the Federal Reserve. The climb was never completed. I recommend Wallace C. Peterson’s Silent Depression, which sounds like a psychology textbook but is actually a work of popular economics. Subtitled Twenty-Five Years of Wage Squeeze and Middle Class Decline, Peterson’s book narrates in persuasive detail some of the changes in the U. S. economy before and after 1973. The immense change was that the economy was expanding before 1973 and contracted afterward. The story can be read in the lives of everyone contemporaneous. We’re still feeling the effects today. We’re still paying for Vietnam, too.

The late 1970s including 1977 also involved the continuing development of U. S. feminism and some advances for women–not in regard to rape and domestic violence, but in the job market and in education. See Gail Collins’ When Everything Changed–the title a bit of an overstatement but the work a good chronological overview, with documentation.

That year and the late seventies also saw the collapse of the job market in higher education. With the draft (Selective Service) over and Vietnam winding down, undergraduate enrollment dropped rapidly. Troubles in the school systems didn’t help. Meanwhile, graduate school enrollment and the graduation of thousands of new Ph.D.’s continued–for a while. One result was that for at least a couple of years, there were some two thousand new Ph.D. grads in English literature and related fields, with not a tenth than many jobs in college teaching. (Someone computed the higher-ed unemployment rate the year I got my doctorate at 83 percent.) The secondary result was that the overflow went largely or partly into ‘adjunct’ teaching in higher education, a set-up again still with us today. This development coincided with the influx of more women into graduate programs, with the natural consequence that adjuncts were and are disproportionately female–especially in the lower-paying disciplines and in lower-division grinding classes. By the way, this entire phenomenon went virtually unreported in U. S. newspapers. The New York Times didn’t touch it for thirty years.

On a brighter note, the major movements of the sixties in environmentalism, civil rights and physical fitness and health more or less continued through the late seventies.

The above is just a thumbnail, only partly tongue-in-cheek, of part of one decade. No reason to go into detail on the Reagan years and other collapses of the eighties or on the continuing promotion of the Clintons and the Bush team in the nineties.

*Side note: Amazon head Bezos, who bought WaPo, is reportedly also going to buy the upscale Whole Foods grocery chain. A Whole Foods just opened in my region, to great fanfare about ‘jobs’, as in County Executive Rushern Baker’s touted economic vision of luring big and upscale employers like the Casino to the county. Amazon reportedly plans to automate grocery checkers out of their jobs. To its credit, the Washington Post reported this intent.

How the Democrats keep losing. 2017, part 4.

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Margie Burns

How the Democrats keep losing. The most recent addition to this exhibition–probably not the last–is now installed. Georgia’s 6th congressional district went for Republican Karen Handel. In no way was this a surprise, as far as I am concerned. See previous posts on this topic here and here. (Yes, it is time for the I-told-you-so’s.)

The final outcome wasn’t all that much of a squeaker, either. Unofficial results from the Georgia Secretary of State’s website give Handel 51.87 percent of the vote to Jon Ossoff’s 48.13 percent, a margin of almost four points. The end was apparent by 10 p.m. on election night. Handel won by almost 10,000 votes–a not inconsiderable number in a congressional district.

For further perspective, compare the outcome to that of South Carolina’s special election, the same night. Very similar: the Republican candidate, Ralph Norman, won, and by about the same margin. Unofficial results from the South Carolina State Election Commission give Norman 51.10 percent of the vote to 47.88 percent for Democrat Archie Parnell. If you do the arithmetic with close attention, Parnell did slightly better percentage-wise than Ossoff.

Parnell

In other words, the Democratic candidate in South Carolina did slightly better, though still losing, than the Democratic candidate in Georgia. Is this in spite of the attention paid to ‘flipping’ Georgia during the 2016 election cycle–or because of it?

My working hypothesis is the latter.

More national attention means more money, and more money went to Georgia, as everyone on Earth knows. Googling the phrase ‘the most expensive House race in U.S. history’ turns up 6.5 million results. The non-profit, non-partisan OpenSecrets.org has posted a substantial run-down on dollar amounts as of June 19. As of the day before the special election, at least $56 million had been spent. At that time, the NRCC had spent somewhat more than the DCCC, both pouring millions into the race. The NRCC was playing some catch-up ball; Ossoff was the beneficiary of highly-touted donations and campaign appearances by Hollywood celebrities and others from before the April 18th round of the special election.

But what looks like a national bandwagon of bi-coastal celebrities is not the same as a local landslide. In fact, it is not the same as a local win. It does not translate into a local win.

Even money coming in is not everything.

Compare the money spent on the South Carolina special election to that spent on the Georgia special election. As Open Secrets notes in the same article, by May 31 a grand total of $2.06 million had been raised by Norman and Parnell for the South Carolina race, partly in loans to their campaigns by the candidates themselves. The South Carolina total thus comes to about three percent of the Georgia total.

So–same margin of loss for the Democrats, at three percent of the price? And that’s before the final numbers are all in. There is no reason to expect that the cost ratio of the two elections will narrow after final FEC reports.

Leaning over backward here, I have to mention that voter turnout was better in Georgia, significantly better. South Carolina reports 18.25 percent turnout in its special; Georgia reports turnout of 57.97 percent. Any analyst would say that topping 50 percent in an off-year election, or in a midterm election, let alone a special, is outstanding.

However–more money coming in, with more national attention, also means more outsiderism. Jon Ossoff may not have been a total carpetbagger, but he was no home-grown favorite son, either. His negatives were slight but telling–living outside the district, for example–and not palliated by his fudging the distance he lived away. More importantly, Ossoff’s candidacy was not the organic product of community action, or activism. He had a successful career in media and the potential to attract big money. Thus Ossoff was the hand-picked choice of Dems who thought They Were the Ones Who Knew the Score, in Georgia and more outside it.

Thus he tacitly reinforced the perception of rigged elections. Republicans kept tying him to ‘Nancy Pelosi’, but the real damage is that Ossoff’s candidacy was a pale reflection of Hillary Clinton’s. No choice. That’s the Democratic message: We’re the one for you, and when we say ‘one’, we mean it.

I have no strong hope that writers for either Daily Kos or Rachel Maddow will ever perceive the gut unpopularity of this strategy.

We’re already seeing the fall-out from the special elections in ‘progressive’ public discourse. Short form:

Argument over ‘moving to the left’ misses the point in a big way.

Argument over ‘party leadership’ also probably misses the point.

Candidates win in their own districts. Local talent has to run. Popular, well-liked local talent has to run. And genuine liking comes from having worked for, on behalf of, the people you live among. The hysterical careerists who seem to dominate the Democratic Party nationally have yet to pick up on this.

As to making elections a ‘Referendum on Trump’? Losing strategy. I said so before. Going TrumpTrumpTrump as Hillary Clinton did generates the same outcome Clinton got, or created. Furthermore, making congressional elections a ‘referendum on Trump’ ignores the concerns of the congressional district. It is also basically a form of telling people how stupid they are. (Who are you to have your own opinions or preferences?) Telling people how stupid they are/were may give self-anointed insiders a feeling of power for a few minutes, but it is both mean and a loser. That makes it 0 for 2 in my book.

Meanwhile, the hysteria poured into the Georgia Special sucked away resources that could have gone into home foreclosures, or inmate abuse, or immigrants preyed upon by other immigrants, or the backlog of unprocessed rape kits. If the Democrats would work on these and other issues at home, and would do genuine work, they would be seen doing so.

Not that winning is everything. But losing isn’t anything.

Told you so.

Georgia 6th special election

Posted on June 20, 2017 by Margie Burns

Live-blogging results from GA-6.

7:30 p.m. Two polling places scheduled to stay open until 7:30. No results yet from the Georgia State Board of Elections. 0 of 208 precincts reporting.

An intelligent piece from Axios breaks down the math. Three counties in the district; in the election in April, a combined 77 percent of the vote total came from the two counties that went Republican. This result suggests that Republican Karen Handel has the edge against Democrat Jon Ossoff.

Guess it’s the April arithmetic on one hand against recent opinion polling on the other.

I have no predictions, but it’s hard not to remember the polls just before last week’s Democratic and Republican primaries in Virginia.

7:38 p.m. First results in. Handel ahead 51 percent to 48 percent in the first seventy thousand votes. Unofficial returns.

Handel

8:09 p.m. Ossoff now ahead 50 to 49 percent, with 115,000 votes in. All three counties partially reporting.

Campaign site

8:48 p.m. Ossoff still ahead almost 50 – 49 percent, for the moment. Thirteen of 208 precincts reported.

8:55 p.m. Karen Handel now up by less than one percent. Nineteen precincts reporting.

9:10 p.m. Handel now up by more than a percent. Quite the little quantum leap, for either candidate. Margin 51 to 48 percent, with 82 precincts in.

9:30 p.m. It’s practically a runaway, by the standards of this special. Handel now up 52 to 47 percent in Georgia 6th. Almost half the precincts in, 99 out of 208.

Almost half of DeKalb County in, theoretically Ossoff’s stronghold. Only a third of Fulton in. Almost four-fifths of Cobb County in. Cannot project any big swing from what votes/precincts remain out.

9:48 p.m. Handel still ahead of Ossoff 52 – 47 percent, with 190,000 votes in. The district ha 447,000 registered voters. It will be interesting to read the total turnout once all votes are counted.

9:51 p.m. Three-fourths of precincts completed, 157 out of 208. Handel leading 51 to 48 percent. DeKalb County now 97 percent completed by precincts.

9:54 p.m. Fulton County precincts now two-thirds counted. Cobb County 92 percent counted. Handel ahead 52 to 47 percent, almost. Are the last three percent’s worth of DeKalb County precincts supposed to make all the difference?

10:01 p.m. One of three counties now in–DeKalb. 219,000 votes in, and Handel still leads Ossoff 52 percent to 47 percent.

I may not be NBC, but I’m calling it for Handel. Period.

John Doar of Watergate

Posted on June 16, 2017 by Margie Burns

Today’s history lesson. The Watergate investigation was headed by Republican John Doar, an alumnus of Princeton and of Berkeley Law. Before serving as chief investigator in Watergate, Doar had served as an Army Air Force pilot in World War II and as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the sixties. His duties as Assistant AG included protecting James Meredith at the University of Mississippi.*

John Doar (left)

President Obama awarded Doar the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 (an award overshadowed by Bob Dylan’s).

Below is a key reminder about Doar’s character and performance. Quoted from the wonderful Jimmy Breslin’s How the Good Guys Finally Won:

The second occurrence, the dangerous one, first began to take form months before. It grew out of the nature of the political business. On one hand there was John Doar, unelected, with working methods that were as strict and severe as they were successful. Security is a rather simple word to Doar: it means you say nothing to anybody. As politicians are essentially elected washerwomen, information often their only visible means of support, this secrecy made some members [of the Judiciary Committee] nervous.

I was reminded of Doar in reading that James Quarles, reportedly on the Mueller team investigating matters under the Trump administration, was a member of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

Does Robert Mueller remind anyone of Doar?

As a newspaper reader and one of the Washington Post’s last six print subscribers, I have to admit that I myself often enjoy reading about leaks. However, some enlightened skepticism about them is essential–and often a more interesting story. Take for example the phenomenon, throughout the George W. Bush years, of treating as leaks what were actually plants–items planted in media outlets, usually to harm some individual in government no longer in the charmed circle.

A remarkable number of leaks have come from the Mueller team investigating Russia and the 2016 election in the last couple of days. The sources are unnamed at this point, though of course I have my own guesses. One logical claim is unassailable and clear: either Mueller can control the leaks from what purports to be an investigation into serious matters, or he cannot. If he cannot, he is not in control of his team. If he can, he is basically generating the leaks.

Regardless of the benefit of leakers to individual journalists and to individual media outlets, it would be nice to see more informed scrutiny in the news media.

I would also like to see my hunches confirmed as to identity; if someone else won’t provide, I’ll have to do it myself. For analogy and another literary reference, see The Little Red Hen.

*Many people don’t seem to know that the U Mississippi nickname ‘Ole Miss’ is cant for the slave name for the mistress on an antebellum plantation. Funny to hear it used so fondly, since no one would apply ‘Ole Massa’ to anything, at least with affection.

[Update]

Just after posting above, I saw Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s statement on anonymous allegations. From DOJ:

Statement by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Anonymous Allegations

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein today issued the following statement:

“Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch or agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.”

Yesterday’s mass shooting

Posted on June 15, 2017 by Margie Burns

By now everyone knows about the shootings yesterday of Republicans practicing for tonight’s Congressional Baseball Game, a Washington annual charity event.

June 14, 2017

A sixty-six-year-old white guy named James Hodgkinson went to the ball field, checked to make sure that morning’s practice was GOP–the Democrats had practiced earlier–and once players were on the field, opened fire. Majority Whip Steve Scalise is in critical condition. Tyson Foods lobbyist Matt Mika, shot in the chest, is in critical condition. Congressional staffer Zack Barth was wounded. Capitol Police officers David Bailey and Crystal Griner were wounded, Griner by gunshot and Bailey in the conflict. Bailey and Griner were also praised by every witness for their heroism. The Capitol Police detail was assigned to Scalise as Whip; if Bailey and Griner had not been there, according to rapid consensus, the shootings would have been a massacre. Hodgkinson was shot by police and died of his injuries in a hospital.

Much has already been discovered, in increments, about the shooter’s anger issues and track record of seemingly petty personal and business conflicts.

Whether he had what could be designated a clinical mental illness remains to be determined, along with any other questions about his health. What is certain is that he had traveled to Northern Virginia from Illinois and had taken up a white-van-type post of sorts near the baseball diamond.

And every indication so far is that in his already unbalanced or fragile mental state he went over the edge in the hype around the 2016 election.

[Visual images readily available. I decided not to insert them here.]

I for one have no doubt whatever that the febrile rhetoric amplified through, or coming from, media outlets contributed to his deterioration.

What’s heartbreaking (for me) is that some of the worst is coming from people who do not hesitate to present themselves as enlightened–progressive, champions of tolerance, People Who Know Things. The puffery I could stand, but some of the worst is coming from people I genuinely thought better of. Chagrined at finding out they weren’t on firm ground (championing the Clintons), they seem to know no concept of boundaries, of everyday justice. There have been indirect and less-indirect wishes for violence ever since the election. Every individual in every occupation is exhorted to hashtag-RESIST. Table any question as to whether people who went along with George Bush’s Iraq invasion would have had the nerve to stand up against an actual dictator. Table the question whether the sneaks now glorifying petty rule-breaking and back-stabbing would have had the guts to join the historical Resistance.

World War II

What the hashtag-Resistance seems to boil down to, right now, is a new elevation of the-rules-are-for-other-people into glorious doctrine. Last night’s WaPo article about the Bob Mueller investigation is perhaps a petty example. Not only are the rules for other people, but we are divinely supported in our view that the rules are for other people.

This is a bogus call to arms.

Full disclosure: Being human, I couldn’t help being amused in a way that Mueller’s team is leaking in so many places. More on that later.

[Update June 15]

To prevent any misunderstanding–the above is not intended to assign blame to Senator Bernie Sanders’ campaign. There is too much sneaking at a much less macro level, joined with far too much overheated rhetoric at the macro level.