Posting a link. Well, two links.

Michael Yon (that unique product of an information revolution, a reporter who works directly for his contributing readers) reports that the Iraq Islamic Party calls Al-Qaeda defeated in southern Iraq.

Now, if any of my friendly liberal-left readers feel a sense of peevish frustration, disgust, or lofty disinterest at this little item, ask yourselves why. Aren’t you cheering for civilization? If not, why not?

Now, things might have gone differently if only the enemy had possessed the superexplosive bombshell of kidnapped scientist Professor Roche

Fortunately for us, the evil millionaire Artigas and his secret island base hidden in an artificial volcano were discovered by our submersible ironclad ramships and steam-powered airships before his plans were complete, thanks to the unsung heroism of the scientist’s beautiful daughter.

If Artigas only he had thought to ally himself to Robur the Conqueror!

By the way, where IS my flying car? Forget the Jetsons: THIS is what it should look like. Besides, running on steam power rather than coal or oil is environmentally-friendly.

And, on an entirely different and lighter note:

 

In O’Bryan v. Holy See (490 F. Supp. 2d 826), a class-action suit was filed against the Vatican in federal court, based on allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Pursuant to the federal rules of civil procedure, specifically 28 USCS § 1608(a)(3), for proper service to an entity such as the Vatican, the original complaint and notice, “together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state,” had to be sent.

The official language of the Holy See is, of course, Latin. Thus, someone had to translate the complaint and notice into Latin.

The Vatican files a motion to dismiss under a number of grounds. One of them amounts to the translation into Latin not being good enough.

While supporting part of the Vatican’s claims (specifically, the court finds curable error in the process), the court also addresses and dispenses with the Latin question. It first notes that the “parties’ experts are diametrically opposed” as to the sufficiency of the translation,” but then goes on to note that “the translation into Latin need not be perfect,” more or less because the Defendant can always ask for a clarification. (833). Likewise, it finds the request for “detailed, treatise-like explanations of various court documents and legal terms,” effectively, giving Latin explanations of all U.S. legal terminology, to be a bit excessive and unjustified. Id.