Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Legal Skills Prof Blog: Teaching legal skills in Qatar - Part 3

? ABA Committee Proposes Changes in How Law Schools Report Employment Data | Main | The story of highlighters ?

January 22, 2012

Teaching legal skills in Qatar - Part 3

Here's the third installment from our guest blogger Professor Rob Hudson on teaching legal skills in the Middle East (click here for Part 1 and here for Part 2).? In this final post, Professor Hudson describes what it's like to be a faculty member and law librarian at Qatar University.

The first point about being faculty here at the College of Law in Qatar is that there are almost no Qataris on the faculty. All but two of the law professors are from somewhere else and most are on three year contracts, although extensions exist, but tenure does not exist. The faculty is multinational and multi-lingual so that we have our faculty meetings in a room with simultaneous translation through wireless headsets. Many of the faculty are from Egypt or Lebanon and are on leave from faculty status in those countries. Others, including Dean Hassan Okour, are from Jordan. The Dean has a Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Ghana, Canada, Germany, France, the US, and the UK are part of the international mix too. The majority of faculty are men. The degrees of faculty at the College of Law include many PhDs and LLMs. Few have a JD or LLB as their terminal degree. The Faculty of Law split from the Sharia Faculty to be autonomous in 2006.

Qatar University is investing in major new facilities as part of the strategic plan and international accreditation efforts. Faculty at the College of Law benefited with a new building, shared with the business school,? and a new library this year.? The accreditation efforts of QU College of Law are focused on both SACS and the ABA from the United States. The ABA standards are entirely self-imposed as no avenue for accreditation outside of the US currently exists.? I have joint status at the College of Law and the Library and as law librarian take the Chapter Six requirements from the ABA to heart as I develop the law collection from minimal to functional.? Significant differences from US law schools are that half of the classes are taught in Arabic and no American law classes are in the curriculum at all. Classes are being proposed in all areas of legal studies, including advanced legal research, so the curriculum is still evolving.? Grants are heavily supported by the University and research is gaining emphasis in a traditionally instruction-driven academic environment.

The work here includes faculty housing, family benefits including schooling, work permits for family members, and travel.? My family is with me from the US and my oldest girl is in an international school. One of the greatest benefits to me as an American expat is to see the way my children are enriched culturally by living in an international destination like Doha. Faculty housing is often in gated compounds. I exercised the option to live off-compound at the Pearl to be closer to work and the Gulf. Faculty and their families here need to spend great amounts of time establishing Qatari permanent residency and the University works hard to make the process go fast. This includes University buses and intake specialists that will move a new faculty member from appointment to appointment at government departments. I still think it took me three months before I got a Qatari driver?s license! Return flights to Miami for my family are part of the yearly compensation and we have enjoyed trips to Malaysia and the UAE this year.

I like the schedule. The work week is Sunday to Thursday and the working day typically lasts from 7am to 2 pm. I go to church on Friday mornings with my family! I dislike the traffic and consider it to be the only danger next to the dust in a country ranking so high in quality of life.

For a US law librarian like me the idea that text is read right to left in Arabic, books open from the right cover, and the indexes are on the left is difficult. I still open books only to find I am looking at the back cover. Accessing Arabic books correctly on the shelf means that stacks and call numbers progress from right to left and from bottom to top for some of the collection. With the new library at Qatar University and our move in February 2012 to that facility we are faced with the dilemma of interfiling English and Arabic books while each demand completely opposite organization.? Also, the entire collection ? English, Arabic ? is in the process of a reclassification to LC from Dewey so we are quite busy. The ILS used is Millennium like at many US law schools but it is so recent the library has grand wooden card catalogs in the hall of the staff area.

Technology is good here in Qatar. Electronic resources are being integrated? by Qatar University with Blackboard use mandatory for all classes. Databases for legal research are ideally both in English and Arabic for navigation and content. Arabic text is best displayed in PDF as it often distorts in other formats like HTML. Few databases live up to this ideal.? Very few law students carry laptops here although all have smartphones. The challenge for skills instructors like me is to persuade the students to use mobile technologies like iPad and Blackberry and schedule classes in the instructional labs with computers. Blackberry Messenger is more effective to communicate with law students than email!

My struggle is to make legal research skills and library services relevant for the law students. Workshops and classes seem to be poorly attended and I wonder sometimes if I am making a difference.? My heavy John Wayne American accent probably does not help and I wish I spoke Arabic. Fortunately I am integrated into the writing courses and provide assessment for 15% of the grade in legal research and writing. I am developing a reading knowledge of Arabic, slowly.?

Qatar is less known than neighboring Dubai but becoming the economic and tourist hub for the region. There is no Great Recession here. The dynamic is very interesting and I enjoy living and working here.? The University is creating an international law school for the region .

My experiences are included on the Qatar University Law Librarian blog? .

Dr. Rob Hudson

Lecturer/Law Librarian

Qatar University, College of Law

PO Box 2713

Doha, Oatar

rhudson@qu.edu.qa

Thanks, Rob, for an interesting series of posts. You're welcome back here anytime.

(jbl).

January 22, 2012 | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_skills/2012/01/teaching-legal-skills-in-qatar-part-3.html

howard stern howard stern free shipping day free shipping day golden globe nominations 2012 war in iraq war in iraq

14 Indonesian, Korean crew rescued in Philippines

(AP) ? A cargo ship loaded with iron ore has listed off the eastern coast of the Philippines, and passing boats rescued the 14-member crew.

Philippine coast guard operations officer Mark Angue says the Panamanian-registered M/V Sun Spirit began to list Saturday off Catanduanes province and sent a distress signal. The coast guard immediately deployed three ships and a helicopter for a search and rescue.

Angue says the coast guard later learned that the 12 Indonesian and two Korean crewmen abandoned their China-bound ship, which came from the central Philippine province of Leyte.

Coast guard Admiral Ramon Liwag says a passing Philippine cargo ship rescued 11 of the crewmen while a fishing boat saved three others. It's unclear whether the disabled ship sank.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2012-01-22-AS-Philippines-Rescued-Crewmen/id-a6590daca89942de9f383aa9902d4271

bean bag chairs android tablet arthur christmas asus transformer nebraska football nebraska football online deals

Monday, January 23, 2012

Report: South Sudan sues Khartoum over oil (AP)

KHARTOUM, Sudan ? South Sudan is suing Sudan for "looting" its oil and will no longer export crude through its northern neighbor's territory, a Sudanese daily reported Sunday, citing officials, in the latest spat between the two governments over the coveted resource in the newly independent southern nation.

South Sudan Information Minister Marial Benjamin said the lawsuit was filed in "specialized international tribunals against Sudan and some companies" that bought the crude, the Al-Sahafa daily said. Benjamin did not provide additional details on the venue or when the lawsuit was filed.

The case is the latest development in a long-simmering fight between the two governments over the oil they share. Most of it lies within the borders of South Sudan, which achieved independence last July.

On Jan. 17, South Sudan Minister of Petroleum and Mining Stephen Dhieu Dau said Sudan is diverting about 120,000 barrels of oil pumped from the south daily, a move the northern government said stemmed from the unpaid transit fees for the oil carried in pipelines from the south to export terminals in its territory. The two sides have been unable to resolve the dispute.

South Sudan's Cabinet Affairs minister, Deng Alor, said that his country has halted pumping crude through Sudan and would begin building a pipeline across east Africa that would allow it to export its oil through Kenya. The project would take about a year, he told Al-Sahafa.

"Our economy will not be affected by this step," he said, adding that South Sudan had enough in cash reserves to sustain it for five years. Even if the economy was affected, it would be preferable to the "looting" taking place by Sudan, he was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

The Khartoum government downplayed the potential impact of the move by the south. Sudanese State Minister for Cabinet Affairs Amin Hassan Omar said that the oil currently held in pipelines would cover a considerable portion of the debts owed by the south.

The suspension of oil production is a "tactical move that will not last long," he told Al-Sahafa.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/energy/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120122/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_sudan_south_sudan_oil

gloria allred black friday ads 2011 black friday ads 2011 pacquiao vs marquez pacquiao vs marquez junior dos santos junior dos santos

High court throws out Texas electoral maps (AP)

WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court on Friday threw out electoral maps drawn by federal judges in Texas that favored minorities. The decision ultimately could affect control of the U.S. House of Representatives and leaves the fate of Texas' April primaries unclear.

The justices ordered the three-judge court in San Antonio to come up with new plans that pay more attention to maps created by Texas' Republican-dominated state Legislature. All four of the state's new congressional seats could swing based on the outcome.

But the Supreme Court did not compel the use of the state's maps in this year's elections, as Texas wanted. Only Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have gone that far.

The court's unsigned opinion thus did not blaze any new trails in election law or signal retreat from a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, as some supporters of the law feared would result from this case.

Still, the outcome appeared to favor Republicans by instructing the judges to stick more closely to what the Legislature did, said election law expert Richard Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, law school.

Controversy over the maps arose from redrawing political boundaries based on results of the 2010 census that found that Texas had added more than 4 million new residents, mostly Latinos and African-Americans, since 2000. The minority groups complained they were denied sufficient voting power by Republican lawmakers who sought to maximize GOP electoral gains in violation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Texas will have 36 seats in the next Congress, a gain of four districts. A divided court in San Antonio drew maps that differed from the Legislature's efforts, giving Democrats a chance to prevail in three or four more congressional districts. Republicans now represent 23 of the 32 current districts.

The high court said the judges appeared in some instances not to pay enough attention to the state's choices. The judges made mistakes in their plans, particularly in altering district lines for state legislative and congressional seats in parts of the state where there is no allegation of discrimination on the part of the Legislature, the high court said.

"In the absence of any legal flaw in this respect in the state's plan, the district court had no basis to modify that plan," the justices said, talking about state House districts in north and east Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the ruling was a clear victory for the state.

"The Court made clear in a strongly worded opinion that the district court must give deference to elected leaders of this state, and it's clear by the Supreme Court ruling that the district court abandoned these guiding principles," he said in statement.

But Jose Garza, who argued the high court case on behalf of the minority groups and Texas Democrats, said Abbott is "celebrating too early." He said he expects the new maps to look a lot like the ones the justices threw out. Garza said he believes the biggest problem with the court-drawn maps is that the judges "could have done a better job of explaining themselves."

Texas Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis said she views the decision as essentially endorsing the judges' work in making changes to her Fort Worth area district. Davis filed a lawsuit against the state Senate plan after Republicans split Latino and African-Americans she currently represents into three districts, weakening her re-election prospects.

The Supreme Court acted quickly, just 11 days after hearing arguments and a month and a half after intervening in the case, but set no deadline for new maps to emerge from the court in Texas. State officials have said they need to have something in place by February 1 to hold primary elections, already delayed once, on April 3. The Texas Republican party also has said that Texas may have no voice in the Republican presidential nominating process if the primary is held later than mid-April.

The complicated legal fight over redistricting in Texas is playing out in three federal courts. In addition to the Supreme Court and federal court in San Antonio, a three-judge court in Washington is evaluating the state plans under a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that forces states, mainly in the South, with a history of discrimination in voting to get advance approval before making any changes to the way they conduct elections.

Even without the Washington court's approval, Texas said it should be able to use its own maps just for this year because time is running short before the primaries.

The minority groups, as well as the Obama administration, say such an outcome is strictly forbidden by the Voting Rights Act and would, in essence, eviscerate the law's most potent weapon, the advance approval requirement, also known as preclearance.

The justices chose not to allow the state maps to be used without preclearance. But Thomas, who earlier had said he would strike down the advance approval requirement, said Texas' "duly enacted redistricting plans should govern the upcoming elections."

The cases, all dealt with in one opinion, are Perry v. Perez, 11-713, Perry v. Davis, 11-714, and Perry v. Perez, 11-715.

_________

Associated Press writer Henry C. Jackson in Washington contributed to this report.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120120/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_texas_redistricting

kim jong il kim jong il vaclav havel vaclav havel kim jong ii dead snapdragon snapdragon

Friday, January 20, 2012

What You Missed While Not Watching the South Carolina GOP Debate (Time.com)

-5 minutes. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly sets the scene for the 16th GOP debate: "All Mitt Romney has to do tonight is not fall down or throw up." Papa bear. A national treasure.

0 minutes. Big crowd. Curdling screams in Myrtle Beach. You think this is a vacation town? Think again. This is the ultimate political fighting championship, a no-holds-barred blood sport. Little bear Bret Baier announces that Fox News has done away with the time-is-up sound. That's how crazy it is going to be. "The doorbell didn't work for dog owners," he explains. The Google Chat chime didn't work for anyone born after Watergate. "But warning," Baier adds, "We do reserve the right to bring back the bell if we have to." Sure you do. 3 minutes. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gets us going by deflecting a question about how he went from promising to "repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama" to parroting the Obama campaign's line of attack against Mitt Romney. He answers honestly, saying he had two choices after his drubbing in Iowa at the hands of negative attack ads from Romney allies: "You either have to unilaterally disarm and leave the race or you have to at least bring up your competitor's record." Then he attacks Romney's job creation record in Massachusetts.

5 minutes. Baier has two more follow ups for Gingrich, both about his Romney attacks. This is called throwing meat to the lions. The crowd is restless. Someone must bleed. But Gingrich is ginger. "I raise questions that I think are legitimate questions," he says. (MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching the Weekend's New Hampshire Republican Debates)

7 minutes. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defends himself. Nothing special. "My record is out there, proud of it, and I think if team want to have someone who understand how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, that I'm the guy that can best post up against Barack Obama."

9 minutes. Now it's Texas Gov. Rick Perry's turn. He is asked about his comment that Romney practiced "vulture capitalism." Perry gets specific about one of the steel companies Romney invested in. "I visited Georgetown, South Carolina. It was one of those towns where there was a steel mill that Bain swept in, they picked that company over and a lot of people lost jobs there," Perry says. Then he pivots. "And Mitt, we need for you to release your income tax so the people of this country can see how you made your money," he says, meaning income tax returns. The crowd roars like a jet engine. Like when Caesar tossed swords to the gladiators.

11 minutes. Romney diffuses the roar. Talks about the steel business. Says he wants to "get the private sector working again." Ignores the stuff about his tax returns, which will almost certainly show that he pays little taxes because most of his income comes from investments.

12 minutes. Another question for Romney, about American Pad and Paper, a company that Romney's firm took over, loaded up with debt and made money from before it failed. Romney says bankruptcy sucks, free enterprises is good, and America is not Europe. Romney also says, "We've got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I've got one out there already and I'm not even president, yet." A stunning bit of misinformation. Obama's most recent job's plan is called "The American Jobs Act." Kind of hard to miss.

16 minutes. Still not quite the full combat that the crowd wants to see. Maybe Texas Rep. Ron Paul can help. He is asked if he should stop attacking other candidates. "There was one ad that we used against Senator Santorum, and I was only -- I only had one problem, is I couldn't get all the things in I wanted to say in one minute," he answers. The crowd likes.

17 minutes. Santorum defends himself with lots of details about right to work, No Child Left Behind and other things he has voted for that conservatives don't like. Then he gets outraged about a spot run by Romney's Super PAC that says Santorum wanted to allow felons to vote. Santorum asks Romney directly if felons should be allowed to vote after they have served their time? Then the back and forth finally starts. Romney starts to answer by dodging, but Santorum cuts him off demanding an answer to his question. "We have plenty of time. I'll get there. I'll do it in the order I want to do," Romney says. The upshot: Romney is against violent criminals ever getting the vote, he distances himself from the Super PAC, even though he has spoken at their fundraisers, and Santorum, who once endorsed Romney to be president, does not like Romney. (MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching the Final Iowa Debate)

22 minutes. Perry jumps in to repeat a line he always seems to be repeating. "Washington, D.C., needs to leave the states alone," he says. But he can't leave it there, so he adds, "and let the states decide these issues and don't do it from Washington, D.C. That's what needs to happen." Emphatically.

23 minutes. The candidates have been talking over their time, so Baier says, "We may have to rethink that whole bell thing." As they say on the Tweets, #notarealthreat. First commercial break.

26 minutes. We're back for the obligatory chain of clich?s delivered by the state GOP chair, because this is how Fox News rolls -- ads within the infomercial. Back in the Myrtle Beach thunder dome, the moderators try to stick it to Romney one more time, pointing out that the recently retired candidate Jon Huntsman called him "a perfectly lubricated weather vein." Romney smoothly recites stuff he has said before. "I believe in free enterprise, I believe in freedom, I believe in liberty, I believe in an opportunity society." Believe in America.

30 minutes. Perry gets asked about the Justice Departments effort to undo South Carolina's strict voter identification law. But the question has clear racial overtones: "Governor Perry, are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the voting laws of states where minorities were once denied the right to vote?" Perry runs with it. "I'm saying also that South Carolina is at war with this federal government and with this administration," he says. To recap: Asked about Jim Crow, Perry embraces the Civil War. South Carolina, you remember, was the first nation to secede in 1860 to defend slavery. Crowd loves it. Mostly for the war. But old racist nostalgia lurks menacingly at the edges.

33 minutes. Discussion of unemployment benefit policy. Santorum says return the hard decisions to the states. Gingrich says require job training. Then Gingrich keeps the racial undertones going by declaring: "We think unconditional efforts by the best food stamp president in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country."

36 minutes. Romney gets a question about the possibility of more bank bailouts if Europe collapses. He says he would not give anyone in government a blank check, and that he would force failing firms into bankruptcy. Which just about sums up the basic idea behind Dodd-Frank, the Obama-backed financial reforms that Romney opposes.

39 minutes. Paul gets asked about his vision of military spending cuts and the impact on a military state like South Carolina. Paul says he would close foreign bases, and build up domestic bases.

42 minutes. Each of the candidates must name their ideal income tax rate. Perry says a 20% flat tax. Santorum says 10% and 28%. Romney says 25%. Gingrich says 15%. Paul says 0%."What's so bad about that?" he asks. Paul wins.

43 minutes. Romney gets a direct question: "Governor, will you release your income tax records?" His answer is a Harvard Business School case study in equivocation: "You know, I looked at what has been done in campaigns in the past with Senator McCain and President George W. Bush and others. They have tended to release tax records in April or tax season. I hadn't planned on releasing tax records because the law requires us to release all of our assets, all the things we own. That I have already released. It's a pretty full disclosure. But, you know, if that's been the tradition and I'm not opposed to doing that, time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period and I'll keep that open." Go ahead, and try to figure that out. One thing is clear, when Romney says "you know," you almost certainly do not.

MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching the GOP National-Security Debate

44 minutes. Romney is asked again the same question. It gets worse. "I think I've heard enough from folks saying, look, let's see your tax records," he says. "I have nothing in them that suggests there's any problem and I'm happy to do so. I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. And if I become our nominee, and what's happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year and that's probably what I would do." Probably, if he thinks about deciding to listen to what people say about history and what not.

45 minutes. Romney gets a question about his opposition to the DREAM Act, which would give citizenship to upstanding immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as young children. "I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else," Romney says.

47 minutes. Santorum is asked about the high unemployment rate in the black community. He cites a study that says the poor should do three things to avoid poverty. "Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children," he says. Work is probably the key one in the list, for avoiding unemployment.

49 minutes. Paul says there is racial disparity in drug arrests and sentencing. "This is one thing I am quite sure that Martin Luther King would be in agreement with me on," he adds. (MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching the CNBC 'Oops' Republican Debate)

51 minutes. The string of questions about issues for blacks and Latinos continues, with a question to Gingrich about his rhetoric. "You recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?" It's a loaded question, and Gingrich bites its head off. "No I don't see that," he says. What follows is an epic back and forth between Gingrich, Fox News pundit Juan Williams and the crowd, which is again riled by the scent of some blood. Gingrich keeps using lines like, "I know among the politically correct, you're not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable." With the crowd's help, he vanquishes Williams.

55 minutes. The crowd is screaming so loud with approval for Gingrich that Baier must address the less frenzied home viewer: "They can't hear me, but I'll talk to you." The crowd is on its feet. Pretty sure this is the first mid-debate standing ovation in 16 debates. Commercial break to regain order.

62 minutes. We're back. Time to probe Paul's foreign policy ideas. Paul gets into an argument with Baier about whether he would pursue Bin Laden. Paul says he would, but the details are complex, and almost certainly inconsequential to the upcoming presidential election.

65 minutes. Gingrich, emboldened by his destruction of Williams and the liberal elite, is buoyed, and calls Paul's ideas "utterly irrational." Then he gives the crowd what they came to see. "We're in South Carolina. South Carolina in the Revolutionary War had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson. He was sabered by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: Kill them." Damn right. Sabered. Fox News shows a crowd shot. People are pumping their fists in the air. Kill him. Kill him.

67 minutes. Paul talks some more about war mongering. Baier again offers his empty bring-back-the-bell threat. Romney distances from his own adviser who made the totally reasonable observation that you will have to negotiate with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan. But all of this is a let down. The adrenaline rush is fading. Romney tries to capture some of it by saying things like, "These people declared war on us. They've killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them." But Romney's "kills" don't have the bite of Gingrich's "kills."

72 minutes. Perry has sat all this out. But now he gets a curveball, a question about the conservative government in Turkey, and whether Turkey deserves to stay in NATO. It's a leading question, and Perry, clearly trying to look like he knows about this stuff, follows it off a cliff. "Well, obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by, what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists. . ." he begins. This is Turkey he is talking about. The non-terrorist, Democratically-elected government of Turkey. It goes downhill from there.

74 minutes. Perry tries to salvage things by suggesting to Baier that Fox News replace the bell with a gong. If only.

76 minutes. Things are getting weird. Romney is asked about a bill Obama signed, which included a section that Obama opposed that allows the military to detain Americans indefinitely. He says he agrees with this section. He is met by huge boos from crowd. (MORE: What You Missed While Not Watching the Las Vegas GOP Debate)

79 minutes. Baier concedes defeat on the bell thing. "Take whatever time you want he says to Santorum." Santorum does. He agrees with Obama that the new military powers are overreach.

81 minutes. Perry, who a few minutes ago called a non-terrorist U.S. ally a bunch of terrorists, tries to reclaim his stature by talking about his flat tax, and his desire to cut regulation. Asked what can be done to help the housing market, Perry says, "We don't need the federal government in the housing market anymore." Seeing as the housing market is now substantially propped up by the federal government, this is basically a call for a sharp temporary decline in home prices.

83 minutes. The candidates give their views of entitlement reform. If you have read the other summaries of the other debates, you already know this stuff.

93 minutes. Break time. Last break.

97 minutes. Romney is asked why he sucks on guns. He is explains that he doesn't suck quite so bad. Then he says he hunted moose recently, or elk. It sounds like this, "I'm not going to describe all of my great exploits. But I went moose hunting actually -- not moose hunting, I'm sorry, elk hunting with friends in Montana. I've been pheasant hunting. I'm not the great hunter that some on this stage, probably Rick Perry, my guess is you are a serious hunter. I'm not a serious hunter." This is, it must be said, much better than the tax return answer.

103 minutes. More talk of the evils of Super PACs, since a pro-Romney group is running a spot claiming that Gingrich favored China's pro-abortion policies, when he did not. More back and forth over whether Gingrich and Romney could order their supporting PACs to stop using misleading ads, which they probably could. "I have complained about with Governor Romney's super PAC, over which he apparently has no influence, which makes you wonder how much influence he'd have if he were president," says Gingrich. Old ground. Finally, Romney breaks down and declares that he wishes the wealthy people giving to his Super-PAC just gave to him. "I haven't spoken to any of the people involved in my Super PAC in months and this is outrageous," Romney says. By this he appears to mean that it is outrageous he does not have direct control of money that clearly was donated by people who want to donated to him.

108 minutes. There is apparently extra time, because Perry gets a question about the border fence and Gingrich gets a question about No Child Left Behind. No news.

111 minutes. We are done. The crowd has not yet formed into a mob. No actual blood has been spilled. A success, considering. See you Thursday night. We'll do it all again. Don't dwell on why.

See TIME's 2011 Person of the Year: The Protester.

See TIME's Top 10 Everything of 2011.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/time/20120118/us_time/httpswamplandtimecom20120117whatyoumissedwhilenotwatchingthesouthcarolinagopdebateonfoxnewsxidrssfullnationyahoo

google ice cream sandwich soulja boy jason campbell android ice cream sandwich shia labeouf teleprompter ashley greene

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Pantech next to sign Android patent deal with Microsoft

Microsoft may have already signed patent licensing agreements with 70 percent of the US Android manufacturers, including some of the biggest names in the market, but that doesn't mean Redmond's about ready to hit the brakes anytime soon. Next up on the block is Pantech, according to a company spokesperson talking with Yonhap News. No specific details have been decided yet, so we'll have to wait for the official word and see what happens.

Pantech next to sign Android patent deal with Microsoft originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:11:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink MobileSyrup  |  sourceYonhap News  | Email this | Comments


Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/2SjLvth6ZLc/

peoples choice awards friends with kids andy cohen andy cohen weather radar deplorable mls draft