| |
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Makes No Sense
How did I get to be Number Seven on a Google search for " 2002 emails contacts of powder milk companies in korea"?
A Shocker
Via Media Minded, comes a magazine challenge:
The Weekly Standard versus The Nation
Published in the alt. weekly, the LA Weekly it quickly admits the truth.
Just compare it to another thin, ideologically driven rag, The Weekly Standard, a right-wing publication currently approaching its measly seventh anniversary. A few months ago, I began putting new issues of each side by side on an end table and, to my surprise, discovered that while unread copies of The Nation invariably rose in guilt-inducing stacks, I always read The Weekly Standard right away. Why? Because seen purely as a magazine, The Standard is incomparably more alluring. As gray and unappetizing as homework, The Nation makes you approach it in the same spirit that Democrats might vote for Gray Davis -- where else can you go? In contrast, The Standard woos you by saying, "We're having big fun over here on the right."
And in some undeniable sense that's true. Back in the '60s, the left was the home of humor, iconoclasm, pleasure. But over the last two decades, the joy has gone out of the left -- it now feels hedged in by shibboleths and defeatism -- while the right has been having a gas, be it Lee Atwater grooving to the blues, Rush Limbaugh chortling about Feminazis or grimly gleeful Ann Coulter serving up bile as if it were chocolate mousse, even dubbing Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning television." (Get your political allegiances straight, babe. Katie's the Madame Mao of morning television. You're Eva Braun.)
...
One sign of The Nation's disarray is a tiny illustration in the September 2 issue. In an image seemingly worthy of Der Stürmer, it depicts a building that looks like the World Trade Center being smashed by a crane whose frame is the American flag and whose wrecking ball is imprinted with the Star of David. Is the magazine suggesting that the U.S. and the Jews were responsible for 9/11? Of course not, said editor in chief Katrina vanden Heuvel, when I called to find out. The building isn't supposed to be a WTC tower but a metaphor (it's faintly imprinted with a map of the Middle East), and the Star of David is supposed to represent Israel, not Judaism. "We regret any misinterpretation," she said, rather than openly apologizing or having the courage to endorse a drawing that many readers will find offensive.
This illustration follows with unnerving proximity the uncharacteristic decision to publish Forbidden Truth, the discredited French conspiracy book that suggested U.S. threats against the Taliban on behalf of oil interests provoked 9/11. Although the diluted American version is a best-seller for The Nation, publisher Victor Navasky is reluctant to vouch for the book's truth, telling The Village Voice's Cynthia Cotts, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist . . . but I think it's important to raise questions."
Well, sure. But such unwillingness to stand behind its own drawings and books suggests that those running the magazine have little idea of how it is seen in the larger world. This is hardly surprising, for The Nation all too often seems hermetically sealed in some bubble wrap or time warp. The very symbol of this may be a writer I've long admired, Katha Pollitt, whose two most memorable pieces in years -- a fatuous post-9/11 column saying that she sees the American flag as a symbol of tyranny, and her wonderful recent New Yorker article about learning to drive -- suggest that here is a person who desperately needs to get out more. One might say the same of the senior editors, who are evidently content to keep appealing to the same small group of like-minded people who can't believe the vast majority of America is so benighted. They need to talk to some folks who own guns.
What happens when young liberals get sick of wishy-washiness and elitism?
Road Trip Season
Ah, the start of college football season. Time for the periodic road jaunts to Pittsburgh for Pitt Football. I've been doing this since '98 (when I was living in Youngstown), when it was just 2 of us. Now there are ten. First up is a warm up game on Saturday against Ohio University, nicknamed the Bongcats Bobcats. The game is a 7 pm start which means the tailgating will start between 3 and 4. Grilling up the Hebrew Nationals and nondescript frozen burger patties. The Yuengling Lager will flow as always (yes, I know it's Pittsburgh, and Iron City is supposed to be the call, but come on. IC sucks), and occasionally some additional beverages. The conversation is always weird. In our group there are some public defenders, an active member of the Allegheny County Democratic Party, an urban planner who lives in Altoona, a refugee from the Tribune-Review and a couple other papers on his way to becoming an asst. prof. at West Virginia U's J-School, and a few other attorneys
If you're near, stop on by, have a drink, and even a cigar (breaking out from the private stash to celebrate the recent birth of my daughter Angela and my friend John's new son, Gideon).
We have our spot in the parking lot by Ridge Avenue (the green wedge). A special invite goes to Dave Copeland if he isn't off hiking somewhere. Dave, come over and have a drink with us.
Say it Ain't So
Lileks bleat on the hypocrisy of the Car Talk boys actually made me realize what hypocrites they are on something else.
SUVs.
Apparently they are now against them. Funny. I used to listen to them all through law school in the 90s. I worked as a prep-cook at Tommy's on Coventry on the weekends. (rather than work part-time for a lawyer, I liked the idea of doing something that kept me in touch with normal people) I'd be downstairs cutting veggies, pre-wrapping fries, making falafel, hummus, etc. The radio would be on, and I would listen to Car Talk. I'm digressing. Sorry. The point (so to speak type) I was getting to, at least once a month someone would call about what car they should use when hauling the family on some vacation. They wouldn't plug a mini-van, a station wagon or a regular van. No.
They would plug the Chevy Suburban as the perfect vehicle to haul the family, the boat, the trailer, and everything else. They probably bear as much "blame" for helping to popularize the SUV, and not just any SUV -- the big-ass, over-sized SUVs as Detroit.
Now the Best of the Worst
ESPN, Page 2 has been writing about sports movies all week. It's been rather boring and a lot of cliches. Now, they get to the fun stuff. The worst sports movies. Bill Simmons delivers the goods on The Replacements, a movie I keep comingthisclose to watching but never quite make it, and rules for bad sports movies:
With his jeep incapacitated, Keanu weasels a ride home from Washington's cute and bubbly head cheerleader, Annabelle, played by former "Melrose Place" star Brooke Langton in a 90-minute ad for the Miracle Bra. (For some reason, Annabelle also owns a bar in downtown Washington. And she's single. So, to recap, we have a cute head NFL cheerleader who also owns her own bar ... and she's single. This happens all the time.) Poor Brooke. Imagine playing Andrew Shue's girlfriend and Keanu Reeves' girlfriend in the same lifetime? The two worst actors of this generation! Can you put that on a résumé? Anyway, she doesn't seem interested in Keanu, because she avoids dating football players; he doesn't seem interested in her, because she has breasts.
That's basically the setup. Keanu needs to redeem himself. Hackman needs to say football things. The quirky side characters need to do quirky things. Keanu and the cheerleader struggle to find any semblance of sexual chemistry. The director struggles to film some quality football action (I'd give that aspect a B-minus). And we struggle for things to make fun of as the movie stretches along.
...
What about John Madden and Pat Summerall providing commentary for the games? And you thought Hackman was shameless ... didn't these two make enough cash off video game residuals? Flag on the play! Pat looked like he was being propped up by two extras; I'm not even sure he was awake. On the bright side, Madden apparently got $500 every time he said, "What the heck's going on down there?"
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Airline A**holes
More ways the airlines are trying to make flying the most miserable and costly way to go (WSJ, Subscription req'd)
This Labor Day weekend, Americans who take to the skies may be in for a surprise at the ticket counter: A whole generation of luggage, much of which previously might not have raised an eyebrow, is illegal on airlines. While carriers have long restricted carry-on luggage, they have recently begun to enforce long-ignored rules that restrict the size of checked bags as well.
Depending on the size and destination of the luggage, most major carriers charge up to $270 -- often more than the cost of the suitcase itself -- for bags larger than 62 linear inches (defined as height, width and depth added together). The fees can be lower on domestic flights -- usually $80 -- but they can quickly add up since the charges apply per bag per flight segment.
...
Stricter enforcement of the checked-luggage policy is one of the most aggressive of the airlines' recent efforts to ramp up revenues by being more diligent about collecting fees for everything from itinerary changes to paper tickets. This month, Delta Air Lines began charging $40 for a third checked bag.
Travelers who fail to check size requirements before the flight have little recourse, because most airlines list the policies on their Web sites. Luggage sellers absolve themselves by warning customers to check with individual airlines for restrictions. And most luggage buyers don't give it a thought. "They generally think it's not so much an issue with checked bags," says Jennifer Carmichael of Skyway Luggage.
To add to the confusion, many retailers don't describe their luggage in terms of linear inches.
This is for checked luggage. I don't object to enforcing reasonable carry-on rules, but this is ridiculous. One more reason why I prefer the phrase "road trip" over "catching a flight."
More Bad Campaign Finance Laws
South of Cleveland lies the City of Akron. Akron has its own set of campaign finance rules that has actually been upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. This law restricts the amount that can be given to individual candidates, but not to political parties. This essentially means that the majority of the political ads will come from the political parties in support of their candidates. Brilliant. This will get competition going. Lots of third party candidates added to mix, mavericks, people who may oppose the orthodoxy of their own party.
Oops. Out the window. Toe the party line or risk the money you need to even get through a primary.
So what are the restrictions? Glad you asked.
Limitations on contributions to municipal candidates of no more than $25 in cash per person per year.
Limitations on non-cash monetary contributions of no more than $300 per person for mayor and at-large council candidates and no more than $100 per person for ward council candidates.
Limitations on nonresident contributions of no more than 25% of total campaign contributions from persons who do not resident in Akron.
A prohibition on fundraising for political campaigns prior to 11 months before the General Election.
A requirement that surplus campaign funds be deposited in the City’s General Fund after the General Election.
Gee, you can't raise a lot of money; you are limited as to how early you can start; you can't seek much money outside of the city limits; and by its unintended nature gives the political parties more control over purse strings.
Always amusing how reform becomes status quo in reality.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
The Downside
The only downside to my purely clinical review of the Eaglettes, was that I think it may have had a bit of an influence on my fantasy football draft that just finished.
I ended up selecting Donovan McNabb, Duce Staley, and David Akers.
Course I also got two of the three former Pitt players I wanted (if only I could have gotten Curtis Martin): Kevan Barlow and Antonio Bryant
Competition Can Be An Ugly Thing
Thankfully this is not one of those times:
Ladies and gentlemen: the 2002-2003 Philadelphia Eagles lingerie calendar.
Oh dear lord, I thought, pausing for a moment before tearing open the package, what if this is Andy Reid in his skivvies?
It's not.
In producing what the Eagles are calling the first calendar of its kind in the NFL...
Even so, the photos, taken amongst -- well, more like over, against and sprawled across -- the antique furnishings of a model home near Philly, are more tasteful than risqué. In other words, this isn't any worse (or better) than Jill Arrington in FHM.
(Does anybody else remember that several years back, former members of this very same Eagles cheerleading squad filed suit against the city and other NFL teams after guys admitted sneaking peaks at them in their underwear? Now they're charging up front: $12.99.)
According to the site, it's only $11.99
As a public service, and totally without any personal interest I verified the price.
Of course the calendar only has 16 months (Sept. 2002-Dec. 2003, but there are34 Eaglettes (are they still called that?). I'd hate to think they left some of the girls off the calendar. Think of their self-esteem. You don't suppose they...
Police Chief Shoots Self, Goes to Prison
Not exactly the best or the brightest:
- Perrysville's former police chief, who staged a traffic stop to cover up an accidental shooting, was sentenced yesterday to five years in prison.
Tim Sommer, 53, admitted to investigators that he staged a traffic stop March 19 to cover up accidentally shooting a hole in the windshield of his cruiser.
While staging the traffic stop, Sommer accidentally shot himself in the leg.
The Penna. LDA info.
Here's an article on the Pennsylvania LDA and the reasoning for striking it down
The court, in a 3-3 ruling, let stand a lower court ruling invalidating the law, which had drawn the ire of lobbyists, especially those who double as lawyers for their clients. The court made its ruling Friday but did not post it on its Web site until yesterday.
Justice John P. Flaherty did not participate in the decision.
Lobbyists Richard J. Gmerek and Charles I. Artz objected to the measure, saying it violated a provision in the state Constitution that prevents the Legislature from regulating the practice of law, which is customarily controlled by the courts. Attorneys for the state argued that the law regulated lobbying rather than the practice of law.
...
Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala wrote that the law "in effect regulates the conduct of attorneys engaged in the practice of law and thereby infringes on this court's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of attorneys."
But Justice Thomas G. Saylor, writing for the trio who favored keeping the law intact, stated that he saw "no legislative incursion, invasion or encroachment on any fundamental component of judicial power, authority or function."
...
The law was hailed as the first major overhaul of the state's lobbying rules in 38 years when it took effect in August 1999. Supporters patterned it after laws that had passed constitutional tests in other states.
Lobbyists were required to register with the Ethics Commission and their clients to file quarterly financial reports in conjunction with them.
...
Gmerek and Artz, the two lobbyists who objected to the law, argued that its requirements invaded the confidential relationship between attorney and client, barred contingency fees for lobbying that are permissible for lawyers, and intruded on the court's duty to discipline lawyers.
"I'm not a lobbyist, and the act reached too far," Artz said yesterday. "It reached into what I do as an attorney."
The General Assembly specified in the law that the entire measure would be invalidated if a court ruled that its requirements could not be applied to lawyers. The language was meant to prevent a two-tiered system of lobbyists consisting of lawyers and others.
The Pennsylvania courts have a history of being very rabid protective in their exclusive control of attorneys. While not in the article, the decision focused on penalties for violating the LDA and not so much the attorney-client privilege.
What does the LDA require? This.
The law requires lobbyists to report:
What they spent on behalf of clients who paid more than $2,500 per quarter of a year to influence government decisions;
Their expenses by category if they spent more than $500 on lawmakers or other government officials or staff members;
The name of any state employee or lawmaker who receives gifts worth $250 or meals or other expenditures of $650 or more in one year. In its three years of operation, the law has disclosed how millions were spent when private companies tried to influence the state Public Utility Commission, major corporate takeover bids and the annual state budget.
The State AG (who is also running for Governor) is requesting a rehearing.
Monday, August 26, 2002
Pennsylvania Lobbying Disclosure Act
The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court in a 4-3 vote today struck down the state's Lobbying Disclosure Act as improper for regulating the activities of lawyers -- the exclusive province of the Pennsylvania State Bar.
I'll probably write more about this when I have read the decision. A cursory reading bothers me, but doesn't surprise me.
Either He's Cautious or He's Admirable
Well this is strange. A developer wants to develop lakefront property in Euclid (12 miles East of Cleveland):
Mentor-based K&D Group wants to create a lakefront community by combining its Water's Edge and Harbor Crest high-rise apartment complexes with residential property on East 242nd Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.
Plans call for building a marina and tearing down houses to make way for condominiums.
The problem is there are six lots the developer does not own. They are owned by private citizens. Not all the owners are interested in selling the property at the prices the developer is offering. The City of Euclid is obviously interested in helping to make this project happen, and the developer knows how they can help.
K&D partner Doug Price has urged the city to help him obtain six remaining lots by suing the owners and forcing them to sell at a price set in court, a process known as eminent domain.
This is what happened where I live in Eastlake (a few miles further east from Euclid) to obtain the land to build the minor league ballpark, and apparently some additional projects. Many consider this an abuse of eminent domain, and dismissive of property rights, though it has sadly become a common occurrence. The "justification" of the public good of seizing someone's real property for purposes of giving it to a developer is the additional tax revenues generated.
Price, who called his argument for eminent domain "rock solid," said the public would have access through leased dock space, a restaurant, a boardwalk and maybe a fishing pier. He said the city also could point to taxes and spinoff benefits from the development, an investment he valued at $20 million to $30 million.
"There's a lot of public good," he said. "It will change the face of the whole city."
The strange part, is that the Euclid law director opposes this use of eminent domain:
But Law Director Patrick Murphy is skeptical that a case can be made, Oyaski said.
Murphy declined to comment. In a letter to City Council earlier this month, he did not rule specifically on the K&D project, but said that a public purpose was key to justifying eminent domain and that seizing private property for a private use "constitutes a flagrant abuse of the power."
Rarely have I seen a law director actually say, no the city shouldn't do whatever it wants to get more money.
While K&D group may have been right, there has been a change to Ohio law regarding eminent domain and it goes into effect on September 6, 2002.
Sadly, the Plain Dealer reporter fails to note or comment that the attorney for one of the homeowners, is the same attorney who fought the eminent domain in the Eastlake ballpark matter. Seems like that would be a relevant item to mention.
Posting to Fill in the Spaces
Sorry about not having anything posted in a couple days. I've been looking after the little one while the wife is working. Making adjustments to our schedules so that we can work, take care of Angela, and occasionally be in the same room together.
|
|
