Some guy, upset about the Kelo decision, is trying to use eminent domain to seize Justice Souter's house in New Hampshire. Ha. He thinks a hotel will bring in more tax revenue than Souter's house. Heh.
It would be funnier, though, if it weren't so off-base. It would be fine if his complaint was with the the legal reasoning employed by Souter (or, more appropriately, Stevens) in the opinion. But no, this guy is just pissed off about eminent domain in general.
But sorry dude, eminent domain is in the Constitution. It's going to take more than the symbolic harassment of a Supreme Court Justice to change it -- you'll need a whole bunch of congresspeople and states to pass an amendment.
Anyway, a close reading of Kelo would smack this plan down. The pretext here is too obvious.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Sonics go French
Who the hell did the Sonics draft tonight? Two young French guys, that's who. I'm eager to hear Rick "I just signed a brand new contract" Sund explain this.
He's got to have a plan, right? Right?
And while I'm talking about Seattle sports -- and I know, it's rare -- when will the Mariners trade Jamie Moyer already? Man he sucks. I told my Moyer story to my coworkers today, and they were all shocked -- shocked! -- to hear that Jamie was such a jackass. He's got everyone fooled. Trade him!
He's got to have a plan, right? Right?
And while I'm talking about Seattle sports -- and I know, it's rare -- when will the Mariners trade Jamie Moyer already? Man he sucks. I told my Moyer story to my coworkers today, and they were all shocked -- shocked! -- to hear that Jamie was such a jackass. He's got everyone fooled. Trade him!
George
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality."
I agree.
But... he could just as easily be describing himself here.
I agree.
But... he could just as easily be describing himself here.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Big week ahead
Court watchers might just blow a gasket this week. There's a lot going on: rulings in Brand X, Ten Commandments, and Grokster (among others); and the possibility of the retirement of the Chief Justice. Should be fun. Here are my predictions.
Brand X: Court rules it to be information and telecommunications; victory for Brand X
Ten Commandments: this is a consolidation of two cases; I think the government wins in the Texas case, and the ACLU wins narrowly in the Kentucky case.
Grokster: MGM wins big here; Grokster gets the smackdown. The only question is how sweeping the opinion will be -- hopefully it'll be rather reserved.
Retirement: Really a tough call. I think he wants to stay, but if he waits another year he ends up messing with the midterm elections. I'll say it's 60-40 that he retires.
We'll see how I do.
Brand X: Court rules it to be information and telecommunications; victory for Brand X
Ten Commandments: this is a consolidation of two cases; I think the government wins in the Texas case, and the ACLU wins narrowly in the Kentucky case.
Grokster: MGM wins big here; Grokster gets the smackdown. The only question is how sweeping the opinion will be -- hopefully it'll be rather reserved.
Retirement: Really a tough call. I think he wants to stay, but if he waits another year he ends up messing with the midterm elections. I'll say it's 60-40 that he retires.
We'll see how I do.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Doogie Howser, J.D.
So we have a girl who just started working in the office here in the afternoons. She's a UW student, about to start her junior year. Apparently when she met me she thought I was really young. She asked my coworkers if I was a child prodigy. Ha ha.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
A2 has gone big-time
You know your town is huge when you get your own Craigslist page. Way to go, Ann Arbor, you did it!
Kelo decided
I wrote about this case in February -- it's a pretty important one. Every first-year law student is going to read it.
In short, the court decided to allow takings for private development, as long as that development has an overall public benefit. That benefit now means more than just roads and schools; this decision says it includes tax revenue and jobs. The court essentially put the power to make that determination -- whether or not it's for an overall public benefit -- in the hands of the local city planners. In the town of New London, the city planners decided a new hotel and health club would benefit the public, so the 15 families living on that land have to move. Ouch. (The families will be compensated, but still, it's hard to put a dollar amount on your home.)
It's a pretty tough issue -- I go back and forth on it. I think it makes sense when the project really has a public benefit, but I fear this standard can be easily manipulated.
People who are much smarter than me are talking about the case, Kelo v. New London, over on SCOTUSblog.
In short, the court decided to allow takings for private development, as long as that development has an overall public benefit. That benefit now means more than just roads and schools; this decision says it includes tax revenue and jobs. The court essentially put the power to make that determination -- whether or not it's for an overall public benefit -- in the hands of the local city planners. In the town of New London, the city planners decided a new hotel and health club would benefit the public, so the 15 families living on that land have to move. Ouch. (The families will be compensated, but still, it's hard to put a dollar amount on your home.)
It's a pretty tough issue -- I go back and forth on it. I think it makes sense when the project really has a public benefit, but I fear this standard can be easily manipulated.
People who are much smarter than me are talking about the case, Kelo v. New London, over on SCOTUSblog.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
NBA age limit
Good for the NBA for adopting an age limit. This will make the NBA and college basketball better.
I don't understand illogical overreactions like this, from ESPN's Dan Shanoff, though:
This is simply untrue. NBA fans still get LeBron, Kobe, etc. (and dude, you forgot Garnett), but only after they've been dominating college hoops for a year or two. None of these guys, with the exception of LeBron, was even watchable in his first year anyway. So what exactly are we missing? Why is this at all bad for NBA fans? I can tell you, it would not have broken my heart to delay the Robert Swift era for a year.
The only compelling argument in this debate is that the rule might disproportionately harm young black players. The rule "forces" the poorer kids to play college hoops for free, postponing their big payoff. 18-year-olds, the argument goes, are old enough to make up their own minds, and if someone's willing to pay them, they should be able to sign up. I actually agree with this argument. But I also think the NBA can do whatever it wants to improve its game, and that's what it's doing. There's no question that it will make the college and pro games better.
I don't understand illogical overreactions like this, from ESPN's Dan Shanoff, though:
No more LeBron, NBA fans.
No more Kobe Bryant.
No more Tracy McGrady.
No more Jermaine O'Neal.
No more Rashard Lewis.
No more Dwight Howard.
No more Shaun Livingston.
This is simply untrue. NBA fans still get LeBron, Kobe, etc. (and dude, you forgot Garnett), but only after they've been dominating college hoops for a year or two. None of these guys, with the exception of LeBron, was even watchable in his first year anyway. So what exactly are we missing? Why is this at all bad for NBA fans? I can tell you, it would not have broken my heart to delay the Robert Swift era for a year.
The only compelling argument in this debate is that the rule might disproportionately harm young black players. The rule "forces" the poorer kids to play college hoops for free, postponing their big payoff. 18-year-olds, the argument goes, are old enough to make up their own minds, and if someone's willing to pay them, they should be able to sign up. I actually agree with this argument. But I also think the NBA can do whatever it wants to improve its game, and that's what it's doing. There's no question that it will make the college and pro games better.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Horry sucks, redux
Okay, okay. Simmer down.
I didn't see the game, since I was on a plane back from Vegas. But I heard about it. Believe me, I heard about it.
And hell yes, that was a great game by Robert Horry. He was awesome. He hit a mammoth shot to win the game.
But when you think about it, this game only accentuates the point I made in the previous post. He is still incredibly overrated, and is not the greatest role player ever. And I'm saying this the day after what was probably the best game of his career (or at least, the last five years).
Here's my beef. Horry plays with house money. (Sorry, I'm still in a Vegas state of mind.) If he hits that shot, he's a hero and Wally makes websites about him. If he misses, people shrug and blame Tim Duncan. And Wally still makes websites about him. There's no risk to him, ever. So, it's not even that he's playing with house money; he's playing with his friends' money. The risk is all on Duncan and Ginobili and Parker. If he loses, no skin off his back, blame those guys. If he makes it, wowheissogoodIcantbelievehediditagain letsmakeamovieabouthim!
Bill Simmons talks about it today, but seems to suggest it's a good thing:
So, okay. Let's talk about this "best role player ever" crap. What role, exactly, is that? The "have a big game every once in a while (but you never know when)" role? Maybe he is that. The "hits a big 3 when no one guards him" role? Maybe he is that. Maybe he is the best at those roles. But there are many other players who are the best at their roles:
Or is it this: there are star players, and there are role players. Role players don't have to deal with expectations that star players do. Horry is a role player, and he's the best of the bunch. Again I would disagree. There are dozens of non-star players I would rather have on my team than Robert Horry. And, again, I say this after he personally won a Finals game. Good for him. Good game. That's it.
I didn't see the game, since I was on a plane back from Vegas. But I heard about it. Believe me, I heard about it.
And hell yes, that was a great game by Robert Horry. He was awesome. He hit a mammoth shot to win the game.
But when you think about it, this game only accentuates the point I made in the previous post. He is still incredibly overrated, and is not the greatest role player ever. And I'm saying this the day after what was probably the best game of his career (or at least, the last five years).
Here's my beef. Horry plays with house money. (Sorry, I'm still in a Vegas state of mind.) If he hits that shot, he's a hero and Wally makes websites about him. If he misses, people shrug and blame Tim Duncan. And Wally still makes websites about him. There's no risk to him, ever. So, it's not even that he's playing with house money; he's playing with his friends' money. The risk is all on Duncan and Ginobili and Parker. If he loses, no skin off his back, blame those guys. If he makes it, wowheissogoodIcantbelievehediditagain letsmakeamovieabouthim!
Bill Simmons talks about it today, but seems to suggest it's a good thing:
Have a great game, everyone notices you. Have a terrible game, nobody notices you. And that's your life. Doesn't that sound like the ultimate gig?Is this really the type of player we should honor? I won't. I like the player, like Duncan, who will face the music when he sucks, and will be classy in victory. Horry skates under the radar when he sucks, and acts like an asshole in victory.
So, okay. Let's talk about this "best role player ever" crap. What role, exactly, is that? The "have a big game every once in a while (but you never know when)" role? Maybe he is that. The "hits a big 3 when no one guards him" role? Maybe he is that. Maybe he is the best at those roles. But there are many other players who are the best at their roles:
- Dennis Rodman: rebounding and hustle
- Jack Haley: sitting next to Dennis Rodman
- Dikembe Mutombo: shot blocking
- Gary Payton: trash talk
- Rasheed Wallace: bald spots
- Darko Milicic: laughing at Rasheed Wallace
- Shawn Kemp: dunking on a bounce-pass alley-oop from the free throw line (in "NBA Showdown", at least)
- Bill Walton: throwing it down, big man, throwing it down
- Danny Fortson: going absolutely crazy
Or is it this: there are star players, and there are role players. Role players don't have to deal with expectations that star players do. Horry is a role player, and he's the best of the bunch. Again I would disagree. There are dozens of non-star players I would rather have on my team than Robert Horry. And, again, I say this after he personally won a Finals game. Good for him. Good game. That's it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Horry sucks
Anyone else sick of all the accolades thrown at Robert Horry's feet during the NBA Finals? I hear all the time about how he might be the best role player of all time, and yada yada yada. I've never quite been able to agree... something has always been off with such proclamations. I've always thought Horry was lucky to have good teammates.
This article is on the money, if you ask me. I disagree with only one thing -- he is a good offensive rebounder; he doesn't just "hover vulturelike at the three-point line." But there's just no way you mention Horry's name in this context: best ____ of all time. Decent player, but not the best at anything.
This article is on the money, if you ask me. I disagree with only one thing -- he is a good offensive rebounder; he doesn't just "hover vulturelike at the three-point line." But there's just no way you mention Horry's name in this context: best ____ of all time. Decent player, but not the best at anything.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
A "good series"
I am another step closer to renaming this blog "The Shit I Argued with Wally about Today." To wit, here is today's topic. What makes a good championship series?
He said this NBA Finals sucks, because all the games are blowouts. I wondered how the series can suck when it's tied 2-2 (which, by the way, I knew would happen Mr. Murphy). So the question is this:
Is a good championship series defined by the quality of its individual games, or the duration of the series? Obviously the best series is one which lasts 7 games, and all games are nailbiters. But if you had to choose, would you rather it be a 4-game sweep with all games close, or a 7-game series with all blowouts?
I say the 7-game series. The between-game tension that goes into games 5, 6, and 7 overwhelms the tension you find at the end of games 1, 2, and 3. (Admit it, there's not as much tension in a close 4th game when one team is already up 3-0 in the series.) So, which is it? I guarantee you that Spurs and Pistons fans are both fired up for Game 5, even though there hasn't been a close game yet. A 4-game sweep, featuring four close games, wouldn't have the same feeling.
He said this NBA Finals sucks, because all the games are blowouts. I wondered how the series can suck when it's tied 2-2 (which, by the way, I knew would happen Mr. Murphy). So the question is this:
Is a good championship series defined by the quality of its individual games, or the duration of the series? Obviously the best series is one which lasts 7 games, and all games are nailbiters. But if you had to choose, would you rather it be a 4-game sweep with all games close, or a 7-game series with all blowouts?
I say the 7-game series. The between-game tension that goes into games 5, 6, and 7 overwhelms the tension you find at the end of games 1, 2, and 3. (Admit it, there's not as much tension in a close 4th game when one team is already up 3-0 in the series.) So, which is it? I guarantee you that Spurs and Pistons fans are both fired up for Game 5, even though there hasn't been a close game yet. A 4-game sweep, featuring four close games, wouldn't have the same feeling.
Defining the Internet
A pretty cool case should be decided within the next couple weeks by the Supreme Court. In Brand X v. FCC, a small internet service provider is fighting to retain the right to share cable lines owned by companies like Comcast and Time Warner. Brand X is the little ISP in question, and it will probably go out of business if the court rules that Comcast et al. doesn't have to share.
It comes down to this question: what is the Internet? Yeah, weird.
The Internet has been classified as one of two things: an information service, or a telecommunications service. The Supreme Court is going to decide which it is.
The distinction is important because transmissions that are classified as telecommunications are protected under the law. Transmissions that are classified as information gets no such protection. Why is that? You tell me.
Anyway, that's what it comes down to. If the court says it's information, say goodbye to the smaller ISPs -- it'll be world of Comcasts from here on out. If it's considered telecommunications, ISPs get new life.
Forbes has an article here. Stay tuned.
It comes down to this question: what is the Internet? Yeah, weird.
The Internet has been classified as one of two things: an information service, or a telecommunications service. The Supreme Court is going to decide which it is.
The distinction is important because transmissions that are classified as telecommunications are protected under the law. Transmissions that are classified as information gets no such protection. Why is that? You tell me.
Anyway, that's what it comes down to. If the court says it's information, say goodbye to the smaller ISPs -- it'll be world of Comcasts from here on out. If it's considered telecommunications, ISPs get new life.
Forbes has an article here. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Friggin idiots
The House of Representatives voted down a medical marijuana bill today, 264-161. The good news is that proponents of the bill picked up 13 votes since the last time the bill came up. The bad news is this steaming pile of shit:
Wow. That is a blatant misrepresentation of the decision in Gonzales v. Raich. The merits of medical marijuana weren't even an issue in that case -- instead it was about the states' rights to regulate an intrastate activity. The Court said it's an issue for Congress to decide. Not only that, but the author of the opinion (Justice Stevens) openly asked Congress to consider legalizing medical marijuana. Circumvent the recent Supreme Court case? Are you kidding me?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is your administration. They're either dishonest, or stupid. (Then again, what's new about that?)
On Tuesday, the Bush administration urged the House to defeat the marijuana measure, saying Congress should not "circumvent the recent Supreme Court decision."
Wow. That is a blatant misrepresentation of the decision in Gonzales v. Raich. The merits of medical marijuana weren't even an issue in that case -- instead it was about the states' rights to regulate an intrastate activity. The Court said it's an issue for Congress to decide. Not only that, but the author of the opinion (Justice Stevens) openly asked Congress to consider legalizing medical marijuana. Circumvent the recent Supreme Court case? Are you kidding me?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is your administration. They're either dishonest, or stupid. (Then again, what's new about that?)
Monday, June 13, 2005
I admit it. I like TV.
Wally has been giving me grief recently over my TV-viewing habits. Apparently, I watch a lot.
Well, fine. So be it. I like TV.
And not just that. I am going to stand up for TV watching. TV is good. TV is great. Long live TV.
I think TV gets a bad rap. No one likes to admit that they watch TV, while everyone likes to blather about how much they read, and correspondingly, how little they watch TV. There is clearly a stigma associated with watching TV, and I don't think it's totally fair.
There's good stuff on TV today. There are lots of great stories being told, lots of great actors, and lots of great documentaries. I like these things. I find them on TV. So I like TV.
Okay, two things. First, no, I don't advocate an excess of TV watching. I like it to be part of a healthy diet of living -- I still read, exercise, and listen to music. If I were watching TV all day long, that would probably be a problem. Second, there is also a lot of crap on TV right now. Reality shows like... uh... Who Wants to Eat an Average Millionaire? I could care less. I like to think I watch quality programming. I avoid the crap.
Aha!, you're thinking. But don't I watch the Real World/Road Rules Challenge on MTV? Yes, yes I do. I love that show. Most people would call it crap. And don't I watch The O.C.? Yes, yes I do. Again, most people above the age of 17 would call it crap. But here's the thing. I find the good in these things, and I find them compelling. These shows have more nuance than they get credit for; and I'll defend them to anyone.
So yeah, I watch TV. And I'm going to keep doing it. Take that, Wally.
Well, fine. So be it. I like TV.
And not just that. I am going to stand up for TV watching. TV is good. TV is great. Long live TV.
I think TV gets a bad rap. No one likes to admit that they watch TV, while everyone likes to blather about how much they read, and correspondingly, how little they watch TV. There is clearly a stigma associated with watching TV, and I don't think it's totally fair.
There's good stuff on TV today. There are lots of great stories being told, lots of great actors, and lots of great documentaries. I like these things. I find them on TV. So I like TV.
Okay, two things. First, no, I don't advocate an excess of TV watching. I like it to be part of a healthy diet of living -- I still read, exercise, and listen to music. If I were watching TV all day long, that would probably be a problem. Second, there is also a lot of crap on TV right now. Reality shows like... uh... Who Wants to Eat an Average Millionaire? I could care less. I like to think I watch quality programming. I avoid the crap.
Aha!, you're thinking. But don't I watch the Real World/Road Rules Challenge on MTV? Yes, yes I do. I love that show. Most people would call it crap. And don't I watch The O.C.? Yes, yes I do. Again, most people above the age of 17 would call it crap. But here's the thing. I find the good in these things, and I find them compelling. These shows have more nuance than they get credit for; and I'll defend them to anyone.
So yeah, I watch TV. And I'm going to keep doing it. Take that, Wally.
He beat it
Once the jury deliberated for more than 2 days, you knew Michael Jackson was going free.
I think the reason he got off is best summed up thusly (as I quote from Slate): "Maybe the problem is that any family crazy enough to get intimately entangled with Jackson—and intimate the relationships are, sex or no sex—is too crazy to be believed, at least beyond a reasonable doubt."
That's about it. It's hard to be a credible witness when you say, yeah, I brought my son to sleep with Michael Jackson... so what?
I think the reason he got off is best summed up thusly (as I quote from Slate): "Maybe the problem is that any family crazy enough to get intimately entangled with Jackson—and intimate the relationships are, sex or no sex—is too crazy to be believed, at least beyond a reasonable doubt."
That's about it. It's hard to be a credible witness when you say, yeah, I brought my son to sleep with Michael Jackson... so what?
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Bad Comeback
I caught the premiere of the new HBO show, "The Comeback." Ugh.
I know they're marketing this thing to 18-49-year-old women, so they don't care if I like it, but wow, what crap. I don't dig the Lisa Kudrow schtick. Avoid it at all costs.
I know they're marketing this thing to 18-49-year-old women, so they don't care if I like it, but wow, what crap. I don't dig the Lisa Kudrow schtick. Avoid it at all costs.
The Finals
Everybody is picking the Spurs. Most people have them in 6 games, some say 5. I'm going out on a limb and taking the Pistons.
And yes, I've been brainwashed by my midwestern-ness.
But the Pistons have more heart, and more grit, than the Spurs do. The Spurs have more talent, but they get scared when you push them around a little bit. The Sonics were a far inferior team, playing without 2 of their best three players. And the Spurs had trouble.
The Pistons are better than the Sonics; they play better D. They win in 7.
And yes, I've been brainwashed by my midwestern-ness.
But the Pistons have more heart, and more grit, than the Spurs do. The Spurs have more talent, but they get scared when you push them around a little bit. The Sonics were a far inferior team, playing without 2 of their best three players. And the Spurs had trouble.
The Pistons are better than the Sonics; they play better D. They win in 7.
Get ready to rumble
This article describes the looming fight over the next Supreme Court nominee. Each side has huge budgets to try to sway public opinion. If this all happens, it will be crazy.
Quick -- can anyone tell me anything they remember about the confirmation of Stephen Breyer? It's safe to say you'll remember the next one. How times have changed...
Oh, and no matter what that article says, Justice Stevens isn't going anywhere for a while. By all accounts he's still in great shape, and still loving his job. The word on Rehnquist is... there is no word. Some say he's definitely retiring, some say he's definitely staying. Nobody knows, except the Chief himself.
Quick -- can anyone tell me anything they remember about the confirmation of Stephen Breyer? It's safe to say you'll remember the next one. How times have changed...
Oh, and no matter what that article says, Justice Stevens isn't going anywhere for a while. By all accounts he's still in great shape, and still loving his job. The word on Rehnquist is... there is no word. Some say he's definitely retiring, some say he's definitely staying. Nobody knows, except the Chief himself.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Good
I'm glad a lot of people around the state were as perplexed/irritated at Dino Rossi's jab at the Washington Supreme Court. Article in the Seattle Times has reaction today from people on both sides wondering what he's talking about, and why he said it. Rossi is now on my bad list.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Monday, June 06, 2005
What a weekend
I spent the weekend in the Bay Area. Saw a lot of people, had a lot of fun, didn't get much sleep.
The reason for the trip was the retirement party for my former improv instructor Patricia Ryan (whom I've written of before, and whose book is on sale now). She's an amazing teacher, and she has had an enormous influence on me. She is the reason the SImps exist, and life is just better with SImps in it.
Anyway, the retirement gala was great; Patricia was surprised and very moved. It was great to see many SImps, old and new, again.
Then on Sunday I went to Santa Cruz to play some ultimate with my old team again. We didn't play very well, but it was fun to see everyone again, and it was fun to play. I haven't played any ultimate since last August, and I was slow and out of shape. Today, lots of muscles are hurting. But what a great time. Ultimate on the sunny fields of UCSC... it doesn't get any better.
All in all, an awesome weekend. Sorry to anyone I missed, and thanks to those who helped with accommodations and laughs.
The reason for the trip was the retirement party for my former improv instructor Patricia Ryan (whom I've written of before, and whose book is on sale now). She's an amazing teacher, and she has had an enormous influence on me. She is the reason the SImps exist, and life is just better with SImps in it.
Anyway, the retirement gala was great; Patricia was surprised and very moved. It was great to see many SImps, old and new, again.
Then on Sunday I went to Santa Cruz to play some ultimate with my old team again. We didn't play very well, but it was fun to see everyone again, and it was fun to play. I haven't played any ultimate since last August, and I was slow and out of shape. Today, lots of muscles are hurting. But what a great time. Ultimate on the sunny fields of UCSC... it doesn't get any better.
All in all, an awesome weekend. Sorry to anyone I missed, and thanks to those who helped with accommodations and laughs.
Raich, at last!
After months of waiting, the court finally decided Ashcroft v. Raich (now Gonzalez v. Raich). I wrote about this case four months ago. Not surprisingly, the Court sided with the government, and so the poor sick people in California have to hide the weed.
I haven't had time yet to review the opinion, but on SCOTUSblog they're going nuts. I'll wait till I've read it before I say much more, but the quick summary is that state drug laws lose; federal drug laws win; the Commerce Clause means a little less, or a little more, depending on your perspective; and a lot of talk about wheat.
I haven't had time yet to review the opinion, but on SCOTUSblog they're going nuts. I'll wait till I've read it before I say much more, but the quick summary is that state drug laws lose; federal drug laws win; the Commerce Clause means a little less, or a little more, depending on your perspective; and a lot of talk about wheat.
Bizarre end
Wow. The closest election of this magnitude in our country's history came to a weird end today. A judge in Chelan County Superior Court ruled for the Democrats in the gubernatorial election case, and that's no surprise. The burden of proof was on on the Republicans, and their allegations would require a lot of proof (i.e., it takes a lot more than circumstantial evidence to show fraud). The surprising part is that Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate, decided he wouldn't appeal to the state Supreme Court. Eh? Whhhaaatt?
Rossi says the "political makeup of the Washington Supreme Court" makes it "almost impossible to overturn this ruling." What a cop-out, and what crap. You're not appealing because you just don't have enough to make your case. The standard set in the state statute is very demanding -- it takes a lot to overturn an election. That's why you're not appealing, not because of an alleged political makeup of the court. So it's a little annoying, in a time when many people don't trust courts to be impartial in important events like this (thank you, Bush v. Gore!), that he has to throw another log on the fire instead of being honest.
I was no fan of Gregoire before, but now I'm glad she's in Olympia instead of this jackass.
Rossi says the "political makeup of the Washington Supreme Court" makes it "almost impossible to overturn this ruling." What a cop-out, and what crap. You're not appealing because you just don't have enough to make your case. The standard set in the state statute is very demanding -- it takes a lot to overturn an election. That's why you're not appealing, not because of an alleged political makeup of the court. So it's a little annoying, in a time when many people don't trust courts to be impartial in important events like this (thank you, Bush v. Gore!), that he has to throw another log on the fire instead of being honest.
I was no fan of Gregoire before, but now I'm glad she's in Olympia instead of this jackass.
Contract law at work
So many things to talk about today, I'll start off slow. A rather interesting case, where a pro football player is suing another pro football player over a contract to trade jersey numbers. The story is here. It actually poses an interesting question, but I have to believe Clinton Portis should try his best to settle this thing. He's gonna lose.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Boom goes the dynamite
If I had ever gotten into broadcast journalism, it probably would have looked like this. (Video download)
Yikes.
Yikes.
My kingdom for a burrito
I had a great day in dining yesterday. I met my friend Frank at a deli in the International District called Salumi, which features gourmet salamis and other cured meats. So good. Then for dinner I went with my dad to a Japanese restaurant in Madison Valley called Nishino, which is described by some as the pinnacle of sushi in Seattle. It was really freaking good. Wally complains about the food in Seattle; he just needs to get out more.
Today, though, it all came crashing down. My office got burritos for lunch from Blue Water. Meh. Not good. I don't know if there are any good burrito places in Seattle -- in this respect, Wally may be right. We need the boys from Big Ten Burrito to open a Seattle branch.
Today, though, it all came crashing down. My office got burritos for lunch from Blue Water. Meh. Not good. I don't know if there are any good burrito places in Seattle -- in this respect, Wally may be right. We need the boys from Big Ten Burrito to open a Seattle branch.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Good ol' LookSmart
My old company is shooting through the roof! Stock is up 21% over the last two days! This all sounds good, of course, until you realize that the stock is up only $0.14. Fourteen cents! Woo!
Wow, that stock sucks.
Anyway, not sure why it's going up -- volume is really high too. Here's an interesting little review of non-Google search engines (yes, there are still non-Google search engines out there). LookSmart isn't so terrible -- they do a couple things nobody else does.
Wow, that stock sucks.
Anyway, not sure why it's going up -- volume is really high too. Here's an interesting little review of non-Google search engines (yes, there are still non-Google search engines out there). LookSmart isn't so terrible -- they do a couple things nobody else does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
