I've got nothing against Carl Kreuger, really. I know he means well here. But surely there's better legislation he could be spending his time on.

Having rescued the populace from dancing, trans-fats, and the Mr. Softee jingle (actually, credit for that last one), the lawmakers of New York now propose to save us from our ipods:

New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine. [...]

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street. [...]

"[W]hat's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem."

I presume that some Senator will follow up with legislation forbidding us to daydream about Eliza Dushku while stepping off the curb?

Might I suggest an entire menu of rather-more-effective options for policymakers seeking to reduce pedestrian fatalities?

Update: As a commenter has pointed out, there are a lot of things to have against Senator Kreuger. I apologize for the moment of gentility, especially in light of my earlier post. Back to the trenches.

Or should we describe these as Cujo in the making?

Answer after the jump.  read more »

No wonder Matt had a huge grin on his face after this happened. I was so oblivious about who she was, I took it as one lesser mortal trying to upstage this goddess and blogdiva.

Oh yeah baby, I'm having a moment here.

The Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting was exactly that --a meeting to discuss the order of business within the DNC and it's caucauses. Fascinating stuff to witness for someone who is as clueless as I am on what people actually do within political parties.

So, during the general session there was some kind of a discussion lull involving financial reports. I stepped out to get a soda --an endeavor that at the horrid Washington Hilton took an eternity to complete.

When I come back to my seat, I see a woman sitting on my chair --notwithstanding the fact I had left my laptop, purse, camera, podcasting gear and basically everything that no self-respecting blogdiva would blog without.

My first thought was "bitch, get off my seat". Being the marginally professional diva that I am, I calmly requested the woman's attention and said to her : "Excuse me, you're in my seat."

Now, you have to understand something about this : This woman happened to be sitting in the credentialed bloggers section. This was were a big chunk of the top bloggers were covering the action. We were even making fun of Ezra loosing his coolness credentials because he was working that day and had to sit in the press section.  read more »

Several published reports - here's Norman Oder - indicate that Barclay's, the British bank recently in the news for sponsoring the Atlantic Yards arena, is sending out cease and desist letters to publications that have weighed in on the story.

We're still waiting, but here are a few thoughts. All correspondence should be addressed to editors – at – dailygotham – dot – com, by the way, just to be helpful. If we get something, we will publish it.

The bank asserts that it, contrary to published reports, had no connections to the slave trade, and that its founders were in fact abolitionists. There's no reason to doubt the latter assertion – Quakers, such as the founders of Barclay's, were in fact a driving force behind the early British abolitionist movement, which concluded in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. The trade in slaves, which is at issue here, was banned by Act of Parliament in 1824; the Slave Trade Act banned the practice within the British Empire and, more importantly, was extra-territorial in its application, giving the Royal Navy the right to intercept slavers on the high seas. In consequence, the large-scale trade in slaves ceased, much to the annoyance, one might add, of the American slave states and their bankers on Wall Street.  read more »

So I cruise on over to the web site of Wingnut Maureen Maureen O'Connell, mainly to check whether she's got any mention of a woman's right to choose (nope) or has finally acknowledged being a republican (ditto). These are sore subjects, it seems, for that campaign.

While there, I checked her District Map page, reproduced above. And here's my question: what do the shadings of that map signify?

Please tell me the shades of brown don't stand for 'this is where the brown people live'. That would be just unbelievably crass.

[Update]: Okay, Okay, it's not about the brown people. Still, considering the republican track record, it's not as if that would be a totally unheard-of assumption.