We never seem to run out of material:
—
ITEM: The New York City Council is set to quash an entire new industry — pedicabs –
It’ll likely soon be the last ride for about half of the city’s freewheeling pedicabs after the City Council voted to start licensing the drivers Wednesday, allowing just 325 in the city.
…
[Councilman Leroy] Comrie said the licenses will be given out by lottery, with special consideration for current pedicab owners, of which there are an estimated 500 to 600.
…
The legislation was driven by complaints from hotel and theater owners, who said the pedicabs were creating congestions [sic] outside their businesses.
MY TAKE: Pedicabs are a (silly, in my opinion) niche market that will never achieve the critical mass necessary to generate true “congestions” (i.e., negative externalities). I’m far more tempted to believe that this interventionist licensing quota was purchased from the Council by cab drivers rather than by hotels and theaters. But either way, this is a just another blatant and obnoxious example of the Politics of Pull.
One side note:
“When you craft an agreement where everyone is a little unhappy, then you know you’ve done a good job,” said [Comrie].
All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives.
—
ITEM: More “price gouging” nonsense –
Although gasoline prices have dropped sharply from last summer, 79 lawmakers sought to send a message Wednesday, introducing a bill that would impose stiff penalties on oil and gas companies for price gouging.The bill introduced by [Michigan Representative Bart] Stupak and 78 other members of the House would establish the first federal law against price gouging by oil and gas companies, imposing criminal penalties and fines of up to $150 million for corporations and $2 million on individuals.
…
[FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras] said a federal law against oil company price gouging would be difficult to enforce and could hurt consumers by causing fuel shortages. She said price gouging is difficult to define and courts have refused to address the question of what is a “reasonable” price in a free market. She maintained it may be difficult to determine what price hikes are legitimate.
Impose massive criminal penalties for a crime that does not exist and is impossible to objectively define, while economist after economist and court after court (and blogger after blogger) keep trying to explain it to you. Remind me again how politicians are the good guys and oil executives the villains?
—
ITEM: The next destination on the sex offender mania highway? Mandatory fluorescent green license plates. Why not make them just wear bright orange bulls-eye vests on their backs?
—
ITEM: I rarely — okay, never — blog about transgender issues. It’s just not on my radar screen. Until now:
Steve Stanton loved this city [Largo, Florida] he ran for 14 years. This week, he asked the city to love him back — to accept his plans to pursue sex-change operation and let him keep his $140,000 job as city manager.It didn’t.
Almost 500 people packed into City Hall Tuesday night for a special meeting to decide if they would accept Susan instead of Steve as their top official. And while many spoke eloquently in his defense, more called for his ouster.
“If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he’d want him terminated,” said Pastor Ron Saunders of Largo’s Lighthouse Baptist Church. “Make no mistake about it.”
At the end of the 3 1/2 hour meeting, the City Commission voted 5-2 to begin the legal process of firing Stanton, only a week after he was forced to reveal his secret by a local newspaper.
MY TAKE: Primitive, irrational cruelty is of course to be expected from a radical Christian cleric. But aren’t politicians supposed to be “enlightened” relative to their constituents? Not in Florida, it seems. I wonder: would a heterosexual female city manager be fired over breast implants? A male heterosexual over pectoral implants? A burn victim over skin grafts? How, exactly, is this any different? What a miserable collection of evil, spiteful neanderthals. It almost makes you wish that there were a Hell — so that they could all burn in it. Because God loves them. Or something. (More thoughts at Pam’s House Blend.)
—
ITEM: Let’s end on a more light-hearted note –
Call it Arkansas’ apostrophe act — or, as Rep. Steve Harrelson would have it, “Arkansas’s apostrophe act.”Harrelson filed a resolution Tuesday to declare the correct possessive form of the state as “Arkansas’s.” The resolution carries no legal weight, Harrelson acknowledged, but said a family friend who works as a historian asked him to carry the grammar fight to the floor.
“This is merely a favor,” said Harrelson, a Democrat. “He’s been asking me to do this for years and years.”
Introducing meaningless gobbledygook bills, that consume legislative resources and waste taxpayer dollars, all because a friend is pestering you about a topic that no rational person gives half a damn about? All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. (Incidentally, in case anyone indeed gives half a damn: Harrelson is wrong — Arkansas’ is of course the correct usage. His historian friend insists that, surprise, history is determinative. Okay, fine — then perhaps “Congrefs” should intervene in the matter.) (Via Fark.)


















Tweet This
12 responses so far ↓
Link Brian Miller // Mar 1, 2007 at 1:28 pm
It would be interesting to find out the party affiliations of the people who voted to get rid of the city manager in Florida. There's no affiliation listed on the city web site for any of the voters. I'm sure you can guess what my suspicions are. . .
Link KipEsquire // Mar 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm
That none of them are Libertarians?
Link Windypundit // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:16 pm
"Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant." — Strunk and White, 3ed, the very first rule in the book
My Chicago Manual of Style agrees, but takes longer to say it. Both sources list exceptions, but Arkansas doesn't fit any of them.
(My copies of these books are about 20 years old, so I admit it's possible the rules have changed.)
Link Windypundit // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:24 pm
And another thing…you keep saying "All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives."
Why "by definition"? I could understand it if you said "by empirical observation," but how are they moral defectives by definition? What definition?
Link Brian Miller // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:38 pm
That none of them are Libertarians?
Well, yeah, that was the second half of my thought.
But the first half was that I bet at least one of them was from the D's.
Link Skip Oliva // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Regarding the "price gouging" law, I suspect the main reason FTC Chairman Majoras is opposed is that it would destroy her agency's "business model" as it were. The FTC thrives on bullying firms into complying with fairly narrow antitrust regulations. Often, the FTC targets small businessmen and sole proprietors (in contrast to the populist myth that antitrust is about "big business.") Even large firms tend to be targeted over minor matters. Only a handful of FTC cases are litigated, and even fewer fall outside the agency's carefully choreographed administrative process.
A "price gouging" law would disturb the balance. Large oil companies and gas retailers will fight the FTC every step in the way in every court that's available. Majoras's staff would have to devote a disproportionate share of resources to a cause that probably has little chance of success in the courts.
Link doinkicarus // Mar 1, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Tsk, tsk. About the "f" in "Congrefs": It's actually an ſ.
I was under the impression that what we see as an "f" was simply a character used in place of an interior "s" to save space while typesetting, and that despite appearances, it is actually an "s" or an "f," depending on the subsequent letter.
I may be misinformed, because this guy thinks it's a calligrapher's error. OTOH, the wikipedia agrees with me.
Link KipEsquire // Mar 1, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Windy,
I do NOT mean by empirical observation (which is fun to do but not my thesis). I mean by definition.
Link KipEsquire // Mar 1, 2007 at 3:38 pm
doink,
Regardles of what "it" was, "it" is a was and is not an is.
Style rules change.
Link doinkicarus // Mar 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm
style rules change is not the same as adding or removing serifs on your font, which is the equivalent of the long s. It's just not a popular typeface.
It was, is, and forever will be an s, not an f.
Link EazieCheeze // Mar 3, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Regarding Arkansas's measure: Let's keep in mind that Arkansas is the only state to codify its pronunciation (Title 1, Article 4, Section 105).
I don't put this beyond them.
Link Steve Harrelson // Mar 4, 2007 at 9:01 am
Yes, the 'S resolution, which is garnering much more attention than I ever anticipated, was filed by me. I filed this as a simple non-binding resolution in hopes that it would sail through on the front end of our voting calendar (during the same period of the day when we recognize local tennis stars and commend couples for managing to stay married for an extended period), but it has caught the attention of reporters, scholars, and historians. I guess you can call it a waste of legislative resources if you consider the paper the bill was printed on and the 2 minutes it took for me to present.
While much of the criticism (waste of time, must not have enough to do, etc.) is probably deserved, I've secretly enjoyed this little debate on our historical roots as a people and find many of the e-mails I've received from scholars and teachers (both pro and con) quite amusing — it is definitely not a waste of time to some. Of all the legislation I've filed and pursued, I just have to laugh about this one being scooped up and disseminated in the way it has (but I have to admit, I brought it on myself).
Leave a Comment
(Comments containing links are held for moderation.)