The Breakfast Dish Orchestra

Party not as important as you might think: voters pretty much want the same thing, our elected officials pretty much fail to give it to them

2011-12-04T20:35:00.000-05:00

Pollster Scott Rasmussen demonstrates that there isn't as much division among Democratic and Republican voters as you might think--they largely want the same thing.

He also demonstrates that there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans elected to Congress on the thing voters want must--they pretty much fail to deliver on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Rasmussen writes: " . . . most voters believe tax cuts and government spending cuts are good for the economy. Collectively, voters have voted for politicians who promised spending cuts and tax cuts in just about every election over the past four decades."

Have our politicians been paying attention? You're kidding, right?

Mr. Rasmussen writes: ". . . total government spending has gone up in America every single year since . . . 1954, with Dwight Eisenhower in the White House."

But hasn't government spending gone up to keep pace with population growth and inflation? No, says Mr. Rasmussen.

"If government spending in America had just held pace with population growth and inflation since 1954, government spending today would total $1.3 trillion. Instead, spending this year will top $5.4 trillion."

So who's to blame?

Everybody. ". . . from 1954 to 2010, Republicans controlled the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 22. Democrats controlled Congress for 44 years, and the Republicans for 12. So this long-lasting spending spree was enabled on a completely bipartisan basis."

2010-04-08T18:11:00.001-04:00

JUDICIAL RESPECT FOR THE PARTIES’ CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF LAW

Courts generally respect the choice of law agreed to by the parties in their contract. Section 187 of the Restatement (Second) of the Conflicts of Laws is widely followed and provides that a court will follow the law of the state chosen by the parties “to govern their contractual rights and duties . . . unless either (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or to the transaction or there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice; or (b) application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of a particular issue and which . . . would be the state of applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties."

While the Restatement speaks only to the parties’ autonomy to choose the law of a state relating to their contractual rights and duties, and although there has long been tension as to whether parties ought to be permitted to choose the law governing extra-contractual matters, the prevailing view in the United States is that parties generally do possess the right to contractually agree on the law that will govern extra-contractual matters, as well as their contractual rights and duties. “. . . [C]ourts tend to scrutinize clauses that purport to encompass tort-like issues much more closely than clauses confined to purely contractual issues.” S. Symeonides, “Oregon’s Choice of Law Codification for Contract Conflicts: An Exegesis,” 44 Willamette L. Rev. 205 (Winter 2007).

SCOPE OF CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE DETERMINES ITS APPLICABILITY TO A PARTICULAR DISPUTE

The prevailing view in the United States is that whether the choice of law provision encompasses extra-contractual claims depends on its wording; specifically, whether it is a narrow or broad choice of law clause.

As with all other parts of a contract, courts will neither rewrite the choice of law clause nor construe it to be broader than its express wording allows. Care in drafting the choice of law clause is critical for at least two reasons: (1) because commercial litigation often entails both contractual and extra-contractual claims (examples of the latter include alleged tortious misconduct, including fraud and interference with contract), and (2) generally in the commercial setting, when parties choose the law of particular forum to govern disputes that might arise, they intend for that law to govern all disputes between the parties that in any way relate to the contractual relationship, including claims couched in extra-contractual claims.

Too often, however, parties inadvertently draft their choice of law provisions in a manner that excludes extra-contractual disputes from their ambit. In drafting choice of law provisions, prudent parties need to consider, and agree on, the extent to which they want their choice of law provision to apply to disputes that might arise.

In order to draft a choice of law provision properly, it is important to understand how courts construe them. The first point to understand is that when courts decide whether a particular dispute falls within the scope of a contractual choice of law clause, they generally look not to the law of the state chosen by the parties in the choice of law provision but to the law of the forum state. See, e.g., Caton v. Leach Corporation, 896 F.2d 939 (5th Cir. 1990). The court will apply the law of the forum state to discern whether the clause is a “narrow” or a “broad” clause. That will determine whether the dispute is within the scope of the choice of law provision.

NARROW CLAUSES

In Caton v. Leach Corporation, 896 F.2d 939 (5th Cir. 1990), the court held that a choice of law clause stating that “[this] Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the state of California” was a narrow clause that did not encompass the entirety of the parties’ relationship. The court explained: “In contrast to broad clauses, which choose a particular state's law to ‘govern, construe and enforce all of the rights and duties of the parties arising from or relating in any way to the subject matter of this contract,’ the instant clause denotes only that California law will be applied to ‘construe’ the contract.” Id. at 942 n.3. The court explained that claims arising in tort do not arise out of the contract. Thus, to decide which states’ law applied to the tort claims asserted in the litigation between the parties, the court looked to the conflicts of laws rules of the forum state, Texas, which held that "the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the particular substantive issue will be applied to resolve that issue." Id.

In Benchmark Elecs., Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2003), the court held that a clause providing that the "Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York . . . ." does not address the parties’ entire relationship and therefore claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation were not encompassed by it. “The provision at hand is narrow,” the court concluded, “because it deals only with the construction and interpretation of the contract.” Id. at 726. See, e.g., Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Company, 341 F.3d 1292, 1300 (11th Cir. 2003)(choice of law clause providing that "[t]his release shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware” held to be narrow since “it does not refer to related tort claims or to any and all claims or disputes . . . arising out of the relationship of the parties.”); Krock v. Lipsay, 97 F.3d 640, 645 (2d Cir. 1996) (choice of law provision stating that document "shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" did not apply to claim for fraudulent misrepresentation).

Even language that would otherwise be construed as “narrow” is sometimes held to encompass a tort claim if the tort claim is closely related to contractual performance. In Fla. State Bd. of Admin. v. Law Eng'g & Envtl. Servs., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D.Minn. 2003), the court held that the choice of law clause was narrow: “[T]his Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida." Nevertheless, because the negligence claim at issue was based on the defendant’s alleged deficient performance of the contract at issue, the court held that the tort claim was so intertwined with the performance of the contract that the tort claim was within the ambit of the choice of law clause.

BROAD CLAUSES

The court in Caton v. Leach Corporation, 896 F.2d 939, 942 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990) provided an example of broad language: The law of [fill in the blank] state shall govern, construe and enforce all of the rights and duties of the parties arising from or relating in any way to the subject matter of this contract.”

In English Mt. Spring Water Co. v. AIDCO Int'l, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43478 (E.D. Tenn. 2008), the court held that a choice of law clause that stated "Resolution of disputes shall be conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan” was a broad provision that covered the entirety of the parties’ dispute and not just the construction of the contract itself.

Use of the words “arising out of or relating to” are indicative of a broad choice of law clause. In Gloucester Holding Corp. v. U.S. Tape & Sticky Prods., LLC, 832 A.2d 116, 124 (Del. Ch. 2003), the court explained that the absence of words of this nature precluded a finding that the clause was a broad one: “The choice of law clause . . . does not claim to cover litigation that arises out of or relates to the Asset Purchase Agreement. Rather, the clause merely provides that Delaware law applies to the ‘rights of the parties’ derived from the contract. This clause is simply not sufficiently broad enough to cover tort claims such as fraud in the inducement.”

While words such as “construed” and “interpreted” are widely held to be insufficient to encompass extra-contractual claims, some courts hold that tacking on the word “govern” to a choice of law clause serves to broaden the clause, but other courts disagree. In Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Access Claims Adm'rs, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67172 (E.D.Cal. 2007) at **17-18, the court explained:

When contracting parties wish that all disputes arising from their relationship be subject to a particular state's law, they must use language indicating as much. In [Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Ct., 3 Cal. 4th 459, 466, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330, 834 P.2d 1148 (1992)], the California Supreme Court noted that "[t]he phrase 'governed by' is a broad one signifying a relationship of absolute direction, control, and restraint. Thus, the clause reflects the parties' clear contemplation that 'the agreement' is to be completely and absolutely controlled by [the foreign jurisdiction's] law." Nedlloyd, 3 Cal. 4th at 469. See also Boat Town U.S.A., Inc. v. Mercury Marine Division of Brunswick, 364 So. 2d 15, 17 (Fla. App. 1978) ("The difference between 'interpretation' and 'govern' is more than a technical distinction. It goes to the very heart of the purpose underlying a contract."). Here, however, those critical words were missing from the choice of law provision.

Nevertheless, not all courts have come to the same conclusion . . . . The Sixth Circuit in particular has rejected the view that there is a distinction between "interpreted and construed" on the one hand and "governed by" on the other. See Boatland, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 558 F.2d 818, 821-22 (6th Cir. 1977) (describing distinction between "interpreted and construed" and "governed by" as strained and narrow); Kipin Industries, Inc. v. Van Deilen Int'l. Inc., 182 F.3d 490, 494 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Boatland with approval). See also Hammel v. Ziegler Financing Corp., 113 Wis. 2d 73, 76, 334 N.W.2d 913 (1983) (describing distinction as "a trick interpretation or twist on one word").

Likewise, in Finance One Public Co. Ltd. v. Lehman Bros. Special Financing, Inc., 414 F.3d 325, 335 (2d Cir. 2005), the Second Circuit construed a choice-of-law provision to be “narrow” despite the use of the word “governed.” The provision read: "This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York."

TORT CLAIMS THAT ATTACK VALIDITY OF CONTRACT

When a claim is stated as a tort but is really a challenge to the validity of the contract, courts sometimes hold that the tort claim falls within the ambit of the choice of law provision even if the provision is a narrow one. In Moses v. Business Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1991), plaintiffs sought to avoid enforcement of a contract on a fraud theory and claimed that a choice of law clause stating "This Franchise and License Agreement and the construction thereof shall be governed by the laws of the state of Michigan” applied only to construction of the contract itself and not to the fraud claim. The court disagreed, and found the dispute to be within the scope of the clause: “The plaintiffs are not asserting a non-contractual claim or one that arose incidentally out of the contractual relationship. Rather, they are seeking to avoid enforcement of the contract itself. They put the validity of the contract in issue, and such a claim would appear to be encompassed by the language . . . .”

In addition: “Clearly, the clause refers to more than construction of the agreement; otherwise the first six words would be surplusage. If the clause provided merely that its construction would be governed by the law of Michigan, the plaintiffs would have support for their argument that it does not apply more generally.” See also, Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Astraea Aviation Servs., Inc., 111 F.3d 1386, 1392-93 (8th Cir. 1997) (even a narrow choice of law provision, providing that the contract "shall be deemed entered into within and shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of" a particular state, "can govern tort claims arising out of the parties' performance under the contract or closely related to the interpretation of the contract, including claims of fraud in the inducement or misrepresentation").

DRAFTING CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSES THAT ENCOMPASS EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES

Given the vagaries of the judicial decisions on this subject, to assure the application of the law the parties desire to govern extra-contractual disputes, care must be taken in drafting the choice of law clause. A broad choice of law clause might read as follows:

Any and all matters in dispute between the parties to this agreement, whether arising from or relating to the agreement itself, or arising from alleged extra-contractual facts prior to, during, or subsequent to the agreement, including, without limitation, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence or any other alleged tort or violation of the contract, shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of [fill in the blank for name of state], regardless of the legal theory upon which such matter is asserted.

35 Years Ago Today, Paul Shannon's Last Adventuretime Aired on WTAE Channel 4

2010-03-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

There is nobody on Pittsburgh television today who is as recognizable, as well-known, or as beloved as Paul Shannon was. Only The Gunner, the great Bob Prince, and Bill Burns were bigger. Mention the name "Nosmo King" and you'll quickly find out if your audience watched Adventure Time.

For seventeen years, Mr. Shannon hosted the kids show on WTAE-TV channel 4, called "Adventure Time." He showed Rocky and Bullwinkle, Bugs Bunny, and the Little Rascals, but his claim to fame was that his show was the first to air the Three Stooges shorts on television in the late 50s, which led to one of the most amazing come-backs in Hollywood history (actually it was more than a comebacks -- television made the Stooges bigger than they ever had been). Moe Howard's autobiography (I'll bet you didn't know Moe wrote one) credits Paul with sparking the comeback.

Mr. Shannon was a nice man. My Carbolic Smoke Ball collaborator Bob Haas and I knew him, and he gave us letters Moe Howard had written to him. We invented a fan club called "Disciples of the Three Stooges" -- DOTS -- in order to lure Mr. Shannon out to speak about the Stooges. We rounded up a bunch of little kids we didn't know into the St. Elizabeth's Grade School auditorium to make it look like our club was a big deal. He came out, had a great time. When he moved to Florida, his first letter home was written to me.

Here's an interesting footnote. Mr. Shannon had this thing he'd spin on his show to introduce the Three Stooges that he called the "Twirl-a-Scope" (don't ask). When Mr. Shannon was moving to Florida, he and I agreed I'd purchase the "Twirl-a-Scope from him for $25. The following day, Mr. Shannon told me his sons were not happy he was selling the stupid thing, so I let him back out of the contract. And, no, I didn't even threaten to sue him.

Now if that happened today . . . .

St. Paul, on Social Justice: II Thessalonians 3:6-15

2010-03-28T10:31:00.002-04:00

6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. 14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

Goofy, but true, dream

2010-03-22T12:38:00.004-04:00

Last night, I dreamed I was in New York City trying to purchase a ball strike counter akin to the ones home plate umpires use. I went into a sporting goods store, and found one for $10.00 (I assumed it was overpriced, and I assumed the reason it was overpriced was because I was in New York). It turns out the store was owned by actor James Garner and -- mirabile dictu! -- he was also manning the cash register. I went to check out and told him how much I liked his narration for the Chevy Tahoe commercial of a few years back, and he started reciting it for me. Then, some sort of seizure overcame him, and he told me (disparagingly) that his wife failed to give him his medication -- she was downstairs talking to two other women. I ran down and told the wife, "he's really bad -- he needs his medicine." She went to get it, and I woke up.

Here's the Chevy Tahoe commercial:

Biggest news story in America: July 24, 1892: Mr. Frick is shot

2010-02-22T22:58:00.000-05:00

SOTU: Getting in the Supreme Court's face (instead of talking about his administration's no. 1 policy initiative)

2010-01-28T09:23:00.014-05:00

I must admit my bias up front: because of two significant cases I had in front of him many years ago, and having nothing to do with his political philosophy, Justice Samuel Alito is my favorite living jurist.

Last night, during the State of the Union Address, Justice Alito uttered "not true" after President Obama criticized a recent Supreme Court decision by asserting that it will allow foreign companies to now contribute to U.S. campaigns (it's not true). Democratic congressman stood and wildly applauded in an angry, partisan display of disrespect.

The president's mildly belligerent comment was mildly unsettling, but Justice Alito's comment was not out of line by any measure. Comparisons to Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" shout-out during another Obama speech before Congress last year are not appropriate. Wilson heckled Obama; Alito didn't. Wilson accused Obama of lying; Alito didn't.

Anyway, I have two questions. First, why is it perfectly OK for Joe Biden to grin and nod his head in affirmance of Obama's every assertion, knowing full well that his hair plugs were beaming coast-to-coast on national television, but it's not OK for a Supreme Court justice to quietly, and instinctively, correct a misstatement of fact? Second, who told Biden when to grin and nod?

While past State of the Union addresses have taken issue with Supreme Court decisions in respectful tones, I can't ever recall a president being so in-their-face, bordering on derisive, in impugning a decision of the high court while the robed wonders were plopped right in front of him. Even if Obama's criticism were factually correct, and it apparently wasn't, this crossed a long-accepted line of decorum. Mind you, I am not exactly sure why the justices bother to attend the annual snooze-fest in the first place, given its intensely political nature. They don't applaud, they make no pretense of looking like they want to be there, and Alito's comment was the first indication in the last hundred years or so that they even pay attention. I predict some, or all, of those justices will boycott the event hereafter, at least until Obama leaves the White House. They should make it a policy to stay away altogether, no matter who is in the White House.

As for the speech itself, my favorite part is the tradition where the president is introduced twice, once by the guy who ostensibly controls the door to the chamber (I can picture him sputtering "Nobody sees the Wizard! Not nobody, not no how!"), and once by the Speaker of the House, whose introduction, and presence, is as necessary as the speech itself.

The Constitution intended for the speech to provide actual information. I doubt that it has ever done that. It is an overly-carefully crafted political statement that resembles a laundry list more than a good speech.

I'd like to hear Chad's take on it as I defer to him on these matters, but for me, the most important thing about last night's speech was the President's treatment of health care. All last year, the administration's centerpiece for righting the economy -- and, indeed, it's principal policy initiative -- was health care reform. For months I've been trying to get someone to explain to me how health care reform would correct the economy (after all, the Democrats are not suggesting we reduce the underlying cost of health care -- you know, hospital bills that charge $25 for an Advil and all that -- just who pays for it: me? Or me through them?). But last night, Obama made a U-turn. His speech was 7,127 words in length, and the president didn't discuss his administration's centerpiece item until some 3,270 words into it. I guess that means it's no longer his centerpiece item -- you know, Scott Brown and all that. Another of the administration's major initiatives, climate change, was mentioned only as an after-thought. I guess that's because it's no longer a major initiative, either.

Don't know how I'm going to be able to wait for next year's speech.

Vic Cianca, legendary traffic cop/comic, is dead at 92

2010-01-26T08:24:00.011-05:00

Part police officer, part master comic, part ballet dancer, and above all else, a Western Pennsylvania original. The great Vic Cianca is dead at 92.

The last time I saw him, he was working the corner of Grant and the Boulevard of the Allies. He had found a beer bottle laying on the ground and was using it as a prop to pretend he was drunk. It was hilarious, and the crowd that gathered to watch thought so, too. His face was more deadpan than Buster Keaton's, and he moved as gracefully as Clemente caught fly balls. There was a greatness about Vic Cianca that defies description. You had to be there.

People who never saw him might find this difficult to believe -- and a tad peculiar -- but Vic Cianca drew crowds to watch him direct traffic. No kidding. They weren't standing there waiting to cross the street, they were watching the traffic cop. Only in Pittsburgh. But if you don't know why, check out the scene from "Flashdance" that featured him -- that wasn't scripted, it was Vic being Vic.

Thus another piece of Pittsburgh folklore is gone. So much of what made downtown Pittsburgh "Downtown Pittsburgh" has disappeared like the smog that once wafted over from South Side or Hazelwood. At one time, Fourth Avenue had banks that held more money than any place in America outside of New York, and now it's just a skinny, quiet side street; most of the guys who used to take their prom dates to the morgue to see the bodies are now collecting social security; and believe it or not, Market Square was, for a long time, actually a market.

And not that long ago, a working class Italian-American mime, whose hobby was being a police officer, mesmerized this town with a masterful comic shtick, and made a lot of weary people stop on their way home for a minute or two so they could laugh out loud.

One of television's greatest moments: September 6, 1976

2010-01-24T18:36:00.000-05:00

Won't be long now -- I'll be forced to write my annual letter of protest, after examining the depraved thing to insure I know what I'm talking about

2010-01-15T22:00:00.001-05:00

Especially the horrid painted pictures

The view from my office

2010-01-11T23:00:00.001-05:00

The men responsible for the two greatest sports moments in Pittsburgh history

2010-01-11T22:53:00.001-05:00

A tale of two Als

2010-01-10T21:12:00.001-05:00

THAT WAS THEN: Al Sharpton condemned the [Don Imus] remark, saying it was "disturbing, because it plays into stereotypes." http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/06/don_imus_misses.php

THIS IS NOW: The Rev. Al Sharpton issued a statement on Saturday afternoon in support of Reid. "While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing health care or creating jobs for its people," he said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002448.html?hpid=topnews

Best blog going

2010-01-07T14:25:00.000-05:00

Go read Chad

Contrast how JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Obama accepted responsibility for failures on their watch

2010-01-05T23:07:00.002-05:00

The reactions of the three men speak for themselves:

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: On April 24, 1961, just three months into his presidency, the Kennedy administration issued a statement about the Bay of Pigs: "President Kennedy has stated from the beginning that as President he bears sole responsibility" for the invasion. ". . . the President is strongly opposed to anyone, within or without the administration, attempting to shift the responsibility." http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.5_cubasuit2.html

PRESIDENT CARTER: From the transcript of President Carter's statement on the failed Iran rescue mission, April 25, 1980: "I made the decision to set our long-developed plans into operation. I ordered this rescue mission prepared in order to safeguard American lives, to protect America's national interests, and to reduce the tensions in the world that have been caused among many nations as this crisis has continued. It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own." http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3936

PRESIDENT OBAMA: From the President's January 5, 2009 remarks on the failure of US security in connection with the Christmas Day bombing: http://www.freep.com/article/20100105/NEWS05/100105088/1318/

". . . . when a suspected terrorist is able to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way. And it's my responsibility to find out why, and to correct that failure so that we can prevent such attacks in the future."
. . . .
"The bottom line is this: The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack. But our intelligence community failed to connect those dots, which would have placed the suspect on the 'no fly' list."
. . . .
"I know that every member of my team that I met with today understands the urgency of getting this right. And I appreciate that each of them took responsibility for the shortfalls within their own agencies."
. . . .
"In short, we need our intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement systems -- and the people in them -- to be accountable and to work as intended: collecting, sharing, integrating, analyzing, and acting on intelligence as quickly and effectively as possible to save innocent lives -- not just most of the time, but all the time. That's what the American people deserve. As President, that's exactly what I will demand."

Carbolic Smoke Ball in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

2010-01-03T09:43:00.001-05:00

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10003/1025021-109.stm?cmpid=newspanel

Television's finest moment

2009-12-28T00:00:00.001-05:00

Uncle Billy was a bastard

2009-12-24T00:02:00.000-05:00

I've always supposed the bumbling, inept Uncle Billy character in "It's a Wonderful Life" was intended to be endearing and lovable.

Personally, I'd like to punch the son of a bitch in the mouth. You know, draw some blood. Break some teeth. And for good reason.

I won't chronicle every instance of Uncle Billy's manifested inanity because the film is so well-known. Just note that, among other things, he forgets to attend the wedding of his own nephew (who also happens to be his boss), George, and later he absent-mindedly leaves $8,000 laying around so that old man Potter, the richest and meanest, and presumably most dishonest, man in the county can steal it.

Uncle Billy, of course, was supposed to deposit the $8,000 in the bank for his employer, the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan. The loss of that money is a criminal matter so serious that it causes George Bailey, president of the company, to contemplate suicide. To make matters worse, a heartless bank examiner has conveniently shown up at the Building and Loan on the very day the money is lost (which also just happens to be Christmas Eve). George doesn't kill himself (which would kind of mess up the happy ending and all) because an angel named Clarence -- also intended to be endearing and lovable -- appears and shows George what the world would be like if he had never been born, and it isn't pretty. The angel's revelation causes George to understand that, yes, it is a wonderful life, so he returns home to face life, including the heartless bank examiner.

It's at this point that Uncle Billy does something so contemptible, so shameful that he deserves to be punched in the mouth. It starts when he excitedly runs into the Bailey house and, acting as if he was completely innocent of causing the problem in the first place, ushers in half the townsfolk, who proceed to happily shower George with money, money and more money. Even the heartless bank examiner is overwhelmed by the spirit of giving, and he and the others burst into song.

But wait, you ain't seen nothing yet. Listen to what Uncle Billy says, in what may be the most ecstatic voice in the history of American film: "Mary [George's wife] did it, George! Mary did it! She told a few people you were in trouble and they scattered all over town collecting money. They didn't ask any questions –– just said, 'If George is in trouble –– count on me.' You never saw anything like it." (Emphasis supplied.)

Did you get that? George is the one "in trouble."

Now, exactly why would George be the one going to jail instead of Uncle Billy? Does anyone understand that?

Why doesn't Uncle Billy insist on taking the blame since -- oh, I don't know -- he was the one who lost the money?

And did you hear this: everyone wanted to help without asking any questions. Suggesting that they didn't ask, and Uncle Billy didn't bother to disclose the little inconvenient truth about why George was in trouble.

Good old Uncle Billy. That lovable, endearing, comical bastard. He was about to let George go to prison for something he did, making him little better than old man Potter. And that is why I'd punch the old bastard in the mouth if I could. Even if he was Scarlett O'Hara's father.

The omniscient mobsters of Coppola's 'Godfather': The smartest guys anywhere

2009-12-22T17:00:00.000-05:00

For more than 35 years, "The Godfather" has occupied a prominent place not just in the cinematic constellation but in our shared cultural milieu. It is perhaps the most re-watched, most quoted, and most beloved film of all time. More than any American epic ever produced, it doesn't just draw the viewer in, it sucks him like a vacuum and transports him to a seemingly realistic and thorougly engrossing other-world of power and perverse glamour.

Now, to suggest that watching this epic requires massive doses of the willing suspension of disbelief might strike some as peculiar if not sacrilegious. But the fact is, a recurring phenomenon strewn throughout the film strains credulity to the point that any viewer who happens to pick up on it may thereafter have a difficult time treating the film with the solemnity that Coppola's gravely earnest direction, not to mention Nino Rota's iconic score, insist on.

The point is best explained by illustrating it. Let's start with what is arguably the pivotal scene in the film from a plot standpoint. About 35 minutes into the flick, mobster Virgil Sollozzo, "The Turk," presents Don Corleone with a business proposition in the Don's olive oil importing offices. Sollozzo, described by the Don's adopted son and consigliere Tom Hagen as "a top narcotics man," wants the Corleones to invest $1 million in cash and to provide political influence and legal protection for Sollozzo's drug trafficking business. It was 1945 and drugs were the wave of the underworld future. The Don, accompanied by sons Sonny and Fredo, Tom Hagen and mob lieutenants Clemenza and Tessio, politely declines Sollozzo's proposal because he believes his politician friends would regard drug dealing as a "dirty" business. But Sollozzo makes one more try: "If you're worried about security for your million, the Tattaglias'll guarantee it," referencing a rival crime family. Before Don Corleone can say a word, Sonny, the Don's oldest son and heir-apparent blurts out: "Are you telling me that the Tattaglias guarantee our invest--."

The next several seconds are remarkable. The camera cuts to closeups of the faces of Clemenza, Hagen, and Sollozzo. Their looks unmistakeably signal a realization that Sonny has just made a tremendous, perhaps fatal, mobster faux pas. Don Corleone arguably makes matters worse by drawing attention to it. He angrily silences his son and proceeds to tell Sollozzo that he's "spoiled" his children by allowing them to "talk when they should listen." The Don makes it clear that his "no is final," cordially wishes Sollozzo well, and shows him out. The Don holds Sonny back to reprimand him some more: "Never tell anybody outside the Family what you're thinking again."

Of course, it's too late. Sonny's error in judgment sets up everything that follows, in this film and in two sequels. Sollozzo tries to kill Don Corleone because he knows that his heir is predisposed to do business with him while the Don is not. The attempt on Don Corleone's life leads to Michael killing Sollozzo, not to mention an all-out gang war that claims Sonny's life and eventually leads to the elimination of all the Corleone family rivals and betrayers in the film's celebrated blood-bath finale.

The fact that a few words off the top of Sonny's head led to all that is not the remarkable thing about the scene. The remarkable thing is that the mobsters in the room (except for Sonny) somehow -- dare I say incredibly? -- realized the import of Sonny's goof the moment it occurred.

It is fair to say that most people watching don't bother to ask themselves why the mobsters should have had such omniscience, but by any reasonable measure, they shouldn't have. No one, after all, is that perceptive.

Perhaps Coppola made the mobsters react as they did to herald the upcoming conflict for us, the audience?

Maybe. But as fans of the film should know but probably don't because Coppola has them so thoroughly diverted, these mobsters possess an almost infinite awareness about all sorts of conveniently useful information, from human nature to World Almanac facts -- knowledge that extends far beyond what ordinary men of their background -- hell, far beyond what men, or women, of any background -- possess. Aside from Tom Hagen and Michael, it is difficult to imagine any of these men graduating from high school let alone attending college, yet they know pretty much everything. It is safe to say that this is the most astute, most omniscient collection of human beings ever assembled anywhere in the world.

Take another, less subtle, example. After the Don is gunned down, Sollozzo wants a one-on-one meeting with Michael to patch things up. The Corleones decide this would be the perfect occasion for Michael to kill Sollozzo, so they decide to plant a gun at the site of the meeting ahead of time. They find out the secret location for the meeting is Louis' Restaurant in the Bronx. Well, mirabile dictu, Tessio knows all about the place, down to the toilet in the restroom. No kidding. Tessio explains that it's "a small family place, good food. Everyone minds his own business. . . . they got an old-fashion toilet. You know, the box-and-the-chain thing. We might be able to tape a gun behind it." Tessio sounds less like a thug than a restaurant critic with a toilet fetish.

But of course he's dead-on about the toilet -- the Corleone gang is able to plant the gun there perfectly -- and about the food, as even Sollozzo tells Michael to "try to veal. It's the best in the city."

And let's not forget the most incredible example of this omniscience in this film or, arguably, any film not directed by Cecil B. DeMille. After Don Corleone makes the peace with the heads of the Five Families, he knows that when he dies and Michael takes over the family business, the other families will try to kill Michael. He even knows how it will happen. He tells Michael: "Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated."

Whoa! Which book of the Old Testament did that come from? If Nostradamus had predicted the future with such clarity and specificity, belief in his psychic abilities would not be confined to the sorts of people convinced that Lyndon Johnson was in on the Kennedy assassination. Of course, the Don's prediction turned out to be on the mark. Shortly after the Don dies, Tessio betrays Michael in precisely the manner the Don predicted. But Michael outfoxes him and Barzini and the other Corleone Family rivals because of his father's warning.

In point of fact, the film is replete with instances of this sort of omniscience. E.g., when Michael sees there is no one guarding his father at the hospital, Michael knows for a fact that "men are coming to kill" the Don. He was right, of course.

Later Michael knows for a fact that his Italian wife is about to be blown up in her car. He was right about that, too.

And Tom Hagen knows without question that "nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain. Never." We don't even question that assertion or how Tom knows it.

And Sonny knows the procedures at the New York City Police Department: "A police captain's gotta be on call twenty-four hours a day." Later, after Michael kills Sollozzo, Sonny knows he'll need to be exiled to Italy for "at least a year." He was right about that, too.

And Don Corleone figures out, based on who-knows-what, that Barzini and not Tattaglia was behind the gang war that led to Sonny's death.

Based on their track records, one can only conclude that these mobsters are bona fide geniuses and that their talents would be far better utilized running the country instead of New York's gangland.

All the while, most viewers are sitting there chomping away on their popcorn, completely sucked in by the story and the glamour of the mob and the high-octane acting and masterful direction, never once thinking, "This is rather silly, isn't it?"

And I hope I didn't ruin it for you.

Sex double standards and the Oblation Run

2009-12-22T11:36:00.010-05:00

How do you think most people would react to the following scenario? Picture the campus of a large national university. On a well-publicized day prior to exams every December, an event is held that is anticipated all year long by the college's male students. Literally thousands of excited college men line a path on the campus barely wide enough for joggers to make their way past. There is a palpable buzz of anticipation among the young spectators, many of whom arrived hours early to stake out a strategic position along the route. They jostle one another amid a mad crush of testosterone to position themselves at the front of the line because they make no pretense about wanting an unimpeded view of the joggers. They have come armed with cameras of every kind, ready to forever memorialize the event they have waited all year to witness.

Suddenly, a tumultuous roar erupts from the front of the line. The joggers -- the objects of the young men's anticipation -- have emerged. Dozens of them. The jogging team is comprised entirely of young college women. Perhaps the only distinctive feature about them, aside from masks they wear to cover their faces, is that they are completely naked. Everything, and I do mean everything, is visible -- breasts, asses, pubic hair -- not a stitch of clothing covers their nubile young flesh.

The young men let loose deafening, empowering roars of delight. They pump their arms in the air as they cheer on the spectacle. Many aim their cameras in a manner decidedly uncustomary for photographing runners. In these photos and videos, heads are wholly unimportant, so the cameras adopt a curious downward angle. The photographers don't bother hiding the fact that they have come to photograph pudenda, not human beings.

Later that day, many of these young men will post their photos and videos on line, noting what an amazing spectacle it was, and often sprinkling their posts with crude sexual comments objectifying the young women's body parts.

You get the picture.

Alright. Now, what do you suppose the reaction to this event would be? Seriously, is there any question?

For anyone living in a monastery these past forty years, cut off from civilization and the battle of the sexes, I'll tell you what the reaction would be: this event would have been banned the first time it occurred, and more likely before it ever happened. Not because women were running naked, but because only women were running naked, and because their specators would be heterosexual young men who came to be aroused by the sight. The school never would have sanctioned it for that very reason. The outcry of "sexism" would have been more deafening than the young mens' roars of delight when the naked women appeared, and it would have reverberated world-wide, with feminist features writers in newspapers in the UK and the US, all with too much time on their hands, cackling on about how this event exemplifies the most grotesque sort of male privilege. The men who attended the run to watch would be shamed for objectifying the women, the way men are reviled for visiting strip clubs. The young women joggers -- although they would not be punished -- would have been told that they were being exploited by the patriarchy.

__________________________________

Now. Take the exact scenario noted above, every detail the same, but imagine that the genders were reversed. You heard me. Imagine the joggers were male and the spectators were female. Imagine that the young spectators did not come to shriek over breasts and asses but over penises and scrota. What do you imagine the reaction to that would be?

Luckily -- or unluckily -- you don't have to imagine. We know what the reaction would be.

You see, there's an annual event at the University of the Philippines where that very thing occurs. It's called "The Oblation Run," and it's held every December.

Writing satirical news for the past several years has, um, exposed me to actual news that I am quite certain I otherwise never would stumble across. I must say, this is among the more bizarre events I've encountered.  A bunch of frat guys streaking on campus isn't news; institutionalizing it is. The more interesting aspect is this: we are stranded in an era where standards of political correctness, as opposed to our intellects and common sense, dictate our views on matters of sex, and this event, which seems wholly acceptable when the guys get naked, would be wholly politically incorrect if the genders were reversed.

The annual guys-get-naked tradition is sponsored by a fraternity (what else?), and the university embraces it. Last year, in honor of the University's 100th birthday, the school actually requested the fraternity to sponsor a special naked run with 100 runners.  Each year, the joggers rationalize their exhibitionism by adopting a serious theme protesting some important social issue. This year, for example, the young men were supposedly using their nakedness to draw attention to climate change.

Um, right.  One can't help wondering how many global warming/shrinkage jokes were uttered on the day of the run. Of course, the average screaming, screeching, shrieking, blushing female spectator is far less interested in weigthy social issues than in seeing, as one young woman put it, "the whole male anatomy de-mystified. :)) I never thought that their organs actually bounced, you know?"

Yep. That's exactly what people say after they attend serious protests of important social issues, like the Great March on Washington ("I have a dream . . . ."). But hey, let's be honest, when teenage girls say things like that, it's innocent and cute (well, not to me, but to some people it is). Now, a young male college student uttering something like that about naked women, well, now, that's probably grounds for a "harassment" charge to be adjudicated by the college's kangaroo court -- ah, excuse me -- disciplinary hearing board. For the uninitiated, that's a forum tailor-made to adjudicate rumors in-the-air that a college guy has committed some amorphous sexual offense or other. Those forums dispense with nasty wastes of time like due process of law for the accused and representation by counsel.  They are akin to the Inquisition without the fairness.

Another female student, intent on videotaping the parade of penes with a similarly intentioned young woman, described the anticipation in words often used to characterize waiting for the hottest boy band at the moment to appear on stage: "We were practically spazzing out as we talked about it." The difference, of course, is that boy bands keep their clothes on.

Young and old possessors of double-X chromosomes pronounce the spectacle an unqualified success: “I never expected it would be this exciting,” one young woman said. Some older women in the crowd gleefully cheered on the barefooted runners. "It has been quite a while since I saw something like this," a 55-year-old woman said with a laugh. I'll bet it has. When older women say it, it's "empowering." But imagine a 55-year-old man saying anything remotely similar about naked female joggers. Cue the feminist eye rolls and denunciations about perverse and disgusting, entitled men.

And it isn't just older female spectators. Listen to what this student had to say about her female professor: "Just when I have finally accepted the depressing fact that I would miss the Oblation run this year, enter my professor (BLESS HER!) who generously gave us the time to witness the thrill of the streaking =p" What, pray tell, would happen to a male professor who specifically let his class out early to witness naked women runners? I shudder for the man who would even think of such a thing.

"I was totally BLOWN THE [crude term for intercourse] AWAY," calmly explained an 18-year-old female student. "Honestly, I don't remember anything anymore. I kinda looked at their chests and their backs. . . . .I meet a tall guy I look at his chest and his face. (hair actually) I can only remember 'it' vaguely. Whatever. I was just riding on adrenaline. I love the fact that everyone was screaming and tossing about." That sure sounds like a description of a serious protest, doesn't it?

__________________________________

After the Oblation Run is over, I wonder what would be said about these young men if they trotted off to the local strip club to watch naked women. I am told college boys do that sort of thing from time to time. If a reporter followed them to a strip club, would they be written about in the same sort of light-hearted tones used to describe the young female spectators of the Oblation Run?

Gee, somehow I doubt it. Somehow I think that would be a very different article, encrusted with a judgmental, critical tone, and that it would carry with it the weight of thousands of years of purported male-female power differentials and the alleged subjugation of women. When it comes to matters sexual, it is, after all, the politically correct thing to regard men as predators and women as victims, even when those labels don't fit.

The fact is, the young women pressing into the path of the Oblation runners, shrieking and blushing at the sight of bouncing male genitalia, probably were every bit as excited -- dare I say, every bit as horny? -- as the young men in the strip club. Yet, the little voice inside us that instills us with norms of political correctness -- but definitely not our intellects or our common sense -- tells us, "trust me, it's different; don't ask me why, just trust me." And we don't ask. Maybe because the answer wouldn't satisfy us.

__________________________________

One final thought on outmoded gender double-standards. If any of these boys ran around outside in their birthday suits at any other time of the year, it is fair to speculate that more than a few of these shrieking, empowered young women would be sufficiently "offended" to call the police. In contrast, it is doubtful that many, if any, young men would call the police if a young woman was spotted running around naked.

Take, for instance, the recent case of the guy who was charged with indecent exposure for drinking a cup of coffee in the buff in his own house. As one (female) writer described it: "Erick Williamson was having a cup of coffee in the buff one October morning. A woman drove by and saw him through his front window. Later, a mother and her 7-year-old son walked by on their way to school and saw him. Rather than averting their eyes, they decided to call the police. If Williamson was a woman, and the passers-by had been male, the charges might have gone the other way. The male passers-by would be viewed as peeping toms."

I don't see a problem, do you? In all cases, we need to punish the predators, so long as they are male, and protect the victims, so long as they are female, don't we? At least that's what my little political correctness voice keeps saying.

Our Christmas Poll

2009-12-18T10:22:00.002-05:00

Check out Carbolic Smoke Ball's Christmas coverage

2009-12-18T10:21:00.000-05:00

Little Drummer Boy Asked to “Play that Thing Outside,” Virgin Mary Claims He’s Waking the Baby

Our Annual “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not in the Rankin/Bass Christmas Specials

Alvin Found Dead in London Hotel Room, Chipmunks Cancel Remainder of European Tour

Salvation Army Bell Ringer Mauled by Salivating Dogs, Pavlov Denies Responsibility

Once the Angel Had Departed, the Shepherds Discussed What They Had Seen: “Of course I’m honored that it was a first, but what the hell is a ‘Noel’?”

Cornelius, Zeira to Host Discovery Channel’s “Christmas on the Planet of the Apes

Home Invaders Demand Figgy Pudding, Won’t Go Until They Get Some, Won’t Go Until They Get Some

Santa Claus Seriously Injured in Electric Razor Accident; Mobile Norelco was Traveling Too Fast for Conditions

Celebrate Christmas like the Victorians: listen to great Christmas ghost stories while you dine

2009-12-14T21:21:00.002-05:00

Haunted Pittsburgh offers its Christmas ghost dinner this Wednesday at Gypsy Cafe in South Side. Come and enjoy the best food in town, served with a generous helping of holiday goosebumps. The great Samantha Bennett (Post-Gazette) is our ghost guide. Details here.

The right to a speedy trial is not a 'technicality,' even if application of that right allows an accused rapist to be released

2009-12-14T08:52:00.000-05:00

Anybody see my letter to the editor in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week (reprinted below)? When I was in law school, I was chided by my Civil Procedure professor for referring to some rule of procedure that caused a case to be dismissed as a "technicality." My professor -- whose name was Mark Nordenberg, by the way -- was right. Use of that word is even more objectionable when we're talking about a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Language is important, and news reporters generally are not attorneys, or experts in government or medicine or any of the areas they write about. It is amazing that they "get it right" as often as they do. But when they slip up, people who know better need to call them on it.

Post-Gazette, December 9, 2009:

Not a technicality

Staff writer Paula Reed Ward writes that a rape case was dismissed against David L. Bradford on the basis of a "technicality." ("Authorities Try to Trace Errors in Legal System That Lost Rape Case," Dec. 5) She explains: "Under Pennsylvania Act 600, a defendant cannot remain in custody for more than 180 days -- or be free on bond for more than 365 -- without a trial."

The Pennsylvania act Ms. Ward references is not some arbitrary rule of criminal procedure. It is a statutory articulation of the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial, which prevents prosecuting officials from holding criminal charges over the heads of the presumed innocent for an indeterminate period of time.

Mr. Bradford's release obviously was necessitated by a breakdown in the system that needs to be corrected. But to label the application of the Sixth Amendment to Mr. Bradford's case as nothing more than a "technicality" is troubling because it trivializes one of our most cherished constitutional protections whose roots run deep in mankind's long struggle against tyranny, even predating Magna Carta.

A discussion of the reasons for the breakdown in the system is not advanced by characterizing the vital interests served by the Sixth Amendment and its statutory progeny in such a dismissive, pejorative manner.

TIMOTHY MURRAY

On Monday, join us at Carbolic Smoke Ball as we begin our non-stop Christmas coverage

2009-12-13T20:26:00.000-05:00

http://carbolicsmoke.com/

Because the culinary industry is dominated by men, this must mean discrimination, right?

2009-12-13T14:18:00.012-05:00

In Sunday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Maria Sciullo has a piece on gender roles in the kitchen ("Boys at home in the kitchen," Dec. 13, 2009.) Kitchen toys are marketed for girls, but more boys than girls end up becoming paid chefs and restaurant owners when they grow up.

There is no evidence posited that this outcome is accounted for by discrimination, but that doesn't stop Kathy M. Newman, an English professor at Carnegie Mellon University, from declaring the following: "To me, it's completely infuriating that all of these 'women's crafts' are professionalized by men. It's so wrong!"

It's fair to say that this fact is not necessarily "wrong" to the countless women who love to cook, and who do it often and well, but who choose not to go into the culinary industry.

Ms. Newman isn't finished. She "said that as a parent, she believes there is much work to be done before her son, Jacob, 5, and her daughter Casey, 2 1/2, have an equal chance of growing up to be chefs or restaurant owners."   She says: "There is still so much sexism, marketing chef toys to boys isn't going to solve the problem of gender discrimination in the food industry."

OK, now I'm lost. We've just made a leap that no rational person could possibly follow. "Gender discrimination in the food industry"? Where did that come from? Because an outcome doesn't comport with this woman's notions of gender equity?

Precisely who is snuffing out little Casey's dream of becoming a chef or a restaurant owner? Who is telling her -- or rather, who will tell her that when she's old enough to reason -- that women aren't talented enough or smart enough to succeed in that industry?

I am almost 100% certain that the answer is "no one." And let's get serious about this. It is far more likely that little Jacob will face more societal obstacles about pursuing a culinary career than little Casey -- because boys are told in a variety of ways that cooking is "girls' stuff." Yet somehow men find their way into that industry.

In contrast, boys aren't supposed to be stay-at-home dads or school teachers -- and unlike the culinary industry, in those areas, men are terribly underrepresented. I rarely hear anyone like Ms. Newman yelling "discrimination" about that, of course, but let me guess: that's different, right? The fact that few men are stay-at-home dads or school teachers must mean that men choose not to be those things -- but women aren't choosing to stay out of the culinary industry? Because, I mean, men are free moral agents but women aren't?

And there you have it. With no evidence beyond this English professor's infuriated ipse dixit, we are instructed that the male domination of the culinary industry couldn't possibly be accounted for by choices people make, or by the fact that men and women might legitimately want different things in life. For example, men are told from the time they are little boys that they must be "good providers" when they grow up. When they become young men, they learn well, and often painfully, that women generally choose mates who are good providers over men who aren't.  If the culinary industry is lucrative, could it be that men flock to it, and other lucrative professions, because that's what society -- and specifically, women -- expect from them?

No, no, no. According to people like Ms. Newman, the only possible explanation for this outcome differential is "discrimination."

Misplaced anger too often displaces rationality when it comes to matters of gender.  Such anger compels otherwise intelligent people to see discrimination oozing from every crevice because of some "patriarchy" bogeyman instead of evidence of actual discrimination.

It is irrational assertions such as Ms. Newman's that engender disrepute of even legitimate efforts to end actual discrimination. To insist that every gender differential is "discrimination" trivializes the efforts of those of us who have battled actual discrimination, not to mention the struggles of those who are victimized by it.

Good to see the world's young people taking climate change so seriously

2009-12-13T12:14:00.003-05:00

Students take pictures as hooded members of a fraternity run naked inside the school compound as part of their yearly activity Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 at the University of the Philippines campus in Manila. This year's activity highlighted with their call against climate change. (AP Photo/Pat Roque)

Asian Correspondent: Students at the University of the Philippines in Manila took part in the annual "oblation run" on Friday, running naked around the campus to the delight of a huge crowd of spectators.

The annual tradition is organised by members of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity, who get volunteers to take part.

This year, about 60 members of the fraternity volunteered to run.

A mixture of screaming female students and curious onlookers lined the hallways to see the naked runners pass by.

The streaking students chose to raise the issue of climate change this year, in light of the series of debates ongoing in Copenhagen.

The naked ritual is said to have been inspired by the university's iconic symbol, the Oblation, a bronze sculpture of a nude man, with arms outstretched and face raised to the sky.

My father has a piece in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on one of his favorite themes: consolidation of county and city resources

2009-12-13T06:46:00.001-05:00

See here. If you disagree with him and would like to debate him in a public forum, you've obviously never seen him speak in public. Good luck to you.

Welcome to my blog

2009-12-12T18:39:00.001-05:00