Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Useless Information
Posted by Claire Suddath on Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Come on, admit it. You've always wanted a Chester A. Arthur T-shirt and you know it. Well, your wildest Presidential fashion dreams have come true, for now there is Sharp As Toast, a website that offers a small but amusing selection of shirts about dated political topics and/or deceased politicians. There's also a nifty little video game you can play on there too.
Also, Jack Handey appears in the latest New Yorker with a short article called Ideas for Paintings.
Also, Jack Handey appears in the latest New Yorker with a short article called Ideas for Paintings.
Monday, March 13, 2006
A Fearful Summons
Posted by Wayne Christeson on Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM
The notice to renew my Vanderbilt football tickets arrived in yesterday's mail. I will answer, I am sure, like Hamlet's father-- "like a guilty thing upon a fearful summons." Why do I do this? Look, I love Vanderbilt and I love those boys who run out week after week to get their heads kicked in by bigger, faster, and probably dumber players. But as much as I love them, this weekly carnage is about like seeing your dog get run over. Vanderbilt probably reached its apex last year at 5-6, but in the P.C. years (post-Cutler) we'll probably not see its like again. I've seen Vanderbilt beat UT three times over the last 40 years, and I'm afraid that the next win will come around about in time for Halley's Comet. I'll be there, though, if I live long enough, with all of my slightly addled seat-mates, in case it ever happens again.
Are you a philosopher?
Posted by Mark Mays on Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 3:30 PM
KRS-One is scheduled to come to Nashville on tax day. Hip-hop fans, handle your business early and apply that refund to tickets. I can't remember Kris Parker ever playing Nashville. Perhaps those who have been here longer can set me straight.
Take a physical note
Posted by Carrington Fox on Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Last night I was watching the Tennessee legislative report and, for some reason, muted the volume so the closed-caption text appeared on the screen. I have long known the legislature was a hotbed of malapropisms, and I have even celebrated the unique twang with which our senators and representatives pronounce "TANNassee." That said, it was jarring to see the words of our elected leaders written out in closed captioning just as they were spoken:
Guys, IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL NOTE! If a bill is going to cost the state some money, it requires a FISCAL NOTE. For the love of Jeff Foxworthy, our budgeting process sounds like an outtake from Deliverance when y'all get on about the physical notes. A physical note would be if you wrote something on an actual piece of paper. Or if your gym teacher wrote a memo about how crappy you were at doing sit-ups.
And another thing, if you all approve it with one voice, it is UNANIMOUS. If a gym teacher writes a physical note and doesn't sign her name, that's ANONYMOUS. I am not making this up. Latin and Greek are on my side.
Finally—and I can't blame this on the legislators; this gaff lands squarely on the shoulders of the closed caption transcription staff—it's PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, not PARLIMENT (sic) TREE procedure. We are talking about the generally accepted practices for running meetings of large organizations, not about landscaping outside the House of Commons. Please make a note of it—physical, mental or otherwise.
Guys, IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL NOTE! If a bill is going to cost the state some money, it requires a FISCAL NOTE. For the love of Jeff Foxworthy, our budgeting process sounds like an outtake from Deliverance when y'all get on about the physical notes. A physical note would be if you wrote something on an actual piece of paper. Or if your gym teacher wrote a memo about how crappy you were at doing sit-ups.
And another thing, if you all approve it with one voice, it is UNANIMOUS. If a gym teacher writes a physical note and doesn't sign her name, that's ANONYMOUS. I am not making this up. Latin and Greek are on my side.
Finally—and I can't blame this on the legislators; this gaff lands squarely on the shoulders of the closed caption transcription staff—it's PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, not PARLIMENT (sic) TREE procedure. We are talking about the generally accepted practices for running meetings of large organizations, not about landscaping outside the House of Commons. Please make a note of it—physical, mental or otherwise.
Roger, Over Here
Posted by Liz Garrigan on Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:48 AM
As Pith faithful know, our friend and erstwhile contributor Roger Abramson has gone the way of Fleetwood Mac. This right here, folks, is our reunion tour. Find him here—and coming to our blogroll very soon. When you comment, be sure to tell him you miss him here at Pith. We'd like him back some day.
Frist's Authoritarian Impulse
Posted by Bruce Barry on Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 9:33 AM
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) is proposing that the Senate censure President Bush for authorizing illegal domestic wiretapping. Put aside for a minute the merits of this idea, and take a look at how Bill Frist responded to it on a Sunday talk show. Here's how Frist could have responded:
Here's what Frist actually said:
The perception that the president can do no wrong and dissent is unacceptable?
I realize that the wiretapping program is controversial and that informed opinions about its legal merits vary. However, it's not really a good idea for the Senate to become mired right now in a debate over whether the president should be rebuked for it, given the fact that an intelligence subcommittee is reviewing the program.
Here's what Frist actually said:
The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong. And it sends a perception around the world.
The perception that the president can do no wrong and dissent is unacceptable?
Friday, March 10, 2006
A Ducking Good Time
Posted by John Spragens on Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 6:16 PM
It's hard to know what's stranger: waiting 20 minutes, jostling for position with old ladies, rednecks and Republicans (imagine that as a Venn diagram), to see ducks march down a red carpet into an elevator -- or the Republican hob-nobbing, deal-making, drinking and all-around politicking going on here in Memphis. It's Circus Republicus here at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. When I stepped out of the elevator at the Peabody hotel, the first familiar face I saw was Karyn Frist's. Bill M.D. wasn't far behind, meeting and greeting, looking quite spiffy in his light-brown suit. He's not slated to speak until tomorrow, but this is his home turf and he's damn well taking advantage of it. (Witness all the "Frist is my Leader" stickers around.)
As I write from my hotel room in downtown Memphis -- taking a break from the action while they feed the party faithful -- I'm listening to "Battle Hymn of the Republicans," an anthem for the Grand Old Party written by a Missouri OB/GYN named Scott Magill. He and his lady-friend (I'm sure they weren't sharing a bed outside of marriage) were eager to tell me all about the song, which he wrote as a fight song for the party. They're trying to keep America from becoming a further socialized state. "Glory, Glory Hallelujah. Don't let anyone ever rule ya. We are the Grand Old Party that will save our noble land. We are Re-pub-li-cans." Sung, of course, to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic (MIDI version). "This is our blessed nation and we passionately shall rise, tears of love within our eyes." You get the idea.
Needless to say, I'm glad I packed that bottle of Jack Daniel's. But don't worry -- the conventioneers have been drinking since before 3. So we've got that in common. Speaking of which, I'm going to lose the jacket and loosen the tie (that's right, skeptics -- jacket and tie) a bit and work on this beverage. Meantime, for more regular updates than mine, I'd stick with the Hardball with Chris Matthews blog, Hardblogger. They've got a few more folks around than your lowly alt-weekly. In fact, Chris is doing the show live (taped interviews) from the lobby, which accounts for 50 percent of the zoo-like atmosphere. He's weird, but not as weird as Howard Fineman, who's lurking around the Peabody with his bad combover, talking to anyone he can pigeonhole.
UPDATE (6:55 p.m.): Did the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee really pay for this web site? Now that's hardball.
As I write from my hotel room in downtown Memphis -- taking a break from the action while they feed the party faithful -- I'm listening to "Battle Hymn of the Republicans," an anthem for the Grand Old Party written by a Missouri OB/GYN named Scott Magill. He and his lady-friend (I'm sure they weren't sharing a bed outside of marriage) were eager to tell me all about the song, which he wrote as a fight song for the party. They're trying to keep America from becoming a further socialized state. "Glory, Glory Hallelujah. Don't let anyone ever rule ya. We are the Grand Old Party that will save our noble land. We are Re-pub-li-cans." Sung, of course, to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic (MIDI version). "This is our blessed nation and we passionately shall rise, tears of love within our eyes." You get the idea.
Needless to say, I'm glad I packed that bottle of Jack Daniel's. But don't worry -- the conventioneers have been drinking since before 3. So we've got that in common. Speaking of which, I'm going to lose the jacket and loosen the tie (that's right, skeptics -- jacket and tie) a bit and work on this beverage. Meantime, for more regular updates than mine, I'd stick with the Hardball with Chris Matthews blog, Hardblogger. They've got a few more folks around than your lowly alt-weekly. In fact, Chris is doing the show live (taped interviews) from the lobby, which accounts for 50 percent of the zoo-like atmosphere. He's weird, but not as weird as Howard Fineman, who's lurking around the Peabody with his bad combover, talking to anyone he can pigeonhole.
UPDATE (6:55 p.m.): Did the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee really pay for this web site? Now that's hardball.
Feel-Good News for a Friday
Posted by Claire Suddath on Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Most of the news is bad news, but today I've got something that ought to make even the most jaded environmental skeptic happy.
Creative Loafing's Michael Wall has an interesting cover story out this week about an Atlanta carpet company that has been slowly but surely "going green" for the past decade.
In 1994, Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface Flooring Systems changed his company's entire business strategy based on Paul Hawken's book The Ecology of Commerce. His goal? To make the company completely self-sustainable by 2020. He's not there yet, but then again, it's not 2020.
Creative Loafing's Michael Wall has an interesting cover story out this week about an Atlanta carpet company that has been slowly but surely "going green" for the past decade.
In 1994, Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface Flooring Systems changed his company's entire business strategy based on Paul Hawken's book The Ecology of Commerce. His goal? To make the company completely self-sustainable by 2020. He's not there yet, but then again, it's not 2020.
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Ask a Catholic Girl?
Posted by Liz Garrigan on Thu, Mar 9, 2006 at 5:36 PM
This isn't some lame-ass way to advance something in one our sister papers, I swear. For those of you who haven't seen it in the news lately, the alternative paper OC Weekly publishes one of the hottest and most un-PC columns around—Ask a Mexican. Writer Gustavo Arellano recently appeared on the Today Show and has been getting national attention from print media too. If I were a daily newspaper editor, I'd hire a consultant to commission a marketing firm to do focus groups to tell me what the perfect equivalent column in Nashville would be. But, hombres, I'm not. Ideas? Bernie Sheahan writing "Ask a Catholic Girl"? Or dare I wonder whether "Ask a Mexican" would actually be more appropriate?
Good Intentions vs. Free Speech
Posted by Bruce Barry on Thu, Mar 9, 2006 at 12:21 PM
The City Paper reports today on efforts in the state legislature to criminalize "picketing, protesting or demonstrating" in close proximity with a funeral or memorial service (within 500 or 1000 feet, depending on whose bill you look at). The lawmakers pushing these measures are reacting to complaints of disruptions at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq, such as those instigated by those Topeka wingnuts who sometimes leech onto military funerals to spew homophobic bile.
This looks like a classic example of good intentions with bad consequences--First Amendment consequences in particular. The state Attorney General's Office has issued an unconvincing opinion that these bills are "constitutionally defensible." The AG opinion deems the measure viewpoint neutral, which seems right. The opinion also says that clarifying language specifically prohibiting the activities of picketing and protesting within a specific distance avoids the concern that the bill is too broad or vague, which seems wrong.
The language of these bills bans protests near a "funeral or memorial service." What the bill doesn't mention, and the AG's opinion doesn't address, is the definition of a "memorial service." What is to stop any gathering in or near a public place that prefers not to have counter-demonstrators nearby from explicitly memorializing a dead person as part of its activity, thereby making the occasion a memorial service? And then enlisting law enforcement to arrest nearby protesters? According to the City Paper story, one of the sponsors, state Sen. Diane Black of Hendersonville, sees the measure as analogous to laws banning protests within 100 feet of a polling place. The definition of a polling place, however, is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation.
This looks like a classic example of good intentions with bad consequences--First Amendment consequences in particular. The state Attorney General's Office has issued an unconvincing opinion that these bills are "constitutionally defensible." The AG opinion deems the measure viewpoint neutral, which seems right. The opinion also says that clarifying language specifically prohibiting the activities of picketing and protesting within a specific distance avoids the concern that the bill is too broad or vague, which seems wrong.
The language of these bills bans protests near a "funeral or memorial service." What the bill doesn't mention, and the AG's opinion doesn't address, is the definition of a "memorial service." What is to stop any gathering in or near a public place that prefers not to have counter-demonstrators nearby from explicitly memorializing a dead person as part of its activity, thereby making the occasion a memorial service? And then enlisting law enforcement to arrest nearby protesters? According to the City Paper story, one of the sponsors, state Sen. Diane Black of Hendersonville, sees the measure as analogous to laws banning protests within 100 feet of a polling place. The definition of a polling place, however, is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation.
