Water For Thought

Okay, we confess. In the Curmudgeon household, we consume a fair amount of bottled water. Seltzer water in quart bottles (the Curmudgeon's favorite) and plain old flat water in all kinds of shapes and sizes of bottles, sent off in school lunch boxes, camp daypacks, and soccer satchels, not to mention stashed into the cars for trips.

We do our best to recycle those plastic bottles the water comes in--probably better than most. But still, a few do end up in distant trash bins, from whence they likely end up in a landfill, where they will last for the next thousand years.

Perhaps its time for us to change. In this month's Fast Company, Charles Fishman writes in detail about the environmental costs of all that bottled water and suggests an alternative: your local tap. See "Message In A Bottle."

Noting that Americans spend $15 billion a year on bottled water, Fishman makes some good points:

Bottled water is the food phenomenon of our times. We--a generation raised on tap water and water fountains--drink a billion bottles of water a week, and we're raising a generation that views tap water with disdain and water fountains with suspicion. We've come to pay good money--two or three or four times the cost of gasoline--for a product we have always gotten, and can still get, for free, from taps in our homes.

The environmental costs don't just stop at the old landfill--there's the impact of moving all that water, which is quite large:

We're moving 1 billion bottles of water around a week in ships, trains, and trucks in the United States alone. That's a weekly convoy equivalent to 37,800 18-wheelers delivering water. (Water weighs 81/3 pounds a gallon. It's so heavy you can't fill an 18-wheeler with bottled water--you have to leave empty space.)

Moreover, while we luxuriate in bottled water we hardly need, others lack access to basic, clean drinking water. Take, for example, the residents of the island nation of Fiji:

[I]n Fiji, a state-of-the-art factory spins out more than a million bottles a day of the hippest bottled water on the U.S. market today, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have safe, reliable drinking water. Which means it is easier for the typical American in Beverly Hills or Baltimore to get a drink of safe, pure, refreshing Fiji water than it is for most people in Fiji.

Fishman points out that if you paid the same amount for tap water as for even cheap bottled water, your monthly water bill would be around $9000. Fishman observes the oxymoron that something "as clean and pure as water" nonetheless "leaves a contrail." For example:

San Pellegrino's 1-liter glass bottles--so much a part of the mystique of the water itself--weigh five times what plastic bottles weigh, dramatically adding to freight costs and energy consumption. The bottles are washed and rinsed, with mineral water, before being filled with sparkling Pellegrino--it uses up 2 liters of water to prepare the bottle for the liter we buy. The bubbles in San Pellegrino come naturally from the ground, as the label says, but not at the San Pellegrino source. Pellegrino chooses its CO2 carefully--it is extracted from supercarbonated volcanic springwaters in Tuscany, then trucked north and bubbled into Pellegrino.

Fishman finishes with a great question: Once you understand the resources mustered to deliver the bottle of water, it's reasonable to ask as you reach for the next bottle, not just "Does the value to me equal the 99 cents I'm about to spend?" but "Does the value equal the impact I'm about to leave behind?"

Tomorrow, when we head out to the McSoccerfest with the kids, we might just fill a few empty water bottles from out tap and see how it works out.

Bush's Legacy: The Supreme Court

If there was any doubt before, the last few days have dispelled it, as the Supreme Court's final rulings of the term show a decided tilt to the right, courtesy of the addition of Justice Samuel Alito to the Court last year by President Bush.

Yes, Bush's domestic agenda--whatever it was--is in shambles and his foreign policy is a disaster. In a year and a half he'll be gone and we hope the country can start to get back on the right track. (Although the immigration debate shows just how messy our domestic politics are, regardless of "W").

But Bush has nonetheless left us a legacy that will linger on well past his exit from the White House, in the form of a much more conservative Supreme Court. We suspect this term was only a warm-up. As conservative interest groups see what's possible, they will start pushing a more aggressive Court agenda, with bigger, bolder initiatives.

We shudder to think about it.

The Day The Music Died

What do the Oscars, the Superbowl, American Idol, NASCAR, the recording industry, the NFL, Broadway, the PGA, the NFL, megachurches, the NBA, Major League Baseball and just about every live television show have in common?

They all use wireless microphones to deliver sound to their disparate audiences.

And, they've all been lobbying the FCC and Congress to prevent changes in the communications spectrum that could, so to speak, stop the music.

These days, wireless microphones are everywhere. They allow you to hear players on the field, or racers in their cars. They free singers to move around and dance. They allow reporters to go where the action is. They allow lavish productions of live shows. They allow ministers to preach to their flock. (They even allow lawyers to advocate to their juries.)

These microphones, of course, are transmitting radio signals to a receiver. Like all radio signals, they are subject to interference--someone else using the same frequency. It so happens that the frequency these microphones use is in the "white space" between television frequencies. But now, a coalition of consumer electronics manufacturers, such as Dell, Microsoft and HP, wants the FCC to let them use those white spaces--being made available as television goes all digital--to provide new wireless options for all those electronic gadgets in your pockets and on your belts.

Mrs. Curmudgeon is a telecommunications attorney and one of her clients just so happens to be a high end wireless microphone manufacturer. They, and their customers, are concerned about the potential for interference. Will some yahoo using his PDA to check his stocks wirelessly during the Superbowl shut down the sound system? Will some teeny bopper following the latest news on Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan white out American Idol?

These, of course, are all powerful interests, and this is why telecommunications law is so much "fun." Spectrum, which is owned by the government and licensed out to private enterprise in the "public interest," is big business. Really big.

Which is why, every few weeks, Mrs. Curmudgeon has chaperoned representatives of Hollywood, Broadway, Nashville, major league sports and other major entertainment players up to Capitol Hill and over to the FCC to lobby their cause. (Generally, she gets to deal with their technical people, not their stars. A kind of "brush with fame.")

Let's hope she succeeds. Otherwise, there won't be much content worth receiving on those fancy new wireless electronic gadgets.

Lucky Case Lawsuit Targets "Deal Or No Deal" Rip-off

A reader alerted us to a lawsuit filed by four Georgia women against NBC for its "Lucky Case" promotion during the gameshow "Deal or No Deal." See articles here and here.

As we've noted in past posts, NBC has made a mint by charging viewers a premium $.99 text message fee to enter a lottery in which the viewer has an opportunity to win $10,000, sometimes more, in a drawing during the "Deal" show. Of course, since millions of viewers are entering the contest, sometimes multiple times (the commercial pitch encourages viewers to enter up to 10 times to increase their odds of winning), NBC is making a killing. (Advertising Age reports that NBC has had 57 million Lucky Case entries, with a payout of nearly $1 million--do the math and you see they're doing quite well, which is obvious by the fact that they spend several minutes of commercial time per show promoting the contest.)

We hope the lawsuit succeeds. (Evidently the suit also targets similar promotions during NBC's "Apprentice" and "1 vs 100" shows.)

Justice (?) In The Pants Suit

As widely reported in the media, a DC court has ruled against the DC administrative judge who sued a local dry cleaners for more than $50 million over a pair of lost slacks.

The silly lawsuit has generated worldwide coverage and extensive commentary, including, among others, editorials in today's Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

Many commentators are calling the ruling proof that the US judicial system works. We couldn't disagree more. The lawsuit cost the couple who owns the cleaners more than $100,000 in legal fees, so far, and has brought on all kinds of emotional distress for them. It also cost taxpayers an inordinate amount for a dispute over a pair of pants.

We do have a good legal system, but sometimes it fails, and this is one such instance. A good judge in a case such as this would have quickly put limits on the plaintiff, including throwing out his ridiculous multi-million dollar claim and narrowing the issues down to their core, i.e., did the cleaners lose his pants, and if so, what were they worth. Instead, the judges who handled this one (the judge who tried the case and issued the opinion yesterday was not the same judge who dealt with most of the pretrial issues) let it dither on for a couple of years and get so out of hand as to create a media spectacle out of a routine small claim.

Also conspicuously absent, at least so far, has been the DC Bar, which can and should disclipline its members when they abuse the powers granted to them with a law license.

It looks like the man who brought the suit--not the first time he's been overly litigious--Roy Pearson, will lose his job as an administrative law judge for the District of Columbia, which at least is some small measure of justice.

Richardson On Move In Iowa

Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson continues to show steady growth, with an Iowa poll putting him at 13 percent of likely caucus participants. When the poll was narrowed to the likeliest caucus voters (those who attended the 2004 caucus, voted in the 2006 primary and say they definitely will attend next year's caucus) Richardson went up to 18 percent, ahead of Barack Obama (at 16%).

There's still a long way to go--seven long months--but so far Richardson is the only candidate on the Democratic side to demonstrate any momentum, gradually moving up from the barely imperceptible 2-3% to now consistently in the double digits.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, cannot afford to come in fourth in Iowa under any circumstances, so look for his campaign to begin some television advertising before long.

Richardson recently went for his pilgrimmage before the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in the state, and garnered a nice write-up featuring his good natured sense of humor. See Richardson Packs Jokes, Thick Resume.

If Richardson can finagle himself into a solid third place position in polls in either Iowa or New Hampshire--and especially in both--he can really start to shake up the Democratic race and perhaps show movement in the national polls as well. He's got plenty of time, and there's no need to peak too early.

Fat People To The Rescue: Energy Crisis Solved

We love the moment in the movie "Soylent Green" when Charlton Heston makes the awful realization that the government is turning people into food: "Soylent green is people!" he wails as the film ends.

We thought of this today after reading a Wall Street Journal article with the subheadline: "Scientists Are Turning To Fat As Renewable Energy Source."

Could it be, we thrilled, that fat people are the solution to our impending energy crisis? Such sweet irony--the same folks who need monster SUV's to transport their bodies; who consume the world's food resources at an alarming rate; who demand that the air conditioning be set at 65 degrees so they won't be hot--those same people could be put to use as fuel?

Perhaps. Scientists are working to turn animal fat into a form of bio-diesel fuel for automobiles. In one project, Tysons Foods is working with Conoco Phillips to take fat from chicken processing plants and render it into bio-diesel, all with the hoped for help of a generous federal subsidy.

So why not people? Set up massive liposuction centers next to these bio-diesel refineries and kill two birds with one stone: wipe out obesity while ending the energy crisis.

Problem solved. Next.

Politicization At Justice? We're Shocked!

Democrats in Congress continue to dig into claims that the Bush administration has politicized staffing at the Justice Department, probably because it's a lot of fun and there is a treasure trove of information establishing the charge.

But anyone who's been around Washington for the past six years is not at all surprised. If you live here, you know people who work in the government, or who have applied for jobs. We're not talking about political appointments--the kind that require Senate confirmation. Rather, these are just plain old government jobs, trying to keep things functioning and putting good people to work doing the People's business.

Yet, what you hear time and time again is that for practically ANY job in this administration there is political commissar, directly connected to Karl Rove's operation in the White House, charged with vetting the purity of EVERY applicant. It's a bit like the old days of the Soviet Union, when anyone without a good record as a Communist Party apparatchik would have no chance of getting a government job.

So, if Karl Rove's goons can find evidence that, for example, you--god forbid--supported McCain in the 2000 Republican race, you're highly suspect. Of course, if there's evidence that you're a Democrat, then forget about it. This is not the way regular government jobs have been filled in Washington in the past, in either Democratic or Republican administrations, and it's not the way it should be done.

Of course, when you make political loyalty the number one qualification for a job, you'll fill those jobs with a bunch of hacks who don't happen to be particularly good at the job in question. And that's what has happened--not just at the Justice Department--but throughout the government, at all kinds of agencies that have real responsibilities to the People. The government is now filled with Monica Goodlings (the Justice Dept. lawyer with an undergrad degree from Messiah University and a J.D. from Pat Robertson's Regent University, whose job it was to screen Justice Dept. hires.)

It's one of the reasons this administration has been so incompetent.

More On Bloomberg

Here's a quick supplement to our post yesterday on the impact of a Bloomberg candidacy on the race. First, here's results of a SurveyUSA poll of a hypothetical three-way match-up between Giuliani, Clinton and Bloomberg (the "New York 3") in a number of key states. Bloomberg doesn't get any higher than 15 percent--in NY--but he does bring a few states closer.

The problem is, it's way too early to tell. First, Bloomberg hasn't spent a dime of his billions yet on a slick marketing campaign. Second, Democratic and Republican partisans haven't yet had their favorite candidates rejected in favor of someone else.

Finally, here's another analysis, from Michael Barone, in US News--he also suspects that Bloomberg somewhat hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans, with the caveat that its awfully early to tell.

Bloomberg's Shadow

Can a Jewish, divorced billionaire former Democrat and former Republican be elected President?

Probably not. But the ever more likely independent run for President by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has everyone else scrambling to understand how it would affect the '08 race.

We'll start off by saying that our predictions for the race remain on track, to wit: Gingrich will also enter on the GOP side(although we don't rule out an independent run by him); the GOP will select its nominee at a contentious convention after no one racks up enough votes in the primaries; Bloomberg will run as an independent, along with another popular middle-roader, perhaps Hegel; Al Gore won't run (although he'll be sorely tempted); the Dems will probably nominate Hillary (but we won't rule out either Obama or Richardson). In addition, a "mainstream" right wing independent and a weaker left wing independent will also emerge as candidates capable of taking 2-3 percent of the vote. In other words, it's going to be a humdinger.

Now, let's go back to Bloomberg. We don't think he can win, although various other prognosticators come down on both sides. Today's WSJ has a report showing that in a hypothetical match-up of Bloomberg, Clinton and McCain, New York's mayor gets about 20 percent of the vote, taking votes away evenly from the Dems and Repubs. On the other hand, pollster John Zogby says in today's New York Daily News that Bloomberg could win, but his timing would have to be perfect.

We're with the WSJ on this one--he can't win--but we sure think his run will shake things up, including forcing the mainstream parties' nominees back to the middle and away from fringe politics. Here's one reason Bloomberg can't win: the electoral college. Remember, it's not the popular vote that wins in America, its the electoral college (or the Supreme Court, as in 2000).

Mayor Mike would not be able to come close to taking any Southern or border state. He would have a chance in the Northeast of taking a few states from Maryland to Maine if, say, he garnered 35-40 percent of the vote and the other candidates split down the middle (the only state we'd give him for sure, however, is independent-loving Connecticut). He might also take a couple Great Lakes states, such as Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois (if Obama is not the nominee). He'd have little chance in the Plains and Mountain West, but he could squeak out something on the Left Coast--California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. But even with an extremely unlikely sweep of all those states (we think he'd only get a handful) he wouldn't have a MAJORITY of electoral college votes, so all he could do is throw the election into the House of Representatives, where he would have no base.

In the process, however, Bloomberg could clearly shake things up in a major way

We think he hurts the Democratic nominee more than the Republican nominee, unless he causes the whole thing to go to the House of Representatives, where Democrats have control. And it could come to that, although we'd think it unlikely.

The problem for Democrats is that Bloomberg is more likely to pick off two or three Blue states (like Connecticut), but no Red states, in an environment where the electoral college vote remains very tight.

However, the analysis could change if Republicans nominate a "moderate" such as McCain or Giuliani, and then face a popular right-wing independent (Gingrich?). In that case, they could look at a siphoning off of as much as five percent of the vote, which would be greater (7-15 %) in the South, Border States and Mountain West, and could be enough to tip some of those states (especially Missouri, Florida, Arizona, Colorado) to a Democrat.

All of which is to say, "fasten your seatbelts" as it could be a wild ride.

Now, here's our dream line-up (which we don't see any chance of happening):

Dems: Al Gore

Republicans: John McCain

Independent: Michael Bloomberg

Right wing: Newt Gingrich

Left Wing: ????

What we would get would be a fantastic, intellectually oriented policy debate aimed at the center by candidates we believe do, for the most part, try to rise above partisanship. Like we said, it won't happen.

The race has a LONG way to go. Our last prediction is that something will happen that, as of now, NO ONE is predicting.

Don't Cry For Me, Detroit

Energy shenanigans galore.

We have to remember, of course, that energy is BIG money. REALLY big. So it comes as no surprise that lobbyists are working furiously on the massive energy bill being crafted in the Senate.

Yesterday, Senators soundly defeated the worst proposal out there: to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to turn coal into liquid fuel. Even the Republicans never came up with anything that awful.

Today, Senators are dickering madly over the arcane requirements of corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, as Detroit's "Big Three"--who really aren't all that big anymore--cry, moan, wail, gnash their teeth, scream and whine that they can't possibly meet a 35 mile per gallon requirement by 2020, much less a higher requirement after that.

Haven't we heard all that before? Air bags--they'll ruin us; catalytic converters--will bankrupt the industry; first round of fuel economy standards--can't be done.

Detroit's crybabies have no credibility; if the Senate wants to maintain the tiny modicum of its own credibility that still exists, it will pass a robust energy bill setting aggressive milestones for Detroit to reach. Whether Congress as a whole can pass a decent energy bill is yet to be seen.

Flash: Guiliani's SC State Chair Indicted On Crack Cocaine Charge

Quick flash: Thomas Ravenel, South Carolina's Republican State Treasurer and son of former GOP Congressman Arthur Ravenel, has been indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. (AP story here.)

This will be a blow to Rudy Giuliani's campaign in SC, an early primary state: Ravenel is Giuliani's state chairman.

Okay Rudy--time to give him the same treatment you gave minorities charged with drug crimes in New York!

Stupid Lenders

One really has to wonder about the mortgage industry.

A few months ago, we reported on the troubles our nanny is having in keeping her home. A couple years ago, when lenders were approving so-called "sub-prime" mortgages with barely a glance at the file, our nanny managed to get a first and a second mortgage on her home with relatively low "teaser" rates.

She could afford the initial payments and we guess everyone just thought real estate prices would climb 10% a year so she could refinance before the rates and her payments got too high.

Then her interest rate started to adjust upward and her payments skyrocketed. Right now, her mortgage payments are nearly $900/month higher than when they started, representing a 65% increase. Now she's behind in payments, with not much prospect of catching up.

However, if she could get her loans restructured, our nanny could keep her house. We're willing to help by co-signing and providing additional security, as well as bringing the loans current. You'd think that would be a terrific deal for the bank, which is Wachovia: they avoid a costly foreclosure with a loss of tens of thousands of dollars on the loan and they get a new loan that provides tremendous security.

But when the Curmudgeon contacted Wachovia to discuss a restructuring, he got the cold shoulder. Initially, we spoke to a Jennifer, at the Wachovia mortgage center in Philadelphia. She was helpful--we weren't surprised when she said she would need to refer us to someone higher up, and after a call to Wachovia's Charlotte HQ she soon transferred us to Wachovia's Wilmington service center, saying they could provide assistance. There, we spoke initially with a Kay, who also was helpful, saying she'd transfer us over to the right person.

We then got on the phone with a Monica Anthony in Wilmington and explained the situation. Ms. Anthony didn't seem at all interested in helping out. She said there were "brick walls" at every turn, but refused to elaborate so that we could see if there was a way to negotiate around the "brick walls." Her only offer, of which even she was skeptical, was to have us bring the delinquent payments current, then wait another 10-12 months--to "establish a good payment history"--and THEN talk about restructuring. Of course, that would require a year of making mortgage payments at the rather outrageous interest rate 10.125 percent in the vague hope of working something out. That's a nice fat profit for Wachovia, but not a flyer we're willing to take.

As for doing something now--mind you, to avoid a costly foreclosure for the bank--Ms. Anthony said "there's nothing we can do."

It's rather amazing that the same bank that two years ago could manage to do practically anything to give two loans to a lady with horrible credit and low income now says there's "nothing" it can do to restructure the loan under conditions that should be vastly more preferable to the bank than foreclosure (a foreclosure sale in the current market would undoubtedly net less than the outstanding value of the loans, and that's before the expenses of foreclosure.)

In the end, Wachovia deserves to take a bath on this one. The phrase "garbage in, garbage out" seems to apply to the mortgage industry these days.

We'll be helping our nanny out in some manner, but not to save Wachovia from itself.

UPDATE: Suspecting that the Wachovia person we got on the phone was simply lacking in imagination and initiative, we went over to our local Wachovia branch and tried again. This time, Wachovia's representative was much more helpful. After running through the pros and cons of a number of options, including going through the numbers with us, he came up with a successful strategy, under which we'll simply take a loan against our home for the amount of our nanny's loan--at an excellent interest rate--and then have her execute a note to us for the amount of the loan. This will, in effect, reduce her payments by nearly $900/month and leave us in about the same position as if we were a co-borrower.

The Power of Cross-Examination--The Sippy Cup Caper

We've been a delinquent little blogger--too much golf and all that, we're afraid.

One item that caught our interest this weekend, however, was a Post story about a lady getting harassed by the TSA at National Airport (it'll always be "National" to us) because her child's sippy cup spilled.

It reminded us of the one thing that's really great about being a trial lawyer: cross-examination.

The story started out in the blogosphere. Monica Emmerson, a former Secret Service agent, posted a little account on a website for city parents, where she said she'd been harassed by TSA agents on a recent trip, causing her to miss her flight and generally riling up her family.

A blogger, Bill Adler, saw the note, then called Emmerson to get her story, which he posted on his blog, where it was soon picked up by other bloggers. It was a great story--Big Brother; David versus Goliath; police state versus helpless woman. In her account, Emmerson said that as she went through security with her young son, the TSA screener seized her boy's sippy cup and told her she'd have to empty it out of any liquids if she wanted to keep it for the trip. Then, while trying to comply, she accidentally spilled the cup when her son started crying, after which security was called and Emmerson was forced to clean up the spill in front of watchful police.

This is where cross-examination comes in. In court, everyone has a good story. But all stories have two sides, and sometimes one is decidedly better than the other.

In this instance, there was a video, which TSA decided to release.

Here's how it would go in court:

Curmudgeonly lawyer: Now, Ms. Emmerson, you testified a moment ago, under oath, that you accidentally spilled your son's sippy cup, is that right?

Emmerson: That's correct, it was an accident.

CL: And after you accidentally spilled the sippy cup, security officers moved in and detained you without any provocation, correct?

E: Correct.

CL: Now, Ms. Emmerson, were you aware that the security area at the airport was under video surveillance?

E: (Confidently smiling at jurors) No, but I'm not surprised.

CL: And if such video existed, it would support the story you just told to the jury under oath, is that right?

E: (Squirming slightly) Yes, that's right.

CL: Your honor, we request permission to show Defense Exhibit 1, a video excerpt. [After the inevitable objection is overruled by a Judge who's now awake and amused at what's likely to happen next, the video plays.]

CL: Now, Ms. Emmerson, isn't it a fact that the video just seen by the jury clearly shows you screwing off the top of the sippy cup and deliberately dumping the contents on the floor in the middle of the security screening area?

E: Well, I don't think that's what it shows.

CL: So, your idea of accidentally spilling from a sippy cup is to screw off the top and dump it on the floor, is that right? (This question is accompanied by exaggerated movements of opening a sippy cup and dumping its contents on the floor.)

At this point, it doesn't matter what she says. The jurors are all nodding, the judge is smiling--finally a moment of drama in the courtroom--and the few spectators are murmuring. A good lawyer then says "no further questions" and sits down.

But, for most lawyers cross examination is so much fun that they don't sit down now--having achieved the kill, they go for more. And that's where it all breaks down. Pretty soon they're on to something they haven't really thought through and the witness recovers and the jury starts to think the lawyer is just being mean and the lawyer's point gets lost. Only on television does it happen so crisply.

We applaud the TSA for giving us this cross-examination moment by releasing the video. We know it's a hassle, for all of us, to have to go through the screening; and we doubt that we're any more secure by virtue of regulations requiring sippy cups to be empty when going through the checkpoint. But, when Ms. Emmerson deliberately dumped her son's sippy cup on the floor, she deserved to be required to clean it up. We don't think she's worthy of being a blogosphere hero.

Energy Bill Mess

The House and Senate are taking up energy bills.

It's a mess.

We're not sure the Democrats are going to come up with anything better than the Republicans.

A group of Senate Democrats is pushing coal liquefication. We don't need cars running on coal!

"Democrat" Rich Boucher, of Virginia, is even pushing a measure to prevent states like California from leading the way on reduction of carbon emissions. Must make Bush proud.

Others are pushing to increase subsidies for corn-based ethanol. We don't need more corn ethanol, either. We're already spending billions and all it's doing is raising food prices.

What's wrong with these people!

We're beginning to think we'd be better off without Congress.

Pants Suit

A few weeks ago we posted on the story of an administrative law judge in D.C. who was suing his local dry cleaners for more than $50 million over a pair of misplaced pants.

Yesterday, the case sadly went to trial. It garnered international media coverage--one of those lawyers as laughing stocks/Washington as laughing stock stories.

Fortunately, the plaintiff in the case, Roy Pearson, dropped his damages demand before trial, reducing it from $65 million to a mere $54 million.

Here's what we hope the judge does: award Mr. Pearson about $100 in damages for his lost pants and require Mr. Pearson to pay the attorneys fees of the defendant dry cleaners. Pearson should also be stripped of his job as an administrative judge for an obvious lack of judgement, which is a prerequisite to being a judge. Imagine having this whacko decide your case! The D.C. Bar, which has now suffered a nice little black eye, should also take some form of action.

The judge handling the trial also bears some blame in all this. She could've avoided the media spectacle by wisely striking most of Pearson's claims before the trial--indeed long before the trial so as to avoid needless legal expense by the defendant--and entering an order setting a limit on his damages.

The whole thing reflects adversely on our legal system.

Quick Take On Virginia Primaries

Primaries are a dicey proposition when you have no federal or statewide races on the ballot. Voter turnout is tiny and those who do vote tend to be the most committed of party activists.

Yesterday's Virginia primaries illustrated this. Two moderate Republican state senate incumbents lost to more ideologically "pure" conservative challengers. That may create an opening for Democrats in those races--we'll see.

On the Democratic side, Del. Donald McEachin, an African-American who strongly supported Jim Webb's successful run for the Senate, ousted incumbent Senator Benjamin Lambert, an African-American who made the mistake of casting his lot with defeated Senator George Allen. It was a nice payback for Democrats who felt betrayed by Lambert.

In Arlington, incumbent Treasurer Frank O'Leary easily cruised to victory over a surprising challenger.

And, to show what little the Curmudgeon knows, Morris Meyer--who we recently endorsed in a Fairfax County race for Delegate, lost in the Democratic primary to Rex Simmons. No hard feelings here: we wish Simmons all the best in his race now to unseat the Republican incumbent.

Common Ground With . . . Bob Barr?!

Bob Barr is a hard-right wing former representative from Georgia. We doubt there's much we would agree on.

It's always pleasant, however, when someone from the other side surprises you with an unexpectedly enlightened position.

And so, today, we have Bob Barr writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, in "Don't Ask, Who Cares," to chastise the GOP Presidential wannabes who, in their anti-gay pandering, refused even to endorse lifting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Barr says "we can no longer afford to bar gays from the military" and even goes so far as state the proposition that "equal treatment of gay and lesbian service members is about as conservative a position as one cares to articulate." While we doubt many conservatives agree with him on the latter point--and indeed Barr's virulent brand of hard-core conservatism is in part responsible for the cowardly positions of the Republican Prez candidates--we're happy to see some realization on the right that discouraging qualified gays from military service is a self-defeating proposition.

Hillary and Alcee

Hillary Clinton's campaign has announced that Florida Representative Alcee Hastings will be one of her national co-chairs.

Bad idea.

Hastings is the last federal judge to be impeached by Congress. His impeachment stemmed from serious corruption charges. Appointed to the bench as a federal district court judge by Jimmy Carter in 1979, Hastings was soon indicted after being caught up in an FBI bribery sting. He was acquitted in a jury trial, but then impeached for perjury in the trial, which involved a number of significant irregularities.

The issue was never really even close. The House--then controlled by Democrats--voted 413-3 to impeach Hastings. The Senate convicted Hastings on 8 out of 11 counts that were considered.

Significantly, the Hastings impeachment was assigned to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, chaired by veteran African-American representative John Conyers. Initially, Conyers was skeptical, viewing the charges as racist. As he reviewed and heard the evidence, however, he became convinced that racism had played no part in the investigation, prosecution or recommendation to commence impeachment proceedings.

Conyers ultimately supported the impeachment resolution, neutralizing the race issue. "We did not wage that civil rights struggle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption for another," said Conyers. "We can no more close our eyes to acts that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors when practiced by judges whose views we approve than we could when practiced by judges whose views we detested. . . . It would be disloyal to the essential principles of the civil rights movement to my oath of office to attempt to set up a double standard."

It's a shame that Florida voters, most ignorant of the real facts, subsequently elected Hastings to Congress. That's their mistake, however.

At least when the Democrats re-took Congress last year, in part on an anti-corruption platform, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wisely removed Hastings from consideration as a Committee chairman.

So what is Hillary up to? Pandering for votes among Florida's African-American community, no doubt. Making Hastings a national campaign co-chairman, however, is a big mistake. Democrats should continue to marginalize--not martyrize--Hastings.

Now That's A Good One

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got off a good line in a speech to the Center for American Progress yesterday:

"The one fact I've learned--I can't get out of my mind--is that Rudy Guiliani's been married more times than Mitt Romney's been hunting."