7 November 2011 >>
Recently, I brought a camera and a few multiple-choice questions to Zuccotti Park, where I conducted a quiz game with some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. As a reward for getting the answers right, contestants were able to choose among several options for prizes. Unfortunately, one gentleman in the audience apparently did not appreciate the prize selections made by his fellow protesters, so he disrupted the game, bear-hugged me, grabbed the question cards out of my hand and attempted to run off with them before I stopped him.
You can watch the video embedded below, or visit YouTube:
Click through to the video page to see footnotes for the questions in the quiz.
Video >>
And over the weeks that followed, friends and online acquaintances sent me pictures to post online, each doing their part to preserve another memory of what happened that day. You can find these pictures here.
17 August 2009 @ 10:33PM >>
Last week, I called the office of Jerrold Nadler, my congressman, to see if he would be holding any constituent meetings on health care.
Today, I got a recorded call from Congressman Nadler inviting me to participate in a “live telephone town hall” at 8PM this evening. The call came in at 7:35PM.
Of course, this timing left constituents with a mere 25 minutes warning. (I didn’t even get a chance to listen to the voicemail until the “town hall” was long over.)
I’m sure the short notice caused many folks to miss the opportunity to question their congressman directly. Perhaps that was by design.
A cynical political observer might conclude that Congressman Nadler wanted as few people calling as possible.
14 July 2009 @ 9:11AM >>
This weekend, while walking around NYC, I noticed a couple more propaganda posters put up by members of the Cult of Obama.
The first, “Siddhartha Obama,” is a large mural on the side of a building in Chelsea. It shows Obama as The Enlightened One holding solar panels, and features Dick Cheney popping out of a stars-and-stripes-painted Hummer and gas pumps bearing the Republican Party logo sitting atop coffins draped in American flags.
Whatever words you can use to describe these cult members, “subtle” is not one of them.
The second propaganda display was spotted inside the Blades board and skate store on Broadway near Great Jones. Adorned with pictures of Barack, Michelle and the campaign logo, it says simply, “Obey.”
“Siddhartha Obama” appears on a wall outside an art gallery, which is at least an understandable venue for over-the-top Obama worship; it’s almost a job requirement for artists that they be driven purely by emotion. The political naivete of assuming one politician will be Our Savior is the sort of thinking artists are almost expected to adopt.
But I find it strange that businesses keep attaching themselves to the Obama Cult, because in theory, they should want to minimize the number of customers they drive away with partisan propaganda.
Then again, in America today, as government takes over more and more companies and tightens regulatory control on the rest, customers matter less and less to companies.
“The customer is never wrong” is last century’s business maxim. Now, it’s “the government is never wrong.” So maybe companies are just making business calculations and deciding that it’s smart to make a public spectacle of their allegiance to Obama.
19 January 2009 >>
Congressman Charles Rangel has been in the news quite a bit lately. He’s having trouble keeping up with his taxes, despite being the chairman of the committee responsible for writing the nation’s tax laws.
Video >>
31 December 2008 >>
Just days before Barack Obama was elected president, Pepsi unveiled a new logo. According to some, the updated logo bears a striking resemblance to Obama’s campaign logo. Wonkettesaid it was “what would happen if a can of Tab had sex with Barack Obama.”
To me, the notion that Pepsi would consciously mimic the Obama logo seems like a bit of a stretch. Considering how fickle poll numbers can be, why would a major mass-market brand risk being seen as promoting a particular politician? Nobody in politics remains popular forever.
But when I left work Monday evening, I saw something that made me wonder if I my assumptions were wrong.
You see, my office is in Times Square, where advertisers are revving up for the millions of people who will see tonight’s New Year’s Eve festivities.
And directly across the street from my office, at the base of the building where a crystalline sphere counts down the final seconds of every year, Pepsi placed a sign that looked familiar:
In case your memory wasn’t jogged by the photo above, here’s a hint:
If Pepsi is invoking Obama’s campaign materials deliberately—and I have no reason to believe that they are—then maybe the folks behind it see some business sense in doing so.
Judging from the volume of painted plates and limited-edition coins being hawked on TV ads that gush about Obama’s “kind eyes and warm smile,” the Merchandising of the President-Elect might be the only growth industry left.
Here in NYC, you can’t walk a block in midtown without passing several street vendors pushing Obamawear. But maybe I’m only perceiving this avalanche of advertising and street trinkets because I’m stuck inside the New York bubble.
Could Obama’s campaign imagery help sell sugared water to a entire nation?
I’m skeptical. The United States isn’t Manhattan, and selecting a particular brand of cola isn’t usually where people make political statements.
If the new Pepsi logo was designed to evoke the Obama logo, maybe the Ad Men of Madison Avenue—unable to see outside the New York bubble themselves—simply miscalculated on something that could backfire. Or maybe they launched this redesign fully aware that they were using one of the world’s most recognizable brands as collateral in a big bet on the political fortunes of one person.
2 December 2008 @ 9:03AM >>
My friend Lon Symensma, who worked the camera on my first video, introduced me to my wife Jill, was one of the groomsmen at my wedding, and who supplied me many times with fine meals when I was his Kramer-like mooching next-door neighbor, is currently one of the two finalists for the “Hottest Chef in NY” contest at Eater.com.
After stints at Jean Georges and Spice Market, Lon is now the executive chef at Buddakan, one of the top restaurants in NYC. (If you’ve never been there, you might have seen part of the restaurant’s interior in the Sex and the City movie.)
City officials have ordered 22 New York churches to stop providing beds to homeless people.
With temperatures well below freezing early Saturday, the churches must obey a city rule requiring faith-based shelters to be open at least five days a week — or not at all.
Arnold Cohen, president of the Partnership for the Homeless, a nonprofit that serves as a link with the city, said he had to tell the churches they no longer qualify.
He said hundreds of people now won’t have a place to sleep.
The Department of Homeless Services said the city offers other shelters with the capacity to accept all those who have been sleeping in the churches. The city had 8,000 beds waiting.
Sure, the city can take them in, but maybe some of the homeless prefer the church-provided beds to the city shelters, even if they’re only available a few nights a week.
I’ve been in many city government buildings, and I’ve yet to find one I’d feel comfortable taking a 5-minute nap in, much less sleeping through the night.
And although I can’t say I’ve spent the night in a city-run homeless shelter, I find it hard to believe that any of them are an improvement over the other esteemed edificies maintained by the City of New York.
If the churches are willing to provide the beds and some homeless are opting for them over the city’s shelters, why impose an arbitrary rule to deny one more option to people who already have so few?
Russia’s parliament is rushing through plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six, leading to speculation that Vladimir Putin plans a dramatic return to the Kremlin.
A constitutional amendment is to be fast-tracked through the Duma, the lower house of parliament, which will vote tomorrow on all three readings of the Bill. Deputies usually take weeks to consider legislation over three readings before passing it into law.
[...]
An unnamed Kremlin adviser was quoted in Vedomosti, a daily business newspaper, last week as saying that the reform was intended to restore Mr Putin to the presidency as early as next year. He became Prime Minister after selecting Mr Medvedev to be his successor in elections in March.
Under such a scheme Mr Medvedev, 43, would enact the amendment and some unpopular social reforms. He would then resign and call a snap election in 2009 to make way for his mentor to return.
Mr Putin, 56, would govern for two more terms of six years each, until 2021, allowing him to fulfil the Putin Plan for the social and economic development of Russia.
Mr Putin fanned the belief that he is preparing for a comeback as president by pointedly refusing to state who would be the first to benefit from a longer term.
“I support Dimitri Medvedev’s proposal. As regards to who can run for the next term and when, it is premature to talk about this,” he said after a meeting with Matti Vanhanen, the Finnish Prime Minister.
He added: “We are looking for instruments which would allow us to guarantee sovereignty, to implement our long-term plans . . . and assist the development of democratic processes in the country.”
[...]
By engineering his return to the Kremlin, however, Mr Putin will strengthen criticism that Russia is sliding into dictatorship.
6 August 2008 @ 8:58AM >>
One year ago tomorrow, I was sued for defamation and interference with contract by a laundromat located in my former apartment building. For a while, my fiancee and I were customers of Todd Layne Cleaners until we tired of its rude and incompetent service. Eventually, I came to the informed conclusion that Todd Layne Cleaners “sucks” and is “overpriced.”
For expressing these two opinions to the neighbors in my building, a creature named Todd Ofsink, the “Todd” in Todd Layne Cleaners, sued me. (You see, Todd is fortunate enough to have a brother, Darren, who owns a big Madison Avenue law firm called Guzov Ofsink. Darren Ofsink’s firm is representing brother Todd.)
In response to the lawsuit, I created a website called ToddLayneCleanersSucks.com where I documented the case and the incidents that led up to it. This caused Ofsink to increase the damages in his lawsuit; instead of suing me for $20,000, it became $300,000.
I generally don’t write about my personal life on this site, but I wrote about this case last October after the New York Post got wind of it. And now that the case is approaching its one year mark, I thought it was time for an update.
The case is still ongoing, oozing through the courts with all the speed of cold molasses.
Initially, the court threw out Ofsink’s defamation claim, upholding my constitutional right to express my opinion about his business. The court should have thrown out the interference with contract claim too; that claim was just a smokescreen for the dismissed defamation claim.
Why is the case still alive? Because courts are reluctant to dismiss a case before the plaintiff has had an opportunity to gather evidence. The evidence-gathering phase is called “discovery,” wherein each side is allowed to demand evidence from the other. After the discovery phase is complete, I will have an opportunity to move the court for summary judgment. If I am successful, the case won’t proceed to trial, but instead, will be dismissed.
In my discovery demands, I asked for several things, including financial records to support Ofsink’s claim that my criticism of his business caused him to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. I also asked for the store’s security camera tapes, because Ofsink swore under oath that I attempted to disrupt his business by “simulating masturbation” within his store. Later, Ofsink tacitly admitted his statement was false by recasting his earlier characterization as merely a “euphamism.”
Ofsink misled the court by making false sworn statements under oath, which is why he refuses to turn over the store’s security camera tapes or anything else. He knows that if caught lying to the court, he could be subject to monetary sanctions, or even criminal prosecution for perjury.
The deadline to produce discovery was in mid-February. Not surprisingly, nearly half-a-year later, Ofsink still hasn’t produced any of the required documentation. (Meanwhile, I’ve responded to his discovery demands in good faith, turning over 116 pages of documents he requested.)
Ofsink’s excuses for violating his discovery obligations are comedic. The following gives you a sense of his petty antics. (My requests are at the top of each scan, followed by his response.)
As you can see from these responses, Ofsink isn’t even willing to turn over evidence documenting his own claims. His strategy is to drag this case out as long as possible, hoping that I will eventually buckle and sign a non-disparagement agreement. That’s what he demands in exchange for dropping the case.
In other words, Ofsink will only stop using his brother’s law firm to harass me for engaging in free speech if—and only if—I agree to sign away my right to criticize his business.
It ain’t gonna happen.
In the meantime, I’ve filed a motion asking the court to compel Ofsink to comply with discovery, and I’m awaiting the court’s decision. That’s where things stand now.
The wheels of justice grind slowly, and the cost of exercising one’s most basic rights can sometimes be quite high. But if people don’t stand up to the Ofsinks of the world, we won’t even have the right to criticize lousy service from our local cleaners.
14 April 2008 @ 9:11AM >>
Reminder: The New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U is this evening at 6:30PM. For more information, visit the Indoctrinate U website.
Also, I’m scheduled to discuss the film and the premiere on Fox & Friends tomorrow morning at 7:40AM (Eastern time).
16 December 2007 @ 10:36AM >>
If Muslims like Hassan Askari and Mansoor Ijaz got more attention from the media—and more support from their fellow believers around the world—we would have much less reason to worry about the future of humanity.
6 December 2007 @ 8:36AM >>
Did you know that the radical left-wing group ACORN has its own taxpayer-financed public high school in New York City? I didn’t, until it was reported today that some parents are unhappy with the principal.
Going unasked in all the coverage, of course, is why the City of New York would hand the reins of a public school over to a political organization?
Three Chinese parents in Brooklyn are expected to file a federal lawsuit today challenging a popular city-run tutoring program on the grounds it discriminates against Asians, The Post has learned.
The Specialized High School Institute preps gifted but “underrepresented” minorities to ace the competitive exam to get into top city high schools like Stuyvesant or Brooklyn Tech.
But the parents say it is unfair - and illegal - for the Department of Education to limit eligibility to blacks and Latinos.
“The program only selects certain kinds of minorities and unfortunately my daughter didn’t fall into that category,” said Peggy Foo-Ching, 47, a mom from Bensonhurst who said her 12-year-old daughter’s application last year was ignored.
[...]
A Department of Education internal memo obtained by lawyers trying the case indicated that eligibility criteria excludes whites and Asians.
“What this memo reveals is blatant and categorical discrimination by race. If you are white or Asian, you’re not supposed to get an application,” said Christopher Hajec, an attorney with the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative advocacy group.
“It’s not the business of the government of New York City to be counting up the Asians or whites in, say, Stuyvesant High School and concluding there are too many of them.”
[...]
The father who initiated the suit, Stanley Ng, said he understood how controversial his challenge may be viewed.
“It’s not something that I take lightly,” he said. “There are many Asian and white kids in this district who can’t pay for tutoring. What is their recourse?”
7 October 2007 @ 11:32AM >>
The old saying goes, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
Well, sometimes, life hands you a bushel of lemons, a block of ice, a bag of sugar, a nice big pitcher, and a whole bunch of cups.
This happened to me recently, when I became the target of a lawsuit that goes to the heart of what it means to have the right to share your opinions with your fellow citizens.
For the past four years, in putting together the film Indoctrinate U, I investigated administrative abuses against free speech and free thought rights on college campuses. To me, the topic is of vital importance to our nation’s health.
If a generation of students graduates into a society riven by a worsening political divide, what would the effect on that society be if those students were never afforded the opportunity to engage in real, down-and-dirty debate in the one venue where people can pursue a life of the mind? Eventually, you end up with a society that fears free speech, because its citizens have gotten used to being protected from the uncomfortable aspects of hearing things that they vehemently oppose. By coddling students and attempting to shield them from reality by stifling certain speech, academia is directly contributing to a diminishing respect for free speech in the larger society.
On campus, administrators and student mobs do the dirty work of shutting down speech that falls outside what academics consider to be the realm of acceptability. Around the world, we see instances where governments, police and military forces put people to death for having the wrong thinking. These sorts of transgressions happen relatively infrequently in Western society, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a clear and present threat to free speech.
Out of necessity, while putting together Indoctrinate U, I immersed myself in trying to understand the legal ramifications of speech. I knew that the film would anger a lot of folks at institutions that have lawyers on retainer. I knew we could be targeted legally whether justified or not.
But it turns out, it wasn’t Indoctrinate U that got me dragged into court. It was a dispute with a dry cleaner, of all things.
Today’s New York Post, which heard about the case after the plaintiffs filed to have the case moved to New York Supreme Court, contains a short piece on the story.
I was originally sued for $20,000 for the words, “Todd Layne Cleaners sucks and is overpriced.” Admittedly, my words were juvenile and, to some, offensive. But as a statement of opinion—an opinion formed after a long string of negative experiences with this cleaner—it is quite clearly constitutionally protected speech.
But Todd Ofsink, the owner of the cleaners, sued me for expressing my well-grounded displeasure with his business. Fortunately for Ofsink, his brother Darren is an partner in the law firm of Guzov Ofsink. So he is getting an endless supply of legal work from his brother’s firm, presumably for free. Ofsink knows that I would have to pay to defend my right to criticize his business, so he figured I’d be an easy target. His attorney brother told me that if I signed a non-disparagement agreement—in effect, giving up the right to criticize his business—he would drop the lawsuit.
They were hoping that I would do what most people would do: sign the agreement, end the case, put it out of my misery, and not waste tens of thousands of dollars defending a right that’s guaranteed to me as a U.S. citizen.
I decided to try to fight the case myself, without an attorney representing me in court. I didn’t want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend a right that I already had, but I also thought it would be an interesting test. After all, I knew I wasn’t the only person who’s been sued for expressing displeasure with a business.
What would other people do in such a case? Would they fight it themselves? Or would they buckle under and sign away their rights to a bully? And if they decided to fight, is the legal system today even accessible to the individual, or has the law in our society become so professionalized and abstracted from daily life that individuals have no way to defend themselves?
This brings me back to the lemonade. Although this nuisance lawsuit has brought me much personal agitation, it also perfectly illustrates the troubles faced by many others. I could be a guinea pig going through this aggravating process to demonstrate whether or not the average citizen can navigate the legal process to defend the rights enumerated in constitutional law.
Morgan Spurlock subjected himself to a month of McDonald’s for Super Size Me. If I was going to be subjected months and months of a convoluted legal process, maybe some good could come out of it by incorporating the story into a film.
One of the things that inspired me when making Indoctrinate U was all the students whose academic careers were in jeopardy—simply for having the wrong views—who fought back and won. Most people end up backing down when confronted with a system aligned against them. Those were the stories we never heard, because the people involved went away quietly and defeated. But by putting some of the people who stood up and prevailed on screen, I hoped to encourage others to fight for their right to think freely. Little did I know that those same students would inspire me to defend my own rights of free speech.
Perhaps my story could serve as a lesson for others. Unfortunately, I don’t know what that lesson is, because the story isn’t over. I’m still fighting it in court, and Todd Ofsink, his attorney brother Darren, and their courtroom litigant Damien Matthew Bosco, keep trying to ratchet up the pressure.
After filing the original lawsuit against me, Ofsink found out through my court filings that I was a documentary filmmaker. He also discovered that I’m not exactly politically in tune with most of my fellow New Yorkers.
Suddenly, Ofsink filed a new motion with additional accusations that were not included in the original complaint. He claims, for example, that I “simulated masturbation in front of female employees.” But Ofsink also made the mistake of claiming to have security cameras covering the store, which allows me to make this challenge: put the security tape online. What the world will see is an angry former customer making a dismissive hand gesture after Todd Ofsink makes his initial threat to sue me.
Once he leaned about my filmmaking career, Ofsink also jacked up the amount of money he’s trying to take from me: now it’s $300,000!
I hate to tell them, but in all these years of service, I have still not received my first check from the Vast Conspiracy. Being a documentary filmmaker is not lucrative unless you can get Hollywood to distribute your films. And as I can tell you, that’s not easy for someone of my pursuasion. So if jacking up the cost of his attempt to use the legal system to extract more money from me, he won’t be too happy to hear about the state of my finances.
But I’m not convinced that their motivation is money. It seems clear to me that their maneuverings are calculated to pressure me into signing the non-disparagement agreement that they have now offered me twice. They are just trying to use the legal system to shut down legitimate criticism of their business.
Sorry, gentlemen, it’s not going to happen. I will not sign away my rights. If you insist on fighting this ludicrous case, then I will keep fighting it until I win. Your lawyers will lose to a guy representing himself with no legal degree, but who has the law on his side. In this country, I am still allowed to criticize businesses that provide lousy and rude service. I am still allowed to tell my neighbors all about it. So, you can either drop the case and save yourselves further embarrassment, or you can continue trying to put the screws to me and in the process give me a great story to tell the world.
Where will this end up? Who knows! All I know is that I wish it weren’t happening. But because it is, then maybe some other folks might benefit from watching my experience—whatever my experience ends up being.
2 March 2007 @ 10:39AM >>
“At Columbia University, the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow. If at all.” So say the editors of the New York Post in reference to the student mob that, last October, shut down a speech by someone who—horror of horrors—actually supports enforcement of the nation’s borders.
Now Columbia wants the restricted speech zone that is its campus to expand into surrounding neighborhoods. And Columbia wants the government to evict the current occupants so the school can take the land for itself. Columbia hopes the city will use its power of eminent domain to seize the land from the people who currently own it, which the city can do even if the land owners don’t want to sell.
An ideologically inspired mob attacked an invited speaker at one of America’s great universities. Months pass, and no meaningful punishment is meted out, and the university’s president - whose own academic specialty is the First Amendment - has yet to extend a personal apology to the victim.
And this same university - which clearly is unwilling to police its own grounds - seeks to extend its reach into surrounding neighborhoods by using the government’s power to condemn and seize private homes and businesses.
The two issues aren’t directly related, but eminent domain is such an extreme exercise of government power that it should only be used sparingly and with the greatest care and consideration. The city isn’t obligated to seize the land and give it to Columbia. And the city has every right—no, the city has a duty—to consider the behavior of the organizations that benefit from the exercise of its power.
27 January 2007 @ 5:38AM >>
For some reason, most Manhattanites I know reflexively oppose Wal-Mart setting up shop in our slender island borough. However, there are at least three women here who don’t. And, as if by coincidence, they all managed to simultaneously occupy the same room.
10 January 2007 >>
At Pace University—a school that until September 11th, 2001 stood in the shadows of the World Trade Center—showing a film critical of radical Islam is apparently considered a hate crime:
Pace University administrators threatened to sic the cops on a Jewish-student club if it went ahead with plans to screen a critically acclaimed film about radical Islam, the head of the group charged yesterday.
Michael Abdurakhmanov, president of Pace Hillel, said two deans warned that showing the documentary film would implicate club members as suspects in two hate crimes involving the desecration of the Koran at the university’s lower-Manhattan campus last fall.
In addition, Abdurakhmanov said an assistant dean physically restrained him as he attempted to defend the film and his group in a meeting with administrators.
“The message was pretty clear, if you show this film, you’re going to incriminate yourself,” Abdurakhmanov said.
[...]
“Her words were if you show this film, the police will be looking into your records further,” Abdurakhmanov said.
15 November 2006 >>
In an editorial entitled “A Grand New Republican Party,” the New York Times gives New York State’s Republicans a bit of advice:
A pragmatist like Mayor Michael Bloomberg could serve as the vanguard of a new New York Republican Party. He won twice in a heavily Democratic city by adding probity and managerial expertise to Mr. Pataki’s issues list. Some upstaters regard Mr. Bloomberg as too independent — their term is RINO, or Republican in Name Only. That’s a self-destructive attitude for a party on the ropes. New York’s G.O.P. should embrace the city’s dynamic mayor as its guiding star.
Asking Republicans to be more like Mayor Bloomberg is akin to asking Republicans to be more like Democrats. In fact, until shortly before deciding to run for Mayor, Mike Bloomberg was a Democrat. One theory to explain his party change is that it was borne out of political expedience.
In a city where the Democratic primary is usually the election that determines who will fill a given office, Mayor Bloomberg’s late switch to become a Republican enabled him to sidestep the competition in the Democratic primary. So, while five Democratic candidates were bashing each other in the primary campaign, Bloomberg sat on the sidelines, unbloodied by the primary fight, and used his fortune to edge out Mark Green, the Democratic opponent who barely survived a run-off just weeks before the general election.
Bloomberg’s been a decent mayor, and I probably would have voted for him regardless of party affiliation, but if he’s the future of the Republicanism, then there really is no difference between the two parties. Party labels should represent something more than a mere brand name; they should tell you something about the candidate’s underlying philosophy. Parties should stand for some defining and distinguishing ideas.
But what’s laughable is that the editors of a paper that hasn’t endorsed a single Republican presidential nominee in over fifty years would decide, out of the kindness of their hearts, to try and help Republicans with some unsolicited advice.
Still, maybe we should give the Times the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there are some well-placed Republicans at the paper using the editorial page to try to righten a ship that has clearly veered off course.
How do we find out? Check the voter database maintained by the New York City Board of Elections. It’s a matter of public record, so anyone can conduct their own search.
For simplicity, this search was limited to Manhattan, and in cases where there was ambiguity (multiple identical names, wrong professions listed, etc.), the results were ignored. Nine Times bigwigs showed up:
Believe it or not, one Republican was found, although as an associate editor, he isn’t exactly the highest man on the totem pole. And whereas the Democrats listed above voted in nearly every special election, primary and general election, our lone Republican—who shall remain nameless lest it jeopardize his job—is much less active in his political involvement. According to the Board of Elections, he’s voted only 3 times since 1985. I guess that’s the only kind of Republican tolerated on the editorial board of the New York Times.
So, here’s the recap: out of nine people found, one is a Republican. Keep that in mind when you read Times editors. You may not be getting a balanced view of the world, but at least now you’ll know where they’re coming from (mostly the Upper West Side, according to the voter database).
And if you’re a Republican official in New York State trying to figure out whether to heed the advice of the Times, perhaps my friend Marcus put it best: “It’s like George Steinbrenner giving pointers to the Boston Red Sox.”
7 November 2006 >>
Sexual harassment case law is about to get a lot more complicated:
Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
[...]
The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)
The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.
[...]
“I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there,” Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. “He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them.”
[...]
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority also agreed last month to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.
[...]
“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” [Joann Prinzivalli, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization] said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”
In other news, I have two brains and 58 fingers. Why? Because I say so!
5 September 2006 >>
On a remarkably clear morning five years ago, New York City came under attack. This video memorial, taken from footage shot by eyewitness David Vogler, shows New Yorkers waking up to that grim reality. Crystal Morning tells the story of September 11th, 2001 through fire and ambulance radio calls, the 911 call of a trapped World Trade Center worker, and the lens of local resident who saw an explosion while walking to work.
Video >>
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says golf fairways would suffer if illegal immigrants were returned to their native country.
“You and I are beneficiaries of these jobs,” Bloomberg told his WABC-AM radio co-host, John Gambling. “You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?”
26 March 2006 @ 1:35PM >>
Step 1: Have a few drinks. Step 2: Enter subway tracks and attempt to outrun oncoming train. Step 3: Get hit by train, sue, collect money.
The state’s highest court has decided the Transit Authority should be held liable for a train hitting a Queens man - even though the man was illegally trespassing on the subway tracks after a night of drinking.
The ruling by the state Court of Appeals Thursday makes Juan Soto a millionaire with $400,000 to spare.
By a 4-to-3 vote, the judges concluded that Sojo, who was 18 at the time of the 1997 incident, was “undeniably reckless” for walking near the electrified rails in Queens along the No. 7 line.
[...]
The TA had claimed that Soto had gone to a Manhattan bar with three pals, consuming six beers and a shot of whisky.
Soto’s lawyer, Brian Isaac, insisted there was no proof that Soto was drunk. Isaac conceded yesterday that his client may have had as many as seven drinks, but they were spread over at least seven hours.
[...]
A jury initially awarded Soto $1.4 million, finding the TA 75% at fault. An appellate court affirmed the decision by a 3-to-2 vote.
