D.C. United v. Chelsea FC

Here I will take my inaugural attempt at being a sports writer. So last night, a group of us (roommates, friends) went to go see the D.C. United v. Chelsea soccer match at FedEx field. After running my butt off all afternoon to try to finish a brief that was due yesterday, my co-worker and I arrive at the Landover metro stop, where there is supposed to be a shuttle to the stadium (it's a few miles away). There's a line of people waiting at a bus stop, so we get in line, figuring that's the bus. Well, about 5 minutes later, the station manager walks out and starts telling everyone that there's not any shuttle, he doesn't know who told us there was a shuttle (Metro website, etc.), but the bus we're waiting for is the street bus which will let us out at Landover Mall and we can walk from there. (probably 1/2 mile?). (evidently the shuttle is contracted by the Redskins, so it didn't run for the D.C. United game, but no one bothered to actually investigate this.) So then everyone starts running over to the cab stand where there is 1 cab for now about 50 irate soccer fans. So we call the cab phone number and tell them they are going to need to send several cabs over. So six random people pile into this cab, I am squished up against some Chelsea fan who freely admits that he became a Chelsea fan when Abramovich bought them out, two girls sitting on each other's lap in the front seat...you get the picture. Then the cabbie tells us, so you know what the fare is? It's $7 each. (to do the math, that's $42 for a few mile cab ride. I could take the Chinatown bus to NYC for cheaper. A lot cheaper.) We're all grumbling and finally someone barters him down to $5 each, which is still highway robbery, but we take it, because, really, what other choice do we have?
(nostalgic interlude: we drove past my elementary school, Kenmoor, which I haven't seen in probably 16 years.)
Okay, now it's been a long time since I've been to a professional soccer game, or any professional sports game for that matter. (In fact, I'd have to say it was a Capitals hockey game in 1999.) These people are crazy. We were sitting behind La Barra Brava, the fan club for D.C. United, complete with matching jerseys, huge drums, chants, and wierd hand gestures that look vaguely like the "heil Hitler" move. Very surreal. But we were fairly close to the goal line, so we had a good view of the one and only goal scored by D.C. United early in the first half. Well, I use "we" figuratively, since I had turned to answer a question Jenny had asked at the exact moment when we scored. And well, the game was pretty much downhill from there, although it did pick back up right at the end. People got really excited when Freddy Adu came on for the second half, which is funny because he's not even the best player, but I guess there's something fun or novel about cheering for a 16 year old. Chelsea was up 2-1 when the 90 minutes were up, but the referees added 2 minutes. I don't know much about soccer, but there was definitely some faking of injuries going on in the last 2 minutes, on the part of Chelsea, it seemed, to drag out the game. Just my amateur opinion. you can read the professional review
here.
During half-time, they had these 8 year olds come out and play on half-fields, with the small goals you had when you were a kid--these kids were adorable and not half-bad. I wonder if it even phased them that they were playing to a crowd of 30,000?

World's Sexiest Vegetarian?

I'm sure there's been a mistake in the tallying, but for some reason, I was not included on this list. Instead, it's Chris Martin of Coldplay and Carrie Underwood, the American Idol star. Hmm. Maybe they heard that rumor of me eating albondigas with Jen? article here.

Changing Catchphrases

Interesting piece on NPR this morning on the administration's change from using the phrase "War on Terrorism" in 2001 to the current "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism." Listen here.

Incentives for Marriage

Sen. Brownback of Kansas has introduced a bill to offer financial incentives for low-income D.C. residents to get and stay married. Article here. Let me say first, that I don't necessarily have a problem with the substance of this bill. I think that there is truth that children with two parents, on the average, (with lots of exceptions) have more support and live in less poverty, etc. And I do not think there is anything wrong with a social policy which promotes marriage, provided it does not become coercive where spouses cannot get out of unhealthy situations (tough divorce laws, etc.) (A social policy which supports marriage between any two competent adults would be even better, but that's another story for another day.)
Here is my problem: Senator Brownback, get the heck out of my city. This is the federal government meddling in local issues at its worst. Yes, D.C. is a federal colony, subject to the whims of senators from Kansas who think they know what is best for this city. If promoting marriage by tax incentives is a good idea, why not do it for the whole country? Why single out D.C.? Harumph.

Return of the Prodigal Blogger

I have returned to cyberspace, my friends. After being encompassed by the all-consuming flames of litigation, I have returned, got a full night's sleep, eaten a bowl of cereal in my own house (surprising how comforting that act is) and am thus prepared to answer all of your questions regarding the quiet car on the Metroliner, how to know when your cabbie hasn't a clue where he's going, how to apologize to a judge when you're late, what not to bring to a federal courthouse and which hotel in New York not to stay in, etc. Not to mention Supreme Court nominees. In the meantime, did you know that more people download Beethoven than anything else right now?

Stay tuned. In the meantime, I am spending the day trying to dig myself out of the avalanche of paper that has become my office.

Do Looks Matter?

If you are looking for a job, yes apparently they do. Attractive people make more money and have easier times finding jobs. How do they measure such things? Well, if you look at the cartoon on the article, it would appear that the Dear Leader is the basis for "plain looking." So, don't look or dress like Kim Jong Il and you'll probably be okay.

Who is a Journalist?

Well, let's discuss another legal-topic-in-the-news: the prison time of Ms. Judith Miller for refusing to reveal her source to a grand jury. Now, many people I've talked to recently think this is terribly unfair and that a journalist shouldn't have to reveal their source.
Let me tell you my thoughts. One: Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Time and NYT knew darn well what the contours of the law are: there is no federal journalist-source privilege. They knew that all along. This didn't come as a surprise that they could be called in front of a grand jury to testify. My sympathy level: zero. (I've had this feeling even before speculation began that the source is likely Karl Rove.)
Two: there is a difference here. It's not like the source told the journalist "I killed someone" or "so-and-so is committing fraud." The very act of knowingly telling the journalist that Plame was a CIA agent was a crime. In a very real sense, the person who spoke to the source was a witness to that crime.
Three:okay, let's assume that you want to change that by going to your elected representative (those of you who don't live in D.C., that is) and ask them to pass a bill protecting journalists. Great. Who is a journalist? This gets really tricky because of this ol' First Amendment we've got here which gives freedom of speech and press to anyone. If I want to interview friends and family, print up a newsletter on my computer and pass it out to my neighbors, am I am journalist? Why not? Why shouldn't I protect my source? See the slippery slope here?
And that's my legal rant for today.
For differing views:
Daily Kos
Talking Points Memo
oh, and any editorial page in a newspaper in America.

Eminent Domain

Many of you (okay, two of you) have asked for my opinion on the Supreme Court's recent ruling Kelo v. City of New London. The 58 page opinion is available on the Supreme Court's website.

Here are some thoughts, in no logical order.

On the one hand, we have relatively uncontroversial types of takings: (1) for public uses such as military bases and roads, and (2) where property is transferred to a private party to be used for the public, such as stadiums and railroads. More complex is the case we have here, in which private properties were to be condemned under eminent domain as part of a huge economic redevelopment plan, which included a park, office space, a pedestrian "riverwalk," apartments, etc. The bright-line rule is that it is never ok to condemn property A simply to give it to private owner B. The question then is whether condemning these private properties as part of a massive redevelopment plan is in the first or second category.

The majority states that prior Supreme Court cases have already determined that economic development is an acceptable "public use." It uses 2 prior cases as examples. In Berman, a 1954 case, a blighted section of D.C. was condemned. To be built were public housing, schools, and some property was to re-sold to private companies. The plaintiff there, Mr. Berman, owned a department store which was concedely not blighted. The Supreme Court there determined that it would not decide lot-by-lot which buildings were blighted, but left it to the government (in this case Congress--remember the power Congress exerts over D.C. affairs) whether it was an area that needed to be developed. In Midkiff (1984), the Hawaii legislature determined that land ownership was concentrated in a few. (47% of the land was owned by 72 people, and 49% of it was owned by government.) The legislature set up a system in which owners had to sell (for fair market value) to lessees. The Supreme Court upheld this statute. Based on these cases, the Supreme Court found that what the City of New London did was within constitutional bounds.
The distinction the dissent draws is between "public use" and "public purpose" (which economic development is, uncontroversially.) The dissent had no problems with the prior two cases because they found that there was a "harmful use" that the takings was trying to rectify (urban blight and a property oligopoly which was causing inflated property prices and general community tension.) Of course, "harmful use" is not in the Takings Clause any more than "public purpose" is.

Interestingly, the dissenting justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court didn't have a problem with Takings for economic use, but thought that the city of New London should have had to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" (that's a standard higher than preponderance and less than reasonable doubt) that the project would be an economic benefit.

A few points I'd like to make generally. First, I think what the Supreme Court said was, if the individual state allows it, it is acceptable. Connecticut had a specific law, enacted by elected representatives of the citizens, allowing eminent domain for economic purposes. Second, the decision to develop this land was made by the New London city Council, again, elected officials. So, while I am sure that someone will cry "tyranny of the majority" in this case, on the flip-side, individual states can decide for themselves (by elected officials) whether this is an acceptable means for land regulation. In fact, Justice Souter expressly makes this point in his majority opinion. In fact, Congress is in the process of passing a bill which would prevent federal funds from being used in any public project in which an "economic development" clause was used to condemn property.

Thoughts?