"Today I told my attorneys not to appeal the judge's decision. While I greatly appreciate the Sheriff's concern for my health and welfare, after meeting with doctors I intend to serve my time as ordered by the judge.

This is by far the hardest thing I have ever done. During the past several days, I have had a lot of time to reflect and have already learned a bitter, but important lesson from this experience.

As I have said before, I hope others will learn from my mistake. I have also had time to read the mail from my fans. I very much appreciate all of their good wishes and hope they will keep their letters coming.

I must also say that I was shocked to see all of the attention devoted to the amount of time I would spend in jail for what I had done by the media, public and city officials. I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things, like the men and women serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the world."

In sending Hilton back to jail, Sauer appears to be the first judge to publicly challenge Baca's authority to release inmates from jail short of their full court sentences.

Legal experts said Friday that the clash could have wide legal consequences.

"For decades, where [inmates] were housed and how they were housed was up to the Sheriff's Department," said Stan Goldman, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Loyola Law School. "Now that all may change, thanks to, of all people, Paris Hilton."

Baca defended his decision to let Hilton leave jail and said he was concerned about how Sauer's order - if copied by other judges - would affect the jail system.

"This has the strong potential to set up what will become an untenable precedent because of overcrowding in jail and the lack of adequate housing," Baca said in an interview.

In the last five years, the Sheriff's Department has released more than 200,000 inmates early, including some who ended up committing murders and other serious crimes when they otherwise would have been behind bars.

The releases were possible because of a nearly 20-year-old federal court order allowing the Los Angeles County sheriff to alleviate overcrowding by letting county offenders go home early.

Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Paris Files an Appeal

Paris Hilton's attorney have already filed a (warning: pdf file ahead) notice of appeal. But most attorneys don't think that the appeal is likely to succeed.

"Paris is unlikely to win an appeal or change of venue," said celebrity trial attorney John Pierson. "An appeal court will find that nothing was wrong in the handling of the case or the sentence. They will not re-try the case; she got caught multiple times on violation of probation where there is little due process protection. They played the trial hand and lost. They basically tied the courts hands, leaving the judge no choice but to hand down a full sentence."

"The best thing for the family now is to lay low, make no comments to the press, and hope the jailer will release her early, as they have done for many non-violent offenders in the over-crowded L.A. jails. My only other advice to her now is to say 'Yes, sir. Yes, m'am' and keep your mouth your mouth shut when you are in prison."

Overcrowding in Los Angeles county jails allowed Michelle Rodriguez to leave after serving only two hours of her sentence. But that problem has been rectified, meaning that Paris will likely serve all 45 days of her sentence. And it's not going to be fun. She's already been shooting her mouth off to the press about how unfair it all is, and in an interview in Harper's Bazaar she says that cops pull her over just to hit on her. This is not making her any friends in the justice system. We recommend that she start martial arts training immediately. And get used to skipping showers.

(Photo credit: FlynetOnline.com)

Posted on May 7, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



Paris Hilton Sentenced to 45 Days in Jail

In a shocking display of justice, a Los Angeles superior court judge sentenced Paris Hilton to 45 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation stemming from a DUI charge. Hilton must serve the time in the same facility where Michelle Rodriguez served only two hours of her term for violating her probation stemming from a DUI charge in Hawaii. Paris was nailed for driving with a suspended license. The judge didn't believe a word of her testimony that she didn't know her license was suspended, noting that there was a notice of the suspension signed by Paris herself in the glove box of her car.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Sauer sternly rejected Hilton's story that she did not knowingly disobey the law by driving while her license was suspended and ordered the 26-year-old socialite to report to a county detention facility on June 5, or face 90 days in jail. Hilton wept and her mother, Kathy, yelled at the prosecutor, "You're pathetic," as the packed courtroom cleared.

The stunning decision capped a two-hour hearing in which prosecutors argued that Hilton was thumbing her nose at the court and seeking to be placed above the law, while defense lawyers said she was being singled out for harsh treatment because of her celebrity.

Taking the witness stand in her own defense, the star of the reality TV show "The Simple Life" testified that she was unaware her driving privileges had been completely suspended at the time police stopped her and impounded her car on Feb. 27. Hilton said she had relied on information conveyed to her by her publicist, Elliot Mintz, who she said told her that she was permitted to drive for work-related reasons after the first 30 days of her license suspension late last November.

But the judge said he disbelieved Hilton, declaring that the "smoking gun" in the case was a notice she had received from a police officer, and had signed, during an earlier traffic stop in January. He said Hilton had "completely ignored" that notice, which she had carried in her glove box for weeks, and another license suspension notice sent to her office address by the Department of Motor Vehicles that Hilton said she never saw.

"In my opinion, there's not doubt that she knew that her license had been suspended," the judge said. "She doesn't look at her mail, her personal assistant never goes through it either. ... I think she just wanted to disregard everything that was said and continued to drive no matter what."

When the verdict was read out in court, Paris burst into tears and mama Hilton went nuts, screaming at the prosecutor. Meanwhile, Paris' lawyer says they will appeal. The judge says she has to do 45 days: no ankle bracelet at home, no work furlough, no alternative arrangements. Perhaps Ms. Hilton will realize that she has to follow the law, just like everyone else? Oh please, you know that's not going to happen.

Posted on May 5, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

The Case of the $67 Million Pants

Judge Roy Pearson is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. He's suing his dry cleaners for $67 million for losing his favorite pair of pants. The pants were part of his favorite suit that he wanted to wear for his first day on the bench.

A Washington D.C. dry cleaners says its their business a long-time customer is taking to the cleaners. A $10 dry cleaning bill for a pair of lost trousers has ballooned into a $67 million civil lawsuit. Plaintiff Roy Pearson -- himself a local judge in Washington D.C -- says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench. He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort.''

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit of his first day of work. He's suing for ten years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store. The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal. "Satisfaction Guaranteed." Pearson did not return numerous calls from ABC News for comment. It's the kind of lawsuit that makes liability reform advocates' temples throb.

"People in America are now scared of each other," legal expert Philip Howard told ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. "That's why teachers won't put an arm around a crying child, and doctors order unnecessary tests, and ministers won't meet with parishioners. It's a distrust of justice and it's changing our culture. The civil trial, set for June, has the scope of a John Grisham courtroom thriller and the societal importance of a traffic ticket. Pearson plans to call 63 witnesses. Defending themselves against the suit -- for two years running -- are Korean immigrants Jin and Soo Chung and their son, who own Custom Cleaners and two other dry cleaning shops in the Fort Lincoln section of Washington D.C.

The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million dollars Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side they would stretch for 48 miles.

This analysis is totally missing the point. All the new pants in the world can't make up for one special pair of trousers. Judge Pearson is being too generous with those dastardly dry cleaners. Clearly, they intentionally "lost" his pants as some kind of sick practical joke to ruin his first day at a new job. He should be suing them for $67 billion, not $67 million.

Posted on May 1, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Judges Gone Wild

Girls Gone Wild producer Joe Francis says it's a case of "Judges Gone Wild" in Florida after a judge ordered Francis to jail for failing to reach a settlement quickly enough in a civil suit. Seven young women sued Francis for filming them in sexually explicit situations. Francis is refusing to surrender himself to the court.

Francis told the Associated Press late Thursday that Smoak "had lost his mind." "This judge has gone as far as to call me the devil and an evildoer," he said. "It is a case of a judge gone wild." The court order followed a last-minute collapse in settlement talks between Francis' legal team and lawyers for the women, who were filmed on a Florida beach in 2003. The plaintiffs allege that they were "victimized" by Francis' crew by being put in explicit scenes.

"It is not the judge's role to compel a settlement with the threat of putting one of the parties in jail," said Francis lawyer Jan L. Handzlik, who is appealing the judge's order. Plaintiffs' attorney Larry Selander declined to comment. Smoak originally found Francis, 34, in contempt last week after plaintiffs' lawyers complained that Francis had shouted obscenities at their clients in a March 21 outburst during the settlement negotiations. Smoak ordered Francis jailed if an accord had not been reached in the case by Saturday, but he suspended that order when it appeared that a deal had been struck. At an emergency hearing Wednesday, a lawyer for the plaintiffs told the judge that he thought the case was resolved but then learned Francis had altered the offer, making it unacceptable to his clients.

A mediator said Francis insisted on a payment plan that would stretch several years. "He may have snookered us and gotten out Saturday, but he's coming back," Smoak said. The judge reinstated his civil contempt order, which means Francis could be jailed until a formal mediation session is set up and he participates in a "meaningful" way.

Hmmm...we're not sure how smart it is to enrage a federal court judge and call him names. Judges really do have the power to throw you in jail, but maybe not for refusing to settle. Joe Francis may find himself with a lot of new friends soon. Perhaps he could film a new documentary called "Prison Buddies Gone Wild."

Posted on April 7, 2007
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati



The Horrors of Kraft Guacamole Dip

A woman is suing Kraft Foods, Inc. for fraud claiming that the company's guacamole dip contains hardly any avocado at all.

That's the issue in a fraud lawsuit filed Wednesday against Kraft Foods, Inc., by a Los Angeles woman who claims the company's avocado dip doesn't qualify as guacamole. "It just didn't taste avocadoey," said Brenda Lifsey, who used Kraft Dips Guacamole in a three-layer dip last year. "I looked at the ingredients and found there was almost no avocado in it."

She is seeking unspecified damages and a Superior Court order barring Kraft from calling its dip guacamole. Her suit seeks class-action status. The Kraft product contains modified food starch, coconut and soybean oils, corn syrup and food coloring. It is less than 2 percent avocado, which in traditional recipes is the main ingredient of the Mexican dish. The government doesn't have any requirements on how much avocado a product must contain to be labeled guacamole, said Michael Herndon, a spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Northfield, Ill.-based Kraft said it had not seen the lawsuit but believed it was not deceiving anyone. "We think customers understand that it isn't made from avocado," Claire Regan, Kraft Foods' vice president of corporate affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. "All of the ingredients are listed on the label for consumers to reference." However, the company will relabel the product to make it clearer that the dip is guacamole-flavored, Regan said.

This is an absolute outrage. We hope that the jury awards this woman treble damages in the millions of dollars to compensate her for all her pain and suffering. Can you imagine the horror of digging into your three-layer dip and encountering a green mix of soybean oil, coconut oil and corn syrup where the delicious guacamole layer was supposed to be? Kraft Foods needs to go back to doing what it does best: making macaroni and cheese in a box. Because this concept of a "guacamole-flavored" dip is just apalling.

We wondered if this was some kind of singular aberration on the part of Kraft. But a quick perusal of the Kraft website turns up this horrifying recipe for Low Fat Guacamole. The ingredient list includes the following:

1 cup boiling water

1 pkg. (4-serving size) JELL-O Brand Lemon Flavor Sugar Free Low Calorie Gelatin

1 container (16 oz.) BREAKSTONE'S or KNUDSEN Low Fat Cottage Cheese

1 medium avocado, chopped (about 1 cup)

1/2 cup chopped green onions

1/3 cup pickled jalapeño slices, drained

1/4 cup lemon juice

Jello?? Cottage cheese? We feel faint. This is Guacamole Blasphemy. The ONLY ingredients that belong in guacamole are: fresh, perfectly ripe avocadoes, diced sweet onions, lemon juice, a touch of tabasco sauce and salt. That's it. Nothing else. Nothing. No garlic. No tomatoes. No lettuce. No mayo (shudder). No cilantro. No jalapeños. No GREEN onions. And, by all that is holy, NO JELLO.

We're feeling quite faint now. We're off to find some fresh avocados to wipe our memories of the numerous food atrocities which are apparently being committed by Kraft Foods on a daily basis.

Posted on November 30, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Texas Authorities Start Arresting Drunks in Bars

Unhappy with having the nation's highest DWI rate, Texas authorities are now going into bars and arresting anyone who's drunk. That's right -- you're sitting at a bar, throwing down a few cold ones and if you go over your limit, you're liable to be arrested for public drunkeness.

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday. The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission’s Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said. The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car. "We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss." She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

Spring Break in Texas just got a whole lot less appealing.

Posted on March 24, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Georgia Upset Over Alabama's Plans to Adopt the Peach

The BBC reports that Alabama is close to adopting the peach as its official state fruit tree. The BBC describes a growing row between the two states. Georgia, which calls itself "the Peach State", is not pleased with Alabama's plans.

In Georgia, which made the peach its official state fruit back in 1995, Alabama's decision set pulses racing.

"Georgia is the Peach State," Robert Dickey, a past president of the Georgia Peach Council, told the New York Times.

"We're known internationally as the Peach State. We have always been the Peach State, and we think we have the best peaches in the world."

Alabama Democrat James Martin thinks Alabama peaches are much better than Georgia peaches. He says, "If you've ever tasted Alabama peaches, you'd throw rocks at Georgia." But Thomas Irvin, Georgia's agricultural commissioner, snarked back with this comment to the New York Times, "I didn't realise Alabama had any peaches at all." A New York Times article says some people think Alabama is being greedy by naming both an official state fruit and a state fruit tree.

Alabama already has an official state fruit, the blackberry, adopted in 2004. Adding a tree fruit to the list, much less horning in on one indisputably linked to Georgia, just seemed greedy to some.

"We probably grow 10 times as many peaches as they do," Mr. Dickey said.

The Times article says the fruit tree resolution is expected to pass the Alabama Senate. This will make three states with the peach as an official state fruit. The peach is also the official state fruit for South Carolina but Georgia isn't complaining about that.

Posted on February 24, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

China Bans Human-Cartoon Collaborations

Those grumpy Chinese censors are at it again. This time they've banned the practice of live actors appearing in the same scene as animated ones.

China has announced a ban on TV shows and movies that blend animated elements with live-action actors, a move aimed at nurturing local animators and apparently curbing the use of foreign cartoons.

Besides Roger Rabbit, the 1988 feature film in which actor Bob Hoskins performed beside several animated characters, popular children's TV shows featuring human hosts and animated elements such as Blue's Clues from the United States and Britain's Teletubbies could be included in the ban. And Space Jam, the 1996 film featuring basketball great Michael Jordan alongside Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck could also be shelved.

The government's main television and film regulator sent notice Feb. 15 to broadcasters and theaters that such films and shows could no longer be shown and that violators would be punished. It did not say what the penalties would be. It also did not give examples of banned programs but described them as "so-called cartoons that mainly feature real people and only occasionally have computer-generated elements."

Communist authorities are eager to expand the country's animation industry and also are worried about the influence of foreign pop culture on Chinese children. The cartoon ban is intended to "promote the development and prosperity of the cartoon industry in China," said the statement issued by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television.

The censors claim that the move is to protect Chinese children from the corrupting effects of subversive Western cartoons such as Blue's Clues, but it may be that something more sinister is really going on. After all, allowing human-cartoon interaction is just the first step towards the creation of some kind of cartoon cyborg. And no one wants that.

Posted on February 23, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Google, Subpoenas and Silly Putty

When they're not fighting off burdensome, privacy-invading, intrusive government subpeonas, the folks at Google spend their time investigating the myriad of uses for 250 lbs of Silly Putty.

Not long ago, I walked by the desk of software engineer JJ Furman, and saw that he had made an interesting addition to his desk: a large blob of Silly Putty, about the size of a grapefruit. Intrigued, I asked how he'd gotten so much of the stuff. The answer? A bulk order directly from the manufacturer! Of course.

I knew then that I wanted some, and it dawned on me that I probably wasn't the only one. So I set out to place a really, really big bulk order. An email went out to cohorts. Their orders came in. Three weeks later, I had an eighth of a ton of Silly Putty delivered to my desk.

Naturally, we were all curious to see what 250 pounds of Silly Putty would look like, so before distributing the stuff, we put it all in a single pile to see. Huge mistake. The problem was that once together, Silly Putty doesn't like to come apart, and none of us had any idea of how to deal with this effect. We tried everything: very strong people (didn't work), scissors (stabbing worked, slicing didn't), 28-gauge steel wire (broke), 22-gauge steel wire (broke), 16-gauge steel wire (too thick), and twisting and breaking (worked well for "smaller" pieces -- under five pounds, that is.)

Two hours later, with the help of more than a dozen enthusiastic Googlers, everyone was finally able to walk away with a giant piece of Silly Putty. And then what? Some people are giving it for holiday gifts. Others are using it to exercise their arms, play basketball (rebounds are tough), and of course, imprint entire newspaper pages. Any regrets? Absolutely not.

We say: respond to the subpoena by mailing the government one ton of Silly Putty.

Posted on January 24, 2006
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Stopping the Naughty Cheerleaders

USA Today reports that you can all rest a little easier. Bare midriffs for cheerleading costumes will be banned nationwide, starting in 2006. And there won't be as many sexy moves, either.

Some coaches, school administrators and even state lawmakers are concerned that skimpy skirts, revealing tops and MTV-inspired routines are becoming too hot for the crowds in the stands.

At some school districts in Georgia, policies limit suggestive gestures and outline appropriate attire for cheerleaders, band members, drill teams and pep squads. A national organization that oversees such activities has banned bare midriffs effective next fall. And a Texas legislator stirred up a national debate when he tried to pass a law prohibiting suggestive performances by cheerleaders, drill teams or dance teams. The proposal was referred to by some as the "cheerleader booty bill."

"I can't describe what 'sexy' is to you or somebody else," says the bill's sponsor, Rep. Al Edwards. "But if you're an adult, you know it when you see it."

****

Sexuality entered the cheerleading domain with the 1972 debut of the transformed Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, dressed in hot pants, white boots and cleavage-revealing tops. Their gyrations were viewed as entertainment, says Natalie Guice Adams, an associate professor in the college of education at the University of Alabama and co-author of Cheerleader! An American Icon.

"The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders were absolutely instrumental in changing cheerleading from being the All-American girl next door to the idea of a cheerleader as an erotic sex symbol."

We know how traumatized some of you have been by being forced to watch those Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders at halftime. But if things keep going the way they are, soon your helpful legislators will save you from having to watch such blatantly suggestive displays.

Posted on August 25, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Kentucky to Drop Smiley From License Plates

Kentucky is going to change the design of its license plates after many Kentucky drivers complained. The Cincinnati Post reports on some of the unhappy Kentucy license plate owners.

The sunshine plates, known as Mr. Smiley, were met with ridicule when then-Gov. Paul Patton unveiled the design in December 2002. Gov. Ernie Fletcher is scheduled to announce the change Tuesday at Kentucky Speedway.

"I don't think there was any massive letter-writing campaign," said Billy Reed, a spokesman for the Commerce Cabinet, which helped design the new state brand. "But I've certainly heard lots of anecdotal complaints. I got the perception everybody doesn't like it."

Reed said the old plate's slogan didn't resonate with drivers.

"It's silly. It's sappy. It doesn't say 'Kentucky,'" he said.

The sunshine plates won't completely go away until all cars receive the "Unbridled Spirit" tags beginning Jan. 1.

Drivers have found ways to tinker with the smiling sun's image, including drawing a mustache on it, or covering it with a frowning-face sticker or duct tape.

Fayette County Clerk Don Blevins said that when the smiling sun plates came out, "a lot of people found them to be so obnoxious they wouldn't put them on their cars."

Some drivers did like the license plate and found it uplifting according to this article in the Cincinnati Post. And the BBC reports that the license plate has been popular among collectors. The Automobile License Plate Collectors Association gave the smiley license plate an award in 2003 for the best design.

Posted on July 17, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Baby Formula and Just About Everything Else to Move Behind the Counter at Grocery Store

Finding your grocery shopping to be a bit more burdensome than usual lately? Apparently, the powers that be have decided that baby formula is too dangerous to be left on the shelves, so it will be moved behind the counter. Apparently, some drug dealers might use powdered baby formula to cut drugs, so --voila!-- it has to be put out of their reach. This is from the same people that have infuriated allergy sufferers by moving the Sudafed behind the counter in some states, and in others limiting the amount you can buy or requiring shoppers to sign a register.

The high-priced item has long been an attractive target for shoplifters, who typically resell it on the black market at a reduced price or use it to cut drugs. Now, some supermarkets are fighting back, putting formula under lock and key just as they did with cigarettes many years ago.

"There is a point in time when you have to protect your assets," said Ted Seal, general manager of a Super Fresh store near Bethlehem that locked up its supply about a month ago because thieves had been stealing it by the caseload. Customers who want powdered formula now must ask a manager to unlock a case near the front.

At Albertson’s Inc., one of the nation’s largest supermarket chains, with more than 2,500 stores in 37 states, stores often keep a very small quantity on shelves, with signs directing customers to the service counter if they want more.

"It has been a problem for a number of years. People steal baby formula, take it to another store and return it" for cash, said Albertson’s spokesman Walt Rubel.

What's next to move behind the counter and require a signature before purchase? Deadly eye drops (someone might drink them to get high)? Dog food (someone might shoplift it and return it to another store for cash)? Pantyhose (someone might buy them and use them to cover their faces as they rob a bank)? Maybe it's time we instituted a 3-day waiting period on all toiletries.

Posted on June 6, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

Potty Parity Comes to New York

The New York City Council unanimously passed the Potty Parity bill into law. The New York Daily News has the story on this important development. The law addresses the longstanding toilet inquality issue which has caused women so much suffering over the years. Under the new "affirmative action plan" for womens' toilets, new buildings in New York must provide two toilets for women for every one toilet installed for men.

The current law, enacted in 1984, requires a 1-to-1 ratio. But men can "zoom in and zoom out," while women end up waiting in long lines, noted Councilwoman Madeline Provenzano (D-Bronx), chairwoman of the Housing and Buildings Committee. "This is a quantum leap into the 21st century," said Councilwoman Yvette Clarke (D-Brooklyn), chief sponsor and architect of the bill.

The bill approved yesterday is a compromise version of a proposal that would have required virtually all buildings - new and old - with public rest rooms to have two facilities for women for every one designated for men. In a deal with Mayor Bloomberg, the original potty-parity bill was flushed because of complaints over its potentially huge cost to owners of bars, restaurants and theaters and to publicly owned facilities, such as stadiums.

The bill was approved 50-1 at the council meeting. "If there was ever a bill I was afraid to be on the wrong side of, it would be this bill," noted wise Councilman Erik Martin-Dilan (D-Brooklyn). Councilman Martin-Dilan's district is 60% female.

Rejoice this Memorial Day, for Potty Parity has at last been achieved. In New York, anyway.

Posted on May 27, 2005
Permalink | Digg this | Blogs linking to this post: Google | Technorati

count=17