1. Why do so few Americans see live events? Here’s why: affordable tickets ( well, sort-of affordable) get bought up by bots and scalpers who then jack up the prices. I’m a theater guy, but on general principles (and habitual penury) I will not pay over a hundred dollars for a decent seat for a show at a regional theater. Music concerts, sporting events and theater are rapidly becoming elitist activities. Way back when, Ralph Nader complained about the trend, some of which is driven by greedy unions, but not all of it. For some strange reason, the Times uses tennis tournament tickets to flag the issue, complete with a headline that provides no clue regarding what the article is really about (“Something About the U.S. Open Doesn’t Add Up”)
U.S. Open tennis tickets are too expensive? Talk about the problems of the rich, white and privileged!
2. Here’s a great law vs. ethics vs. common sense issue: in the Times real estate advice column a reader asks, “My Neighbor Installed a Camera Pointing to My Yard. Is That Legal?” The questioner begins, “In January, my spouse was walking our dog on our wooded property in Carroll County, Md., when our neighbor’s dog came onto our property, killed our dog and injured my husband….”
Wait, what? The letter indicates that the neighbor’s dog is still extant and that the neighbors are hostile to this family? Why hasn’t the killer dog been put down and the dog’s owners been sued into oblivion? The victims of this attack are worried about a camera?
But I digress: the letter continues, “…our landscaper came upon a camouflaged camera pointed directly into our totally secluded and private backyard, which we believe was put there to intimidate us or spy on us. Is this legal? What can we do?”
Wait (again): this family has a landscaper and can’t figure out how to block an intrusive neighbor’s camera? We had a neighbor who was constantly staring into our “secluded and private backyard” and I grew a bamboo grove that worked nicely. Sher even complained that it blocked her view. But a bush would work. The Times columnist goes into detail about how incidental camera coverage of a neighbor’s yard for security (my neighbor’s security system does this) is benign, but depending on the state, deliberately intrusive or harassing camera coverage may be illegal. It is definitely unethical. Here’s the legal advice:
Maryland prohibits the use of cameras to conduct surveillance of others’ homes (including their yards). The offender must receive a “reasonable warning” or a request to stop, and continue with the surveillance, for the behavior to be considered a violation of the law. The infraction is a misdemeanor and can result in fines or time in prison…If the camera was placed to harass, annoy, alarm or intimidate, you could pursue legal action to have it removed, but proving ill intent could be difficult. The law may be interpreted and applied differently across the state, depending on the jurisdiction…To establish that the camera is part of a campaign of harassment, keep a log of negative encounters with your neighbor. You could speak with a lawyer about your case, and receive guidance on pursuing criminal charges or filing for a peace order, a civil action that could ensure the neighbor stays away from you. Such orders need to be requested within 30 days from the instigating episode, and they generally last for six months. For both criminal and civil cases, your neighbors will be notified so they can present a defense.
Or you could talk to the neighbor, explain (nicely) why the camera is objectionable, say you are reasonable and assume the intrusion is inadvertent, but conclude by saying that if the neighbor is determined to be an asshole, you will come after the camera, the dog, and the neighbor big time, and that you have the resources, the resolve and orneriness to do it. In my experience, this almost always works.
Of course, when it doesn’t you may end up dead….
3. Bike path ethics meets journalism ethics…The Times tells us,
“…many American communities, regardless of politics, have embraced bike-friendly policies, on the grounds that bikes are good for the planet, for the body, and address congestion by taking cars off the road. Often inspired by bike-friendly European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, the moves are a major shift in the way American communities approach transportation planning. There are now 4,400 directional miles of protected bike lanes today, up from 108 directional miles in 2000, according to PeopleForBikes, an industry trade association and advocacy group. (Directional miles are miles that can be traveled in one direction; with a two-way bike lane one mile long counting as two directional miles.)”
The Trump Administration opposes this fad, as it should, because it is driven by climate-change hysteria, environmental activism, “Why can’t we be more like those virtuous Europeans?” BS.
The title of the Times piece is bias exemplified: “Do D.E.I. Bike Paths Exist? The Trump Administration Says Yes.” Nothing, literally nothing, in the story or the discussion of the controversy over the bike lanes suggests “DEI,” except this unsupported statement: “[T]his administration has begun acting on its deep aversion to cycling, revoking federal grants for what it calls “D.E.I. bike lanes.” I know many community activists in my almost totally “blue” neighborhood who object to the lanes because they are seldom used, a waste of infrastructure funds, narrow the roads, and worst of all, encourage the use of e-scooters and bikes by teens and younger who are always a risk to swerve into traffic.
The “DEI” smear suggests, as usual, that the Trump Administration is racist. But that’s literally made-up spin. The Times:
But [Secretary of Transportation] Duffy and his colleagues have also deployed rhetoric that suggests the bicycle is hopelessly lefty, belonging in the same category as green-haired baristas, Rosie O’Donnell and yard signs professing that love is love.Last month, the Transportation Department told National Public Radio that liberals believe “that everyone should ride a bike to their shoebox-sized apartment to eat crickets to achieve a phony climate agenda.”
But what does that have to do with DEI? Moreover, the climate agenda is phony. The bike lanes are government virtue-signaling, paid for by taxpayers. The ballroom is a better expenditure of funds, by far…
4. Guess what reliably progressive op-ed columnist Frank Bruni’s “damning retort” is in “Democrats Have a Damning Retort to Republican Gotchas”? Oh, go ahead, guess…it’s easy. Here, I’ll give you 30 seconds:
Give up? Shame on you! It’s “the bloody events of Jan. 6, 2021!”
For example, when Republicans accurately point out that the Democratic (Socialist) Senate candidate in Michigan’s supports biological men competing in women’s sports, defunding the police, open borders, and eliminating the Second Amendment among other indefensible positions, the “damning” rebuttal for the Axis is that GOP Senator Mike Rogers supports Donald Trump today even after condemning him in 2021 after that riot that was worse than Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust and 9-11.
Well, I condemned Trump’s handling of his suspicious loss to Biden in 2020—still do, in fact. But the matter at hand is what his Presidency is accomplishing in 2026. While the riot was certainly triggered in part by the irresponsible manner in which the President expressed his objections to the loosey-goosey voting processes and wide-open opportunity for Democrats to cheat, he did not incite the rioters and it was no “insurrection.” Nonetheless, Democrats have exploited it beyond all justification (because they have little else), and the issues in the mid-terms must be what the crypto-totalitarian Left has on its agenda for the U.S., not that typical, poll-driven, cowardly Republicans (Hi, Nikki Haley!) piled on Trump in 2021 when they assumed he was cooked, then flip-flopped when he pulled off the biggest political comeback in U.S. history.
At least Bruni didn’t stoop to “But Trump once hung out with Jeffrey Epstein!”
Ethics Alarms 
I know that you are concerned with numbers of comments. I continue to want to comment on your posts, but typically struggle to find time to say something well thought out and relevant. I am raising and homeschooling 5 kids and now hold two part time jobs, one of which theoretically pays (haven’t seen the paycheck yet). Time for decent analysis is hard to come by right now. I still read your stuff and email links to posts that people in my circle would find relevant.
”Gotta kick-start things here, clearly, as the weekend just past was an all-time low for reader participation: just 19 comments, not counting my own replies, spread over eight posts.”
Jack, you moron, you act like a tyrant and a bully, so you alienate people quite well disposed to you (and your often marvelous contributions). The participation in your blog will continue to decline — until you post an apology addressed to me, a most wonderful participant, cancelled when you were in a bad mood (most of the time).
It is 5:30 Pm my time. I’ll give you till the same time and date in 2027. See? How generous I am?
BTW the Iran debacle is deepening, darkening. You should pay more attention, jerk. 😆
Regarding bike lanes, the Twin Cities has its ups and downs. There is the Grand Rounds system that is 51 miles long:
https://www.minneapolisparks.org/parks-destinations/trails-parkways/grand_rounds_scenic_byway_system/
As it is bi-directional, so Minneapolis must have had 102 of the 108 miles that existed in 2000. It is really a great system.
Then, they decided to screw with the roads. Downtown Minneapolis used to be a series of alternating one-way streets. Kind of annoying for new drivers but easy enough to get the hang of. Then, they put in light rail down one street, which forced buses onto other streets, eliminating the “one-way” for busses. Then, they started adding bike lanes to these one way streets but the bike lanes had to go between the traffic lanes and the metered parking.
So, yes, climate change hysteria, not DEI, has ruined driving in downtown Minneapolis.
(And, yes, it annoys me that the administration would attribute it to DEI. It shows a level of thoughtlessness that you see on the left, where everything is white supremacy, privilege, climate change and Epstein.)
-Jut
Among the Democrats arsenal of ignorance is the seeming inability to allow for the fact that two things can be true at the same time. One can support many of President Trump’s policy positions while still disagreeing with the way he handled the 2020 election.
My 95-year old grandmother is the sweetest woman in the world (She reads biographies of celebrities and whites out the dirty words.) She voted for Trump. She approves of some of the work he’s doing. She also admitted to me a few weeks ago, “I think his personality leaves a lot to be desired.”
Me, too, Grandma. And saying so doesn’t mean I’m wrong for supporting him.
She also admitted to me a few weeks ago, “I think his personality leaves a lot to be desired.”
Most Presidents of the USA had unusual personalities, many of them high on the narcissism spectrum. Such a personality is needed for the office of POTUS, and most like also for governors and members of Congress. I do not think politics is the right environment for choirboys.
Item 3- Either a can of spray paint or a BB gun ( or greater) would fix the problem of the intrusive camera. Any bank robbery movie can show you the way!
You frame this as an either-or proposition.
Did you know that they make guns designed for recreational shooting that, instead of firing hard projectiles, fire small balls of paint? No license is required to own one.
It can be both! 🙂
–Dwayne
thanks for the reminder, there is a paint ball arean near by, i will check it out.
1. Agreed about the tennis example and the headline. Regarding the bots and scalpers, though… Clearly whoever invented the bots that let them gain possession of all of the tickets is an innovative capitalist and job-creator who deserves to profit from acquiring all the tickets. You wouldn’t suggest that we limit the amount of tickets they can obtain through their own hard work and creativity, or worse, redistribute the tickets to people who haven’t earned them, would you?
I’m sorry about the lack of comments. In my case, there were a few times recently that I wanted to comment, but I fall back to this ‘philosophy’.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or comment) and to remove all doubt.”
In my experience, the majority of people are fine being challenged on knee-jerk beliefs as long as you aren’t a jerk about it. If you feel the need to be a jerk, first reflect on why the disagreement is important to you. What are the outcomes you fear? You don’t need to justify your concerns; those are your anchor values and you deserve to have them addressed.
For the moment, though, set those aside and look for the outcomes that other people fear. They’ve got anchor values too, and when you understand what those are you will be able to show them that you take them seriously, that you’re not as ignorant or spiteful as you believe each other to be. After that, you can start voicing your own concerns, and other people will take them seriously.
RE: #2 (Cameras)
I’ve literally had the complete inverse situation with one of my neighbors.
I have a camera on the front of my house which is capable of panning, tilting, and an impressive zoom capability. Because of where it’s mounted, the best default position to get the best view of the front of the house is on a diagonal across the front yard which also points it directly at a neighbor’s house across the street.
A while back he came to me and asked if I had any footage of his house from a certain date and time because he’d noticed that some things around his carport had been inexplicably moved around. (He suspected it was his own kids and/or their friends but wanted to make sure.)
I had to tell him that, no, I don’t have any footage of anything that happened at his house. While the camera is fully capable of recording the whole front of his house and zooming in hard enough to read license plates clearly from 200-250 feet away, I had deliberately set it so it tilts downward enough that the top of the frame only just captures the street and sidewalk, but his house and front yard is out of view.
You see, I thought it best to respect my neighbor’s privacy and not capture a running log of all the goings-on at his house–and in doing so, I disappointed my neighbor.
Silly me.
–Dwayne
I have no problem with bike lanes (except when they’re ridiculously narrow, like 12 inches or less).
The problem I have is with the bikers — they regularly flout and ignore traffic laws. It is almost rare for them to stop at red lights, rather than blithely running the light. Or just cycling down the center of the auto lane, making it potentially unsafe for me to pass.
Pedestrians, though, are even worse. It’s not so much that they will cross roads willy nilly — they seem to do so without ever looking up to see if there’s traffic coming. They just assume no one would dare run them down.
OK, a little exaggeration — but I stand by the thrust of my post.