Archive for July 26th, 2010

July 26th, 2010

Papadopoulos v Target: get your snow shovels ready

by DickH

Marie posted a link to the boston.com story about today’s historic decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Papadopoulos v Target Corporation. The case involves not a controversial social issue but the nuances of tort law, but it’s repercussions for property owners are far-reaching.

Mr Papadopoulos was shopping at the Target store at the Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers. Returning to his car, he slipped and fell on some ice in the parking lot. Since the late 1800s, the law (found in court decisions, not legislative statutes) has been that a land owner owes a duty to safe guard people on his property from injuries caused by “unnatural” accumulations of snow and ice, but has no duty regarding the “natural” accumulation of snow and ice. If you don’t get the distinction, don’t worry. I’ve been trying to figure it out since law school 27 years ago.

With today’s decision, the SJC jettisoned a century of precedent that didn’t make a lot of sense and replaced it with the standard property owner’s obligation of reasonable care to protect anyone on the property from injury caused by any snow or ice, natural or unnatural. Here’s some of the key language from the decision:

We now apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to all other hazards: a duty to ‘act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probably seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. . . Under this traditional premises liability standard, a fact finder will determine what snow and ice removal efforts are reasonable in light of the expense they impose on the landowner and the probability and seriousness of the foreseeable harm to others. . . . The snow removal reasonably expected of a property owner will depend on the amount of foot traffic to be anticipated on the property, the magnitude of the risk reasonably feared, and the burden and expense of snow and ice removal.

It will take a while for the courts to flush out the full meaning of these words, but any property owner this winter who doesn’t clear a sidewalk of snow or any contractor who plows a driveway but leaves snow banks blocking the sidewalk, leaves themselves open to significant liability. On behalf of all winter-time walkers in the Commonwealth, thanks SJC for a beneficial decision.

Tags:
July 26th, 2010

Folk Festival – the day after

by DickH

2010 Lowell Folk Festival

Some observations about this year’s Lowell Folk Festival from a casual observer (me) who can remember the first one many years ago:

The many performance sites – Boarding House Park, JFK Plaza, Lee Street Stage, St Anne’s, Market Street Stage and Dutton Street Dance Pavilion – make the festival more interesting for anyone who wants to wander around, catching targets of opportunity. This buffet of venues might also contribute to the “there were more people here last year” feel that one might have felt while at any one of those sites.

The “street performances” I saw at Merrimack and John Streets – the Yo Yo People on Saturday and UTEC Break Dancers on Sunday – were excellent. Both played to big, enthusiastic crowds that formed on what’s usually a busy intersection. More of these types of performances could contribute to the “street fair” atmosphere while not detracting from the main stages.

From John Street up to Dutton, Merrimack Street resembled an outdoor shopping mall with resident businesses of all types offering their wares on the sidewalk and street. This seemed to “balance the load” of pedestrian traffic between Shattuck (which was always packed in the past) and Palmer (which was more crowded than I ever remember it). read more »

July 26th, 2010

The “Tree of Liberty”

by Andrew

It has become common since the beginning of the Tea Party movement to hear Thomas Jefferson’s “Tree of Liberty” letter quoted. Specifically, the sentences about the need for shedding the blood of patriots and tyrants and about the need for a rebellion every twenty years or so. I had always wondered about the context of the letter, so I finally looked it up. It was written by Jefferson on November 13, 1787 to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of a draft of the Constitution. At the time, Jefferson was acting as ambassador to France. In the letter, he expresses his concern that the Constitution is an overreaction to Shay’s Rebellion, which is the inspiration of the two quotes we hear so often. In a certain sense, Jefferson was right; the Constitution was a reaction to Shay’s Rebellion. But I very much doubt anyone from any part of the political spectrum is going to argue today that it was an overreaction.

I certainly appreciate the reminder that our Founding Fathers did not always agree; our country was founded on compromise, not an uncompromising ideology. And if compromise in governing could work so successfully in writing the Constitution, it is a lesson we should remember today. But what is perhaps most interesting about this letter is why Jefferson thinks rebellions are necessary. I’ve reproduced the letter below the fold (it’s very short). read more »

July 26th, 2010

What-a-mess-i-stan

by PaulM

Is anyone surprised by today’s version of the “Pentagon Papers” released in New York, Berlin, and London? I once worked for a guy who had as one of his management aphorisms: “Be careful not to manage a mistake.” When Bush and Cheney took their eyes off the ball in 2003 and shifted the bulk of the military effort to Iraq, the Afghanistan initiative was lost, as I see it. Almost worse, though, is the way the US was left holding the war-bag in that part of the world. If 9/11 wasn’t enough to make the advanced nations around the globe stand together against the extremists responsible for the barbaric acts, then what will it take?

Way back in the mid-2000′s one of the TV talking heads said something that stuck with me: “Why don’t we make them fight all of us?” Essentially, he was talking about an economic boycott of the cash cow of that region: oil. His challange to all of us was to change our lives—fast. Fast enough to drastically reduce the flow of cash from the West to the Middle East. He was convinced that such a move would quickly get the attention of enough decision-makers in that neighborhood and push them to push for a resolution to the various conflicts that keep bleeding us in every way. And it’s a non-violent strategy. But it requires massive mobilization and shared sacrifice. My hunch is that people are ready to be asked to take action. There’s got to be a way out of this, no?

And all of this affects everyone in Lowell and Louisville and Los Angeles every day. If it’s not a family member or friend or neighbor in harm’s way, then it’s the drain on national resources that degrades the public sector in all communities. We’re paying a price for the chaos even if it seems removed from our daily existence. I think of my friend Mehmed Ali in Baghdad doing his best to stop things from falling apart in that city. When I sit in my backyard on a day like today with a cooling breeze bending the tops of tall green trees, I want to be sure I don’t forget Ali, who is only a matter of hours away by jet. It hardly seems like it can be the same world.

July 26th, 2010

Frank Rich on Race

by PaulM

It’s been a while since I dragged Frank Rich over from the NYTimes to rh.com, but his column published yesterday is one that has to be spread around. Rich keeps calling what’s going on out there in politics for what it really is—in my book. He stubbornly keeps connecting the dots and then pointing out the big picture. Read what he says about racial prejudice corroding the nation’s culture. If you appreciate the writing, consider subscribing to the NYT.

Frank Rich

July 26th, 2010

Legal Precedent Since Mid-1880s Undone

by Marie

According to a report from the Boston Globe MetroDesk on-line, a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Judicial Court written by Justice Ralph Gants changes rules that have guided Massachusetts “slip and fall” lawsuit cases for the last 125 years.

In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Ralph Gants, the Supreme Judicial Court said judges and juries will no longer have to puzzle out the legal distinction between icy conditions caused by nature, and those caused artificially as, for example, when a snowplow driver attacks the snow.

“It is not reasonable for a property owner to leave snow or ice on a walkway where it is reasonable to expect that a hardy New England visitor would choose to risk crossing the snow or ice rather than turn back or attempt an equally or more perilous walk around it,” Gants wrote as he laid out the reasoning for undoing the legal precedent in use in Massachusetts courts since 1883 and 1885.

The court said its rules take effect immediately and will also apply retroactively to pending lawsuits.

Read the full article here. Stay tuned for the legal commentary, the fall-out and the spin!

July 26th, 2010

A Shameless Commercial Break

by PaulM

Now available at Barnes and Noble Downtown, Welles Emporium, Guy Lefebvre’s Lowell Gallery, Brew’d Awakening, National Park Visitor Center Gift Shop, Monkey’s Ice Cream & Gifts, Dharma Buns, and online at www.loompress.com and www.amazon.com

At many of these same fine businesses, readers will find Loom Press book titles, including those by Steve O’Connor (“Smokestack Lightning”), Dave Robinson (“Sweeney-on-the-Fringe), Al Bouchard (“The Fogg”), Matt Miller (“Cameo Diner”), Hilary Holladay (“The Dreams of Mary Rowlandson”), John Struloeff (“The Man I Was Supposed to Be”), and Walter Bacigalupo (“A Trip Down Salem Street”).

July 26th, 2010

Lowell Folk Festival 2010 Videos

by Tony

Royer’s One Man Band


originally posted by nassalm

Hot Club of Cowtown


originally posted by skewedviewr

Steep Canyon Rangers


originally posted by redsoxrus12

July 26th, 2010

Shirley Sherrod incident shows race in U.S. remains touchy subject by Marjorie Arons-Barron

by Tony

The entry below was cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

Sometimes you just have to pile on, which is why I feel compelled to weigh in on the firing and potential rehiring of Shirley Sherrod by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The executing arm may have been that of Secretary Tom Vilsack, but the Obama administration is on the hook for this unprofessional and egregious act of political correctness. That Vilsack took the action based on one piece of video lifted out of context by the sleazy likes of Andrew Breitbart is disconcerting in the extreme, especially because Breitbart’s baldfaced motive was to hijack public discussion, led by the NAACP, about the Tea Party movement’s racist members.

The goal of the 2+ minute Breitbart video, as explained by former MA Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, was “to prove that the Department of Agriculture was engaged in illegal, fraudulent pic l activities that were supported by NAACP and Democratic and progressive leaders, including the Obama administration.”  The video, viewed in its 43-minute entirety,  showed Sherrod at an NAACP event last March 27th telling how in 1986, dealing with a particular white farmer, she had grappled with race. Forty-five years ago, her father was murdered by a white man, who was never prosecuted. She described how she had overcome an instinct to stereotype. Her March 2010 speech described her very personal odyssey of understanding and growth and revealed how she had come to recognize that the “struggle is about poor people.” The problem we face, she said, is not white, black or Hispanic. The problem is poverty, lack of access and lack of power.

Enter Fox’s Breitbart, who lifted a small portion of her speech to demonstrate that not only was the Obama administration engaging in a form of racism but the NAACP was condoning it. And the administration, so fearful of being viewed as biased (which was part of USDA history), fired Sherrod (excuse me, demanded her resignation) without a) considering the source of the accusation or b) reviewing her speech in its entirety. Even the NAACP dumped on her. Shame on them. And, of course, the mainstream media, no less than the talking heads on the fringe, bought the lie and joined the collective expression of outrage and condemnation. It wasn’t just Fox; it was across the spectrum, including the likes of MSNBC.

When the truth was revealed, Breitbart compounded the communications felony on CNN by suggesting that maybe the white farmer and his wife, who defended Sherrod, were imposters planted by Sherrod to save her job!

Secretary Vilsack and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs apologized to Sherrod. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly apologized for his buy-in. As a Boston Globe editorial pointed out, this incident should give pause to anyone who has ever said anything that, taken out of context, could prove to be embarrassing. The incident also shows how race is still a third rail in American life.

It’s complicated. As the NY Times’ Maureen Dowd observed, Obama’s “closest advisers — some of the same ones who urged him not to make the race speech after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue exploded — are so terrified that Fox and the Tea Party will paint Obama as doing more for blacks that they tiptoe around and do less.”

Two years ago, pundits referred to Obama as “post racial,” meaning that the electorate saw his qualifications and not his race as determinative. The Sherrod case shows that race remains an issue in a perverse way, a hyper-sensitivity that regrettably can override common sense and fair play.

As Sherrod told the NAACP in that March meeting, paraphrasing author Toni Morrison, we have to get to the point where race exists but doesn’t matter. But we won’t get there if politicians and the media don’t do their homework and allow themselves to be manipulated.

- Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section below

July 26th, 2010

Climate Change Three-Fer at NYT

by PaulM

Paul Krugman in his NYT column today tells why we are not getting serious energy policy legislation out of Washington, D.C.  Krugman lines up with Andrew H., if you’ve been reading this blog regularly. Read his essay here. Krugman’s colleague Ross Douthat takes a different view on the consequences in his related piece today. While acknowledging that conservatives have blocked efforts to pass federal legislation aimed at curbing global warming and that they are wrong to say the scientific evidence is not solid, he downplays the potential impacts of a hotter Earth. (I think he’s too calm about what’s happened and the environmental damage that is looming.) Read him here, and consider subscribing to the NYT if you appreciate this kind of serious thinking and writing. Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund has a third essay in the NYT that scorches the Obama administration in particular on its legislative approach that she says paved the way for failure on any serious climate change-control law. Read Wasserman’s  sour comments here.