In re: The next Iron Chef…

Cleveland native and famed restaurateur and chef Michael Symon (of Lola and Lolita fame) has won a televised competition to choose the ‘Next Iron Chef’ on the Food Network.  While this is probably old news to Ohio ‘foodies’ and probably foodies around the country, and despite hearing about it on the day it happened it didn’t have the huge impact it may have during my ‘prime’ Food Network days (I have many misgivings with the modern incarnation of the channel, and they just begin with the addition of Sandra Lee’s show…) 
Iron Chef America is probably one of their better self made shows that currently airs, at least in my view, so I probably would normally have watched the show.  I did see part of Symon’s first battle – battle thanksgiving – in which he won.  If you don’t know much about Michael Symon (if you saw the No Reservations Cleveland edition you saw him on it at Lola) he has two Cleveland restaurants that pay homage to local and foreign themes, probably most known for the very apropos dish of beef cheek pierogi at Lola.  (I haven’t eaten at Lola yet, but I am real excited to be visiting this weekend, reservations over the last year there have been hard to come by.  Lolita his Treemont restaurant which was the original location of Lola was amazing, recommend the ‘mac and cheese.’ ) 

For more on the victory and his new title of Iron Chef see Plain Dealer article.

Advertisements

In re: Supreme Court to hear 2nd amendment case

Been very slow on the posts recently, not really for a lack of subject matter, but rather time as work has been busy combined with a lot of travel over the last few weeks, including San Francisco and San Antonio, both places I’ve never been before and an unintended night in Memphis where Northwest Airlines graciously stuck me the other night enroute back from Texas.

On my trip to San Francisco I somehow found myself reading cover-to-cover the ABA Journal, the Ohio Bar Journal and some other random magazines I stuffed in my bag, but usually leave out of my queue (first item of each week is the Economist followed by some others if I get through that one).  There was a very interesting article “A Shot at the Second Amendment” (actually the mags were much better than I expected and will put them higher on my list) in the ABA Magazine on the potential for a 2nd amendment showdown, after a circuit court held the District of Columbia’s handgun ban unconstitutional.  [The article is interesting partly for the breakdown of the manner in which the NRA has worked over the years to control gun litgation and prevent others from treading on their territory.] 

The case is huge for a number of reasons (see Reuters announcement), partly the fact the court has rarely held on 2nd amendment (70 years or so since) and this case is much more clear cut then countless other gun cases that had muddy facts.  For more on it see the Scotus blog post on it here

My personal view on the subject has long been along the lines of the view that the 2nd amendment did not confer a personal right (granted the right to a state militia) and further I like to update the constitution through common-sense and the fact that guns at the time of the drafters did not give one person such a gross amount of power (they could not have envisioned Columbine or Virgina Tech massacres).  For that reason I feel that states should be allowed to craft bans on personal firearms and in fact I support handgun bans in general as I do not think anyone needs one to protect their home (buy a shotgun) and that the only reason someone needs a handgun is to kill people and to be more discrete about it.  Of course over the years holding this opinion has gotten me into countless arguments with gun fanatics and more centered individuals, but I’ve stuck to it.  If you look at countries that don’t have handguns their murder rates are lower by incredible amounts (plenty of arguments against this, but look at it sometime). 

Should be interesting, I think the oral argument is set for February.  While not a Supreme Court freak I will keep my ears up for info on this one.

In re: Reporting is reaching new lows?

So this might be on the list of low priority, even of the things that bug me, but since I got this soap box I am gonna spout off.  Ohio newspapers, newspapers in general don’t seem to be that good these days, they might not be new lows, maybe they were never that great, maybe I was a less demanding reader (still not that demanding), but while reading an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer about a new bill to rename a highway after former Cleveland Mayor Carl B. Stokes, I was kinda overtaken by a particular phrase, one that I see more and more, the use of pretty weak evidence to prove a point, here a stupid minor, point, but nonetheless annoying.  Maybe its just me but I find this sentence ridiculous.

“Stokes’ legacy has played such a significant role in Miller’s life that three years ago, he bought on eBay a 1967 Time magazine with Stokes on the cover. It hangs in his Columbus office. “

Is it just me, or is buying a Magazine cover on eBay not that informative of how important Carl Stokes has been on Miller (who wants to name the highway after him).  My advice, well not being a reporter it should be taken with all kinds of salt and sand, is to avoid phrases like that.  Now you know.

In re: Bar behind us finally

Have waiting , and waiting, and waiting, the bar results finally came out last Friday morning for Ohio.  I logged onto the site at 7:10am to see and was pleased to see that I had passed, that’s right, hard to believe, a real live attorney.  Anyway, I wasn’t as thrilled or excited as I thought I’d be, don’t get me wrong I was definitely thrilled, but I didn’t have any urge to run around screaming or to get overall excited.  The feeling was more relief than anything else, knowing that I wouldn’t have to endure 2 months of studying again (the studying is horrible, the exam itself at 2.5 days wasn’t so bad I thought).

20 years of education and now I can give you some legal advice (not you the reader of course, as nothing on in re: is legal advice, but still, kinda an amazing thing to think)