What Kind of School Was It?

God help me if I ever let news of my botched penile enlargement surgery make it into the Post:

Bigger isn’t better for Eric Neuberger, who says his New York doctor botched his penile enhancement to the point that he’s now nearly impotent.

Before the January 2001 surgery, Neuberger “could engage in intercourse approximately 30 to 50 times a month, and after the surgery, he was only able to engage in intercourse once a month,” his malpractice suit charges.

Neuberger said his new limitations forced him to drop out of school — and even hurt his musical ability. His suit did not elaborate.

But the doctor, Robert Barron, suggests that Neuberger simply “injured himself during sex.”

Hurt his musical ability? Who is this guy, R. Kelly?

The Post is burying the lede here, though — we finally might have found someone enrolled in a co-ed naked basket weaving course! And here I just assumed those T-shirts were a joke.

The Scourge of Humanity

Before we became preoccupied with the world’s most recent existential threats, the thing that really got our goat were ATM fees. I never got it — by becoming more efficient and saving on overhead and labor costs, banks somehow felt it was reasonable to then turn around and charge their customers more. Suffice it to say, this was bullshit.

Now we hear that as competition among banks locally heats up, Commerce Bank has announced that it will offer reimbursements to its customers for fees incurred while using other banks’ machines, (having already eliminated ATM fees for non-customers):

At worst, customers making a withdrawal from another bank’s machine get hit twice. The bank that operates the machine charges them $1 or more for the service, and their own bank charges the same for their infidelity. That can amount to a 15% premium for a $20 withdrawal. [Commerce chairman Vernon] Hill said these fees always top consumers’ list of complaints.

Commerce has never charged customers for using another bank’s machine. That’s not a first: Washington Mutual stopped two years ago.

But reimbursing its customers for fees charged by rival banks puts Commerce on uncharted ground. It’s no small commitment: Commerce customers paid $40 million in ATM fees to other banks last year.

A publicity ploy? I’ll gladly participate in spreading the word. The other banks must be shamed into abandoning their extortionate fees!

Florist vs. Bodega

The Daily News tackles the age-old question whether florists can match bodedgas in quality of flowers. The answer may surprise you! “The price of love: Florists’ roses go nose-to-nose vs. bodega bargains”:

Over the next few days, thousands of New York men will be faced with a thorny choice: florist or bodega.

As they head home to their honey on Valentine’s Day, they could find a nice flower shop and pick up a dozen long-stemmed roses for about $50.

But many of those men will be tempted to just drop by the corner grocery and buy a bouquet of the red blossoms for a third or less of that price.

After all, a rose is a rose is a rose, right? And it’s not like the love of their life will be able to tell the difference. Right?

Not so fast, Romeo.

An informal survey by the Daily News found that with a glance and sniff, four out of six women can distinguish the cher from the cheap.

Functional Repeal!

The case of whether to allow interstate wine sales over the internet (I simplify here) was argued in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Times coverage shows promise that the 21st Amendment will be fuctionally repealed (perhaps bad if you care about small things like “separation of powers,” but good if you want to buy sweet California hooch online!):

If the Supreme Court argument Tuesday on interstate wine sales proves to be a reliable roadmap to the eventual decision, consumers who want to order wine directly from out-of-state wineries will soon be able to do so with the court’s blessing.

The justices appeared notably unmoved by the arguments offered by New York and Michigan in defense of laws that prohibit the direct shipment of wine from other states while permitting in-state wineries to ship their products to their customers’ homes.

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick sort of summarizes the oral arguments and offers a pretty coherent explanation of the issues:

Today’s case before the Supreme Court looks incredibly interesting at first glance. After a drink, it looks unbearably boring. Weirdly, after three more drinks, it starts to look interesting again. Like that guy at the Sigma Nu Party sophomore year. Still, one’s tempted to remind all the wine-o-philes who have shown up today that this case is going to be about the dormant “commerce clause.” The words “impudent little Zinfandel” will trip off nobody’s tongue today.

Michigan and New York allow their respective in-state wineries to ship their wines directly to customers. Both states make it virtually impossible for out-of-state vineyards to do the same. So, that was the interesting part. The states justify their tough-on-wine stance by stating that wine is different from other products that properly move about freely in interstate commerce. And they find textual justification for this idea in the 21st Amendment, which provides that “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” The 21st Amendment effectively repealed Prohibition in 1933, and for a time the courts treated it as though it gave the states power to regulate any and all alcohol, for any and all reasons, unencumbered by the commerce clause or any other discernible legal doctrine.

The commerce clause, or more precisely today, the unwritten or “dormant” part of the commerce clause, is a fuzzy little doctrine that bars states from enacting protectionist, discriminatory measures against interstate commercial activity. That was the deadly boring part. Things liven up again when you understand that this case comes down to two weird constitutional doctrines duking it out for world dominance and that everything will turn on whether you read the 21st Amendment as more compelling than the commerce clause or less so.

See also: Todd Zywicki’s Wine Wars: The 21st Amendment and Discriminatory Bans to Direct Shipment of Wine; a better summary of oral arguments; and even more commentary along with a link featuring some relevant cases (.doc file).