Latest news with #Pollyannaish
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- General
- Boston Globe
Revisiting a lasting lesson from Paul Reubens: Be kind
Advertisement I know it sounds Pollyannaish, but when it seems like it's acceptable to bully people as we're seeing today, and people are being thought of as less than human, it's even more important to speak up and honestly tell people what you appreciate about them. Be like Reubens: Take every opportunity to be kind. Mary Ellen Reardon Quincy
Boston Globe
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Boston Globe
‘Reformed' is a charming show about a young rabbi
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up And Léa isn't sure either, so she rehearses different voice memos. Yes, do it. No, don't. Oh no, uh, there was a family emergency, I can't help you . But invariably, she does help them, with real care and curiosity, not in trite or Pollyannaish ways. She is doctrinal but not doctrinaire, and all these rituals of change for her congregants are rituals of change for her, too. She becomes more confident and mature ushering a reluctant bar mitzvah boy through the process. She hones her discernment skills while officiating a wedding. Advertisement The most intriguing relationship on the show is between Léa and Arié (Lionel Dray), the local orthodox rabbi and her former teacher. There's a magnetic pull and constant fascination between them, a lot of trust but also a sense of betrayal. He's her mentor, and they have an intense erotic energy, but each also sees the other as practicing religion incorrectly -- a tension that can be playful right up until it is profoundly hurtful. The goings on at their respective shuls highlight their own misgivings about their denominational choices: Maybe her practice is shallow; maybe his practice is misogynistic. Let's resolve to smolder at each other about it. Advertisement In addition to being charming, 'Reformed' is interesting. Sitcom shenanigans nestle alongside philosophical musings. A farce unfolds at a Seder, and goofy sibling banter segues into deeper conversation and back. All eight episodes are available to stream now on Max. This article originally appeared in .
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them?
It's not that typical that an acronym for an arcane regulation would be a household word, but in California the term CEQA—pronounced see-kwa—is as well-known as terms such as OMG and LOL. Signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, the voluminous statute provides a laundry list of terms and conditions on developers of every manner of construction project. CEQA has created a regulatory nightmare, although it still has defenders. LOL indeed. As the Planning and Conservation League explains, "The California Environmental Quality Act…is California's premier environmental law. It allows public agencies to make informed decisions about activities that could degrade public health and damage the environment. It also provides California residents with the legal framework to hold their public agencies accountable." That sounds so unobjectionable. Who doesn't want public agencies to make informed decisions and provide community members with tools to protect the environment and hold officials accountable? But the reality is far different than what these Pollyannaish civics-textbook explanations suggest. California lawmakers refuse to substantively reform the law, but what's the first thing they do whenever they want a particular project built? You guessed it—they provide a CEQA exemption or streamlining. When the Sacramento Kings wanted to build a new downtown arena and keep the team from leaving town, Senate President Darrell Steinberg (later elected the city's mayor) ushered through an exemption. We've seen multiple examples—or attempts—to reduce the application of CEQA to other professional sports projects, as well as other favored projects, including one tied to LA's effort to lure the Olympics. It's always the sign of a bad law when it constantly requires exemptions. That reminds me of Assembly Bill 5, which banned most independent contracting—but its supporters exempted more than 100 industries from its grip because it threatened so many people's livelihoods. A recent national example: Donald Trump's tariffs posed an existential threat to many businesses, so he's been exempting certain industries. All these regulatory edicts empower the politically well-connected, who have lobbyists who can secure special favors. So what's wrong with CEQA? Whenever the government has discretionary approval authority, the law requires the agency to conduct a review. It usually requires the developers to conduct an extensive environmental analysis. It triggers an initial study process and then often a costly, time-consuming full Environmental Impact Report. Agencies can then mandate remediation or reject the project. It gives any stakeholder the right to file a lawsuit challenging the agency's approval. As is now well documented, interest groups often file lawsuits that are not related to improving the environment. No-growthers file suits to stop—or reduce the size—of projects they don't like. Neighbors can file lawsuits because they don't want more traffic. Unions threaten suits as a way to gain leverage to secure project-labor agreements and other union-friendly conditions. As the law firm Holland & Knight reported in 2015, "64% of those filing CEQA lawsuits are individuals or local 'associations,' the vast majority of which have no prior track record of environmental advocacy." And if you think these cynical efforts to gum up the construction process help the environment, then consider this alarming point from that analysis: "Projects designed to advance California's environmental policy objectives are the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits." These include transit projects, multi-family housing, parks, schools and libraries. It notes that 80 percent of the CEQA lawsuits are in infill locations, which is where environmentalists want us to build. CEQA criticism has grown even on the political Left thanks largely to the law's stifling effect on new housing construction. As everyone here knows, California faces a severe housing crisis as the median home price statewide has soared above $800,000 and well over $1 million in many coastal metros. That has led to massive rent spikes and has exacerbated our homelessness situation. Lawmakers have—to their credit—passed targeted exemptions and streamlining provisions for particular types of housing projects (infill, multi-family, duplexes), but it's not enough. A 2022 report for the Center for Jobs and the Economy by Holland & Knight attorney Jennifer Hernandez notes that despite those new laws, "CEQA lawsuits targeting new housing production, in contrast, continue to expand—with 47,999 housing units targeted in the CEQA lawsuits filed just in 2020." The California Air Resources Board (CARB) "acknowledges that two-thirds of CEQA lawsuits allege violations of climate impacts." Look, if CEQA can be used to stop projects based on climate impacts, then it can be used against any project. It's been weaponized as a no-growth tool—constraining housing, energy projects, freeways, rail, you name it. Unless we're happy just grinding progress to a halt, we need to repeal—or significantly reform—this monstrosity and get beyond occasional exemptions for ballparks and public housing. We all know CEQA by name and deed, so why won't elected officials do anything about it? This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post California's Environmental Regulations Are a Mess. Why Won't Lawmakers Fix Them? appeared first on
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Yellow creditors' battle over $550M-plus carcass heats up
Yellow Corp. and some of its creditors remain at odds over a final bankruptcy plan for the liquidation and distribution of the estate's remaining assets, which now include $550 million in cash. The bankrupt less-than-truckload carrier's unsecured creditors told a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware on Monday that it would submit its own plan in the coming days. Counsel for Yellow (OTC: YELLQ) said it didn't have the votes to proceed on its previously proposed plan but that it was still hopeful the parties could come to terms. Yellow's largest shareholder, MFN Partners, which now owns two pension claims stemming from the company's abrupt withdrawal from the plans in 2023, and the Milbank Group, which represents six other multiemployer pension claimants, are the known holdouts. 'Any plan that isn't supported by MFN and the Milbank Group is going to be hotly contested. It's going to be heavily litigated,' said Patrick Nash, partner at Kirkland & Ellis and lead counsel for Yellow. 'I'm not Pollyannaish. Based on what we received from the committee on Friday, it's possible that we could fold MFN and the Milbank Group into a global resolution.' Nash said he's neither optimistic nor pessimistic that the two firms will agree to a new plan. The debtors received the new settlement plan, which is said to be supported by many of Yellow's largest unsecured creditors, including Central States Pension Fund, on Friday. Yellow's board is reviewing the plan, which hasn't been shared with everyone. Counsel for MFN and Milbank said they were excluded from the process and fear that any new proposal would be detrimental to their claims. 'It feels a little bit like … a sufficient majority are getting together, trying to come up with something that they're then going to try to impose on the not-cool kids, if you will, the people who are not in those negotiations,' Andrew Leblanc, partner at restructuring firm Milbank, told the court. The impasse further delays distributions to former Yellow employees and creditors. Yellow's original plan included full recoveries to former employees, who are due paid time off and commissions, and to secured creditors holding unimpaired claims. Other claims, including general unsecured claims, would see much lower recovery amounts under that plan. Yellow had been operating under an extended exclusivity period, preventing other financial firms from proposing competing plans. Any competing plan put forward, however, presumably includes full recoveries for employees' PTO claims. Counsel for the committee said Monday that the new plan would cover partial recoveries to unsecured creditors, including a $917 million contract claim from Central States, to which Yellow was a contributor. Prior pension claims from Central States to the court totaled more than $4.5 billion. A monthly operating report for January showed $168 million in cumulative professional fees and expenses since the August 2023 bankruptcy filing. The company also had $343 million in cash at the time, but recent property and other asset sales appear to have pushed that number to $550 million. The estate still has roughly 80 terminals left to sell. It has sold approximately $2.25 billion in real estate plus millions in rolling stock since the liquidation began. Those funds were used to pay all secured debt as well as fees to attorneys and advisers. The distribution of funds could continue to take time. The Delaware court's prior opinions on withdrawal liability and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act claims have been appealed. Monday was slated as the confirmation hearing date for the bankruptcy plan but instead turned into a status conference as the current iteration failed to garner enough support. The committee said it would file a competing bankruptcy plan to the court by the end of this week. More FreightWaves articles by Todd Maiden: February freight trends mixed, outlook 'fraught with uncertainty' Knight-Swift adds LTL veteran to board as it targets Northeast expansion ArcBest takes on TL freight to fill empty capacity The post Yellow creditors' battle over $550M-plus carcass heats up appeared first on FreightWaves. Sign in to access your portfolio
