Do You C What I C?

The Tea Party apparently did well in Missouri during the mid-term primaries this week. They (or someone) managed to stage contests for most Republican candidates, while most Democrats ran unopposed in our state. Why might anyone do this? Proposition C. This piece of "legislation" is an arguably unconstitutional attempt to stop Health Care Reform by claiming States Rights against an unpopular provision in the Obama plan: Mandatory Health Insurance. Universal insurance is an attempt to pay for the impending regulation doing away with preexisting condition coverage denials. If everyone is covered, then there will be no preexisting conditions. But if everyone can sign up only when they need it and insurers cannot deny coverage, then insurers will go bankrupt and the Federal Government will have to completely take over. This is what they want? But Missourians voted overwhelmingly in favor of denying the Federal Government the right to enforce this provision necessary to interstate commerce. But if you look at detailed election results, you'll see that the vote on Proposition C is proportional to the ratio of Republicans to others who bothered to vote. In a state that was razor-close in November 2008, three Republicans showed up for each Democrat to vote in this primary. Here is another view of this Proposition: What the passage of Proposition C in Missouri means, and what it does not mean. In brief, it is grandstanding. Given the likely turnout at the polls, and given the correct wording, it was an unsinkable piece of "voter mandate" with no actual significance. But it looks good as a jab-in-the-eye to an embattled administration. Unless you actually read about the issue. But the point was to pick one unpopular clause of the 2,500 page law, and publicly display how "the people" are against the whole thing. I'm curious to see how the Tea Party will stack the November election. Will other states be so dumb?

Continue ReadingDo You C What I C?

Do you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

If you think that sunscreens really protect you from cancer, think again. Read this detailed information from the Environmental Working Group and you'll be astounded. How can so much false and unsupported information can be freely plastered on bottles of sunscreen? Why isn't the federal government clamping down on sunscreens? Who do our img_3219representatives represent? Apparently, their greatest loyalty is to companies that make money by misrepresenting their products. Can you believe that sunscreens are not regulated to make sure that they do what they claim to do? The best approaches to protecting your family: Wear clothes and stay in the shade. Any product that claims protection greater than SPF 50 is misleading. Note that most people put on only a 1/4 to 2/3rds enough sunscreen to actually reach the product’s SPF rating. Check out the oftentimes toxic ingredients at EWG. Check out EWG's Hall of Shame.

Continue ReadingDo you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

Let the feds worry about marijuana

In the LA Times, Hanna Liebman Dershowitz points out the stupidity of not changing X because X is "the law." The case of interest in California is legalizing marijuana. Federal and state authorities annually arrest more than 800,000 people for possessing marijuana. This is an immense and destructive waste of government resources. Liebman Dershowitz argues that California legalization would leave it to the feds to justify this atrocious policy of criminalizing marijuana (though not beer or tobacco - - I would add psycho-active prescription drugs):

Voter approval of Proposition 19 would shift to the feds the responsibility and burden of justifying marijuana prohibition in the first place. Now, the Washingtonians who have never questioned decades of anti-pot propaganda can explain to the people of California why we cannot be trusted to determine our state's marijuana policies. Let them endorse the prohibition laws' usefulness as a tool of oppressing minorities. Let them celebrate how minor marijuana violations cost people their jobs, their housing, custody of their kids, and entrap them permanently in vast criminal justice databases. Let them justify the utter hypocrisy of the legal treatment of alcohol and tobacco, as compared with the illegal treatment of marijuana. Let them tell us how many more people will have to be prosecuted and punished before marijuana is eradicated, how much that will cost, and where the money will come from.

Continue ReadingLet the feds worry about marijuana

It’s lonely at the top

Pity Tony Hayward, erstwhile boss of BP. He's really had it rough. He's been "demonized and vilified", to use his own words. The poor CEO was so busy dealing with the massive oil spill perpetrated by his company that he almost missed watching his yacht race in a very important race! Almost, but he was able to watch the race anyway. Because, you know, someone else was probably working on cleaning up the oil fouling the Gulf of Mexico. It's not really the CEO's job, you see. It's more of a job for the "small people" of the world. "Life isn't fair. Sometimes you step off the pavement and get hit by a bus," Hayward said recently. Yes, that's true. And sometimes, you end up the CEO of one of the most powerful oil companies in the world. A company that has a long history of criminal and ethical violations that should make them unfit to operate a lemonade stand, much less a major multinational corporation with power to contaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico-- and perhaps, Beyond!

Continue ReadingIt’s lonely at the top

Debtors’ Prison Still A Reality?

According to a recent article by Chris Serres at the Minnesota Star Tribune, courts still order debtors to go to jail when they can't afford to pay a judgment. Not only are the national media largely unaware of this phenomenon, but The New Yorker published an article last April that characterizes debtors' prisons as a pre-20th Century institution, and describes the America as a refuge for debtors.

As many as two out of every three Europeans who came to the American colonies were debtors on arrival. Some colonies were, basically, debtors’ asylums. By the seventeen-sixties, sympathy for debtors had attached itself to the patriot cause.

Jill Lepore of The New Yorker goes on to describe how American treatment of debt has evolved to allow bankruptcy and why this is a good thing.

Debtors’ prison was abolished, and bankruptcy law was liberalized, because Americans came to see that most people who fall into debt are victims of the business cycle, and not of fate or divine retribution.

Even Wikipedia describes debtors' prisons as a thing of the past, or at least an unconstitutional one, according to this 2009 New York Times editorial, "The New Debtors' Prisons."

20th Century Debtors' Prison

Times have changed. To be sure, most Americans who are deep in credit card debt do not have bench warrants issued for their arrest. However, in Illinois, Indiana and other states, a person who's gotten a judgment entered against them can miss a court date and find themselves being hounded by the police.

What about the argument that defendants may owe the money they are being sued for, and should have gone to court? Perhaps the threat of jail is the only way to make them appear in court.

Reporters from The New York Times and The Federal Trade Commission have found that the collection industry is in dire need of repair, and cited numerous, ubiquitous problems. Some of these problems are startling. To wit:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingDebtors’ Prison Still A Reality?