Alabama Supreme Court restricts sales of dildos and vibrators based on “public morality”

In the recent decision of 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the Alabama Legislature's prohibition of dildos and vibrators, basing this decision on "public morality." More specifically,

In its second counterclaim, Love Stuff asks to have Ala. Code § 13A-12-200.2 (which generally bans the sale of sex toys) deemed unconstitutional.

The trial Court had found that "The target market for Love Stuff [the name of the store in question] consists of females, ages 32-52." The Court held that commercial public sales of devices geared toward masturbation can be prohibited (though the Court suggested that the decision would be otherwise if the devices were handed out gratuitously or if they were sold at private "Tupperwear"-like parties). Geoffrey Stone harshly disagrees with the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court and properly characterizes this as an improper exercise of religion:

[W]hat is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the "public morality"? Why is a person who uses such a device "immoral"? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful. Much of this can be traced to Augustine, who reasoned in the fifth century that sexual pleasure was integrally related to Adam's Fall from Grace. Adam's original sin, he argued, had not been one of pride or disobedience, but of sex. Thus, sexual pleasure was born out of evil, and man's best hope for redemption lay in repudiating the sexual impulse and, with it, the burden of guilt inherited from Adam. Sexual pleasure was therefore deemed defiling and shameful.

I agree with Stone's thorough analysis.

Continue ReadingAlabama Supreme Court restricts sales of dildos and vibrators based on “public morality”

Did Obama fall for Big Pharma sales hype?

Did you hear that Obama has been cutting some secret deals with Big Pharma after his campaign filled with promises that health care reform would be a big open book? I don't quite know what to think of this. Maybe Obama is leading Pharma on, and he's gonna stab them in the back at the last minute. That ploy has the advantage of freezing the Pharma advertising money in place for now. This is important because Pharma has enough advertising money to destroy what's left of health care reform. So three cheers for the possibility that Obama is a shrewd guy who is keeping his enemies close to keep them at bay, at least for now. I'd give that about a 2% chance of being the case. What I'm assuming is that Obama knows that the system is so utterly corrupted by legalized bribery (campaign contributions) that Congress is incapable of giving us real health care reform. That's why Obama is unwilling to promote the single payer system that most Americans want. In this more likely scenario, Obama has already given up on any meaningful health care reform. Instead, he's working hard to spin the illusion of health care reform, and the final plan will actually be a few trinkets and whistles. Maybe the government will subsidize dentists to give out candy to their patients. Maybe it will be nothing at all, but all of the Congressional Leaders will nonetheless pose and smile with their 3,000 page health care reform bill that no one will have actually read and for good reason. As many progressives are arguing, with increasing volume these days, why not take the profit out of health care insurance? Why not essentially expand medicare to all Americans? The experts I trust say that single payor is the only legitimate reform. Everything else is throwing tax money at a corrupt and inefficient system. I wasn't a big fan of single payor until I started learning how many other countries are making it work. The benefits are many (In addition to the obvious improvement that sick people won't be thrown on the street, employed people won't be locked into terrible jobs just for the insurance). Really, why should we have for-profit health insurance any more than we might have for-profit fire departments and for-profit libraries? Except that we have a for-profit Congress and a for-profit military (e.g., Blackwater and all those private soldiers earning $100,000 to be in Afghanistan). It's getting downright un-American to be duped into doing something because it's RIGHT. But I'm still obsessing about the deal Obama cut with Pharma. We heard how Pharma would save Americans $80 Billion over the next 10 years. Did you see what the written deal is: It's "up to $80 Billion." pharma-memo Now what is Obama thinking? When I see that a store is offering "up to" 80% off, I know (because I'm not a total idiot) that this means the store might be offering 2 items at 10% off and everything else at 0% off. That's the meaning of "up to." Signing an agreement with "up to" is stupid, truly idiotic. My question (which I raised in the beginning of this post) is "Who is the one being stupid?" I'll be watching for some happy 11th hour excitement when Obama tells Pharma to fuck off, that we're enacting single payor and that for its loyalty and naivete, Pharma will be rewarded with tax breaks of "up to" 100%, which means negative 37%. Take that, assholes. That's what you get for trying to cut secret deals with my President. If only. Epilogue: For those of you who are pissed that Obama is a communist, note that Blue Cross just tried to raised its rates by 56% in Michigan.

Continue ReadingDid Obama fall for Big Pharma sales hype?

Don’t buy Girl Scout cookies

Today, an acquaintance (I’ll call her “Laura”) asked me if I would buy some Girl Scout cookies from her daughter’s troop. I told her “No thank you.” 

It’s not that I don’t enjoy eating Girl Scout cookies (I do enjoy Thin Mints and Peanut Butter Sandwich Cookies).   It’s not that I generally oppose the activities of Girl Scouts.  I approve of much of what Girl Scouts do. 

Here’s what triggered this post. Laura told me that the average box of cookies sells for three dollars and that the average profit for each box of cookies is only fifty cents.  Hmmmm. 

Therefore, I can support their Girl Scouts to the same extent by handing $5 directly to the local troop or by buying $30 worth of cookies.  Unless you think that eating cookies is an especially good thing, it makes much more sense to simply hand the local troop $5.  Then again, eating cookies, especially a lot of cookies, is not a good thing.  Cookies consist largely of refined carbohydrates and sugars.  These are exactly the kinds of ingredients that invite obesity.  Are the Girl Scouts concerned about obesity?  Very much so (so am I), yet they continue to rely on cookie sales to fund their activities.

But let’s go back to the money for a moment.  If you click here, you can see it stated that “all of the revenue” from cookie sales “stays with the local Girl Scout council that sponsors the sale.”  The official site carefully …

Share

Continue ReadingDon’t buy Girl Scout cookies