NEITHER dead or alive, knife-wound or gunshot victims will be cooled down and placed in suspended animation later this month, as a groundbreaking emergency technique is tested out for the first time....
The technique involves replacing all of a patient's blood with a cold saline solution, which rapidly cools the body and stops almost all cellular activity. "If a patient comes to us two hours after dying you can't bring them back to life. But if they're dying and you suspend them, you have a chance to bring them back after their structural problems have been fixed," says surgeon Peter Rhee at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who helped develop the technique.
The benefits of cooling, or induced hypothermia, have been known for decades. At normal body temperature – around 37 °C – cells need a regular oxygen supply to produce energy. When the heart stops beating, blood no longer carries oxygen to cells. Without oxygen the brain can only survive for about 5 minutes before the damage is irreversible.
However, at lower temperatures, cells need less oxygen because all chemical reactions slow down. This explains why people who fall into icy lakes can sometimes be revived more than half an hour after they have stopped breathing.
Posts tagged ‘victims’
First, as many of you may have guessed, the "massive cuts" in food stamps over the next 10 years proposed by House Republicans are basically just a modest reduction in their rate of growth. All attempts to slow the spending growth in any government program will always be treated by the media as Armageddon, which is why government spending seldom slows (see: Sequester).
But I have been amazed through this whole deal that Republicans want to extract a pound (actually probably just an ounce or so) of flesh out of the Food Stamp program but explicitly left the rest of the farm bill with all of its bloated subsidies alone. Henry Olson asks the same question at NRO.
I will add one other observation about food stamps that is sure to have just about everyone disagreeing with me. Of late, Republicans have released a number of reports on food stamp fraud, showing people converting food stamps to cash, presumably so they can buy things with the money that food stamps are allowed to be used for.
Once upon a time, maybe 30 years ago in my more Conservative days, I would get all worked up by the same things. Look at those guys, we give them money for food and they buy booze with it! It must be stopped. Since that time, I suppose I never really revisited this point of view until I was watching the recent stories on food stamp fraud.
But what I began thinking about was this: As a libertarian, I always say that the government needs to respect and keep its hands off the decision-making of individuals. If people make bad choices, paraphrasing from the HBO show Deadwood, then let them go to hell however they choose. And, more often than not, it turns out that when you really look, people are not necessarily making what from the outside looks like a bad choice -- they have information, incentives, pressures, and preferences we folks sitting in our tidy Washington offices, chauffeured to work every day, may not understand.
So if we are going to give people charity - money to survive on when poor and out of work - shouldn't we respect them and their choices? Why attach a myriad of conditions and surveillance to the use of the funds? Of course, this is an opinion that puts me way out of the mainstream. Liberals will treat these folks as potential victims that must be guided paternally, and Conservatives will treat them as potential fraudsters who must be watched carefully. I think either of these attitudes are insidious, and it is better to treat these folks as adults who need help.
The U.S. is big enough and strong enough to act on behalf of the innocent victims, including children, who were killed in Syria by the chemical weapons. But those who are against it say this is not our fight. That we shouldn’t go it alone. That the chemical attack wasn’t against Americans. That we can’t be sure what we’d be getting ourselves into. And that there is no clear objective, other than acting in response to an atrocity.
I understand the reasoning.
Given all that, however, I wonder why was so many Americans were furious with former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary.
He was the guy who saw the now imprisoned former coach Jerry Sandusky raping a boy in a Penn State shower.
McQueary was vilified for not acting to stop the attack.
This is an absurd comparison for any number of reasons. The most obvious is that no one would have been put in danger, and the financial costs were nil, for the Penn State coaches to stop Sandusky's abuse. Further, Penn State officials had a clear legal obligation for the safety of folks on their property. Finally, Penn State had the ability to easily stop and prevent the illegal activity.
None of these statements are true for Syria. The costs in lives and property, both to ourselves and to the citizens of Syria, are potential enormous. It's not clear it is the US's job to police the area, and in fact history has proven that unilaterally adopting the policeman role, even with the best of intentions, can hurt our country's reputation and relations in the long-term. Finally, its not at all clear that we could stop Assad from doing whatever he wishes, short of sending in troops to remove him from power, and even then his replacement may likely be just as bad. Oddly for a liberal in the foregin policy sphere, Montini seems to be making a form of the "might makes right" argument, that the US is obligated just because it is big and strong.
Tellingly, I don't see Montini advocating for use military force to help citizens in any other of the scores of countries where they are being mistreated. It is more likely that what Montini is really concerned about is the loss of the prestige and credibility of Barack Obama. A lot of blood has been spilled for thousands of years for the prestige of state leaders. I for one am happy if this country is finally wising up to this game.
The New York Times has a long article on Harvard Business School's effort to change its culture around women. Given that both my wife and I attended, albeit 25 years ago, I have a few thoughts.
- I thought the article was remarkably fair given that it came from the NYT. Men who are skeptical of the program actually are allowed to voice intelligent objections, rather than just be painted as Neanderthals
- I would have abhorred the forced gender indoctrination program, as much for being boring as for being tangential. I am fortunate I grew up when I did, before such college group-think sessions were made a part of the process everywhere. I would presume most of these young folks are now used to such sessions from their undergrad days. I would not have a problem having an honest and nuanced discussion about these issues with smart people of different backgrounds, but I thought the young man they quoted in the article said it really well -- there is just no payoff to voicing a dissenting opinion in such sessions where it is clear there is a single right answer and huge social and even administrative penalties for saying the wrong thing.
- I went to HBS specifically because I loved the confrontational free-for-all of the classes. It was tailor-made to my personality and frankly I have never been as successful at anything before or since as I was at HBS. I say this only to make it clear that I have a bias in favor of the HBS teaching process. I do think there is an issue that this process does not fit well with certain groups. These folks who do not thrive in the process are not all women (foreign students can really struggle as well) but they are probably disproportionately women. So I was happy to see that rather than dumb down the process, they are working to help women be more successful and confident in it.
- It is interesting to see that the school still struggles to get good women professors. When I was there, the gap between the quality of men and women professors was staggering. The men were often older guys who had been successful in the business and finance world and now were teaching. The women were often young and just out of grad school. The couple of women professors I had my first year were weak, probably the two weakest professors I had. In one extreme case our female professor got so jumbled up in the numbers that the class demanded I go down and sort it out, which I finally did. I thought it was fun at the time, but now I realize how humiliating it was.
- To some extent, the school described in the article seems a different place than when I was there. They describe a school awash in alcohol and dominated by social concerns. This may be a false impression -- newspapers have a history of exaggerating college bacchanalia. At the time I was there, Harvard did not admit many students who did not have at least 2 years of work experience, such that the youngest students were 24 and many were in their 30's and 40's. A number were married and some even had children. To be there, they not only were paying a lot of money but they were quitting paying jobs. The school was full of professionals who were there for a purpose. I had heard that HBS had started to admit more students right out of college -- perhaps that is a mistake.
- The fear by the women running the school that women would show up on Halloween wearing "sexy pirate" costumes represents, in my mind, one of the more insidious aspects of this new feminist paternalism (maternalism?) aimed at fellow women. Feminism used to be about empowering women to make whatever choices they want for their lives. Now it is increasingly about requiring women to make only the feminist-approved choices.
- I actually wrote a novel where the protagonist was a confident successful female at HBS. So I guess I was years ahead of the curve.
Postscript: Below the fold is an excerpt from my novel. In it, the protagonist Susan describes how an HBS class works and shares my advice for being successful at HBS.
San Francisco's fire chief has explicitly banned firefighters from using helmet-mounted video cameras, after images from a battalion chief's Asiana Airlines crash recording became public and led to questions about first responders' actions leading up to a fire rig running over a survivor.
Chief Joanne Hayes-White said she issued the order after discovering that Battalion Chief Mark Johnson's helmet camera filmed the aftermath of the July 6 crash at San Francisco International Airport. Still images from the footage were published in The Chronicle.
Filming the scene may have violated both firefighters' and victims' privacy, Hayes-White said, trumping whatever benefit came from knowing what the footage shows.
"There comes a time that privacy of the individual is paramount, of greater importance than having a video," Hayes-White said.
Any 5-year-old can figure out here that this has nothing to do with victim privacy -- this is all about shielding her organization from accountability from future screw-ups. Somehow we have ended up in a completely backwards world where surveillance is aimed at private citizens doing private things but is banned for public officials doing public things. Ms. Hayes-White is obviously just a puppet for the firefighters union, and she be treated with contempt.
Via Cafe Hayek, Paul Krugman says:
And surely the fact that the United States is the only major advanced nation without some form of universal health care is at least part of the reason life expectancy is much lower in America than in Canada or Western Europe.
If I were a cynical person, I might think that the tortured and overly coy syntax of this statement is due to the fact that Krugman knows very well that the causation he is implying here is simply not the case. Rather than rehash this age-old issue here on Coyote Blog, let's roll tape from a post a few years ago:
Supporters of government medicine often quote a statistic that shows life expectancy in the US lower than most European nations with government-run health systems. But what they never mention is that this ranking is mainly due to lifestyle and social factors that have nothing to do with health care. Removing just two factors - death from accidents (mainly car crashes) and murders - vaults the US to the top of the list. Here, via Carpe Diem, are the raw and corrected numbers:
And so I will fire back and say, "And surely the fact that the United States is the only major advanced nation without some form of universal health care is at least part of the reason life expectancy related to health care outcomes is so much higher in America than in Canada or Western Europe.
And check out the other chart in that post from that study:
US cancer survival rates dwarf, yes dwarf those of other western nations. Even black males in the US, who one would suppose to be the victims of our rapacious health care system, have higher cancer survival rates than the average in most western nations (black American women seem to have uniquely poor cancer survival rates, I am not sure why. Early detection issues?)
All this data came originally from a post at Carpe Diem, which I refer you to for source links and methodologies.
While Sheriff Joe was pursuing a vendetta against County officials, chasing down Mexicans with broken tail lights, and raiding dry cleaners demanding immigration papers, over 400 sexual assaults were going under-investigated. According to the article, this was not an accident -- there was a real prioritization that put few resources in the special victims unit and put more and better staff on things like counter-terrorism (Phoenix being a well-known hotbed of terrorist activity).
The understaffing in the special-victims unit was due in part to the Sheriff's Office's priorities -- and the special-victims unit was not one of them, according to a half-dozen current and former sheriff's employees.
Despite a Maricopa County hiring freeze prompted by the faltering economy, the Sheriff's Office from 2005 through mid-2008 was hiring 45 to 50 new deputies annually and tackling initiatives that included counterterrorism and homeland-security enhancements. The office also embraced immigration enforcement, sending 60 deputies and 100 detention officers through a federal immigration-training program and creating a human-smuggling unit with at least 15 dedicated deputies.
Staffing in the special-victims unit remained unchanged during those years: four detectives....
The Sheriff's Office was allocated more than $600,000 in fiscal 2007 for six full-time positions for "investigating cases involving sexual abuse, domestic violence, abuse and child abuse." The Sheriff's Office now says the six new positions were to focus solely on child-abuse cases. In any event, they cannot say where those deputies went to work.
"We don't know," Chief Deputy Sheridan said. "We've looked, and we can't find any of those position numbers which were allocated for child-abuse cases."
This is due in part to the acknowledged misallocation of roughly $100 million in agency funds that had patrol deputies being paid out of an account designated for detention officers.
The department was almost certainly spending more on Joe Arpaio's PR than it was on the special victims unit. Dozens of cases showed no investigation at all, and hundreds showed that no contact had been made either with the victim or the suspect. Piles of case files were found random file cabinets and even one officer's garage.
From the Gaurdian via Bishop Hill
The Guardian is reporting that UK climate change aid money has been used to fund forced sterilisation programmes in India.
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned...
Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.
Scathing report on how NY police gamed the process to improve their reported crime numbers. Nothing in this should be the least surprising to anyone who watched a few seasons of The Wire.
These are not just accounting shenanigans. There were actions the directly affected the public and individual liberty. People were rounded up on the street on BS charges to pad arrest stats while real, substantial crimes went ignored in a bid to keep them out of the reported stats.
There is one part in here that is a good illustration of public vs. private power. People who fear corporations seem to have infinite trust for state institutions. But the worst a corporation was ever able to do to a whistle blower was fire him. This is what the state does:
For more than two years, Adrian Schoolcraftsecretly recorded every roll call at the 81st Precinct in Brooklyn and captured his superiors urging police officers to do two things in order to manipulate the "stats" that the department is under pressure to produce: Officers were told to arrest people who were doing little more than standing on the street, but they were also encouraged to disregard actual victims of serious crimes who wanted to file reports.
Arresting bystanders made it look like the department was efficient, while artificially reducing the amount of serious crime made the commander look good.
In October 2009, Schoolcraft met with NYPD investigators for three hours and detailed more than a dozen cases of crime reports being manipulated in the district. Three weeks after that meeting—which was supposed to have been kept secret from Schoolcraft's superiors—his precinct commander and a deputy chief ordered Schoolcraft to be dragged from his apartment and forced into the Jamaica Hospital psychiatric ward for six days.
The first part in a three-part Radley Balko series is up at the Huffpo. Good stuff, though hugely frustrating of course. Watch the media for other stories on this topic -- I challenge you to find one story in the regular media that discusses pain medication that has even one interview of a pain sufferer. This issues is treated 180 degrees differently from any other story one could imagine about victims of medical conditions being denied medication. The part that always amazes me is how "addiction" is treated as a bad thing under all circumstances -- what does addiction even mean if the alternative is unbearable pain? Are AIDS patients addicted to the medication that keeps them alive?
A while back I criticized the notion that Backpage was somehow responsible for murders because one guy in Detroit identified his victims from Backpage ads. I argued that Conservatives trying to take down Backpage adult ads ostensibly to make sex workers safer should look in the mirror, given that most of the reason sex workers are at risk is because Conservatives have driven their profession underground.
Far from helping victims like Baby Face, prohibition forces the entire market underground, making it harder to enforce the distinction between minors and adults or between willing and coerced participants. Prohibition forces prostitutes to work in dangerous conditions, picking up customers on the street or covertly connecting with them online, and makes it harder for them to seek legal remedies when they are cheated or abused. These hazards, similar to those seen in black markets for drugs and gambling, are not inherent to the business of selling sex; they are inherent to the policy of using force to suppress peaceful commerce. Since these dangers are entirely predictable, prohibitionists like Kristof should be reflecting on their role in perpetuating them, instead of making scapegoats out of businesses that run classified ads.
People live every day with excruciating pain that is untreatable with current medications, either because the medication has nasty side effects or they have built a tolerance or both. So I would have thought the prospect of a new medication to help these folks would be an occasion for good news.
But not according to Chris Hawley of the Associated Press. I first saw this story in our local paper, and was just staggered at its tone. The article begins this way:
Drug companies are working to develop a pure, more powerful version of the nation's second most-abused medicine, which has addiction experts worried that it could spur a new wave of abuse.
And it goes on and on in that vein, for paragraph after paragraph. Through it all there is all kinds of over-wrought speculation, with nary a statistic or fact in sight. This is not atypical of the tone:
"It's like the wild west," said Peter Jackson, co-founder of Advocates for the Reform of Prescription Opioids. "The whole supply-side system is set up to perpetuate this massive unloading of opioid narcotics on the American public."
or this gem:
Critics say they are troubled because of the dark side that has accompanied the boom in sales of narcotic painkillers: Murders, pharmacy robberies and millions of dollars lost by hospitals that must treat overdose victims.
Recognize that murders and robberies associated with narcotics are almost always due to their illegality, not their basic nature. These are a function of prohibition, not the drug itself, which in fact is more likely to make users docile than amped up to commit crime.
It is not until paragraph 11 that the article actually acknowledges there might be some folks who benefit from this new medication. And even this is a dry discussion of side effects by some doctors -- how about heart-rending quotes from pain sufferers? Newspapers love to include these, except in articles on pain medications where I have yet to see one such quote.
But then the author quickly goes back to arguing that pharmaceutical companies are purposefully addicting patients as part of the business model
"You've got a person on your product for life, and a doctor's got a patient who's never going to miss an appointment, because if they did and they didn't get their prescription, they would feel very sick," said Andrew Kolodny, president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. "It's a terrific business model, and that's what these companies want to get in on."
That's a pretty ugly way to portray this. Couldn't you argue the same thing about, say, medications that suppress HIV? What these opponents never discuss is that they are basically proposing to consign people who have chronic pain to life-long torture. They are saying "better in pain than addicted." Really? I will take the addiction. Hell, by the same logic I am addicted to water and air too.
The notion that we should force a person to live in lifelong pain because some other person makes choices we don't like regarding their own narcotic use is just awful. Seriously, these are the same folks who say that libertarians have no empathy.
Postscript. Only after her death have I really learned about the contributions of Siobhan Reynolds, who died the other day after years of fighting to bring the interests of pain sufferers into this debate. Radley Balko has a memorial, but this AP article is about all you need to understand what she was fighting, and how easily the plight of pain sufferers is ignored in these discussions.
Apparently, while Sheriff Arpaio was busy raiding businesses and zip-tieing everyone with brown skin and distracted by his attempts to arrest judges that handed down unfavorable decisions, there was actual violent crime happening in Maricopa County. With the Sheriff busy with celebrities raiding homes suspected of cockfighting with tanks, minor stuff like rape got put on the back burner. The story has just been discovered by the AP but it has been kicking around town for a while:
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office failed to adequately investigate more than 400 sex-crime cases, including dozens in El Mirage, over a two-year period because of poor oversight and former Chief Deputy David Hendershott's desire to protect a key investigator from bad publicity, according to documents pertaining to a recent internal investigation released by the Sheriff's Office.
The errors led to interminable delays for victims of serious crimes who waited years for the attackers to be brought to justice, if they were ever caught.
More than 50 El Mirage sex-crime cases, most involving young children reportedly victimized by friends or family, went uninvestigated after police took an initial report. The lack of oversight was so widespread in El Mirage that it affected other cases: roughly 15 death investigations, some of them homicides with workable leads, were never presented to prosecutors, and dozens of robberies and auto-theft cases never led to arrests.
The East Valley Tribune actually had details on this story over three years ago, in a story that won a Pullitzer, but the Sheriff never bothered to do anything until the story hit the AP.
Employees were preparing to close the 99 Cent Discount Store in El Mirage on Aug. 20, 2006, when a teenage girl ran inside.
Agitated and refusing to leave, the 15-year-old girl told the store's manager that two men had just raped her in a ditch outside, a police report says.
Paramedics took the girl to Del E. Webb Hospital in Sun City West, where medical staff found physical evidence of sexual assault, according to deputy chief Bill Knight, head of the sheriff's central investigations, who researched the case.
At midnight, a detective from the MCSO's special victims unit arrived at the hospital to begin an investigation, the report says.
But the investigation never really began.
The MCSO closed the case a month later by designating it "exceptionally cleared," which is supposed to be applied to cases where a suspect is known and there's enough evidence to make an arrest but circumstances prevent an arrest. That designation allows the MCSO to count the case in the same reporting category as investigations that end in arrest.
But in this case, the detectives didn't have a suspect and appear to have done no work on the case.
I would love to see a reincarnation of "the Wire" focused on our Sheriff's department. All the same corruptions in the show are on display every day here in Arizona.
I'm not really going to comment on the Jerry Sandusky pedophile cases. The evidence looks pretty damning at this point but I'll let it play out in the courts.
But guilty or innocent, how could his attorney possibly have let him do a TV interview with Bob Costas the other day? The interview has spurred new victims to come forward.
But beyond that, given that he insisted on going on TV (I suppose clients can ignore good advice), how could his attorney have allowed him to be so unprepared? I did not watch the interview (I am not big on these select legal cases we like to try in the press), but I heard excerpts on ESPN. The guy was not prepared to answer the simple and obvious question "are you a pedophile." He hemmed and hawed and babbled and kindof said yes and no. It was the worst, dumbest interview by an alleged criminal I have ever seen, and if you ever wonder why folks facing criminal or civil charges never jump into the media fray to defend themselves, go watch this interview.
Ten years ago today, we were arguing over whether it was appropriate to even hold professional football and baseball games, much less enjoy ourselves in any way, in the aftermath of 9/11.
No one even contemplated trying to deal with it humorously. Heck, I am not sure I have seen many attempts even a decade later to do so. But just days after 9/11, the Onion published an amazing issue dedicated to 9/11. It was funny without being disrespectful of the victims, and in many ways still on point. They should have had a Pulitzer for it. The articles are archived here.
Obama's Department of Education has been issuing a series of new rules to colleges that accept government funds (ie pretty much all of them) that going forward, they will be required to
- Expand the definition of sexual harassment, forcing it to include even Constitutionally-protected speech. Sexual harassment will essentially be redefined as "somehow offending a female."
- Eliminate traditional protections for those accused of sexual harassment under these new definitions. The presumption of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt guilt standards, the ability to face and cross-examine one's accuser, and the right of appeal are among centuries old common law traditions that the DOE is seeking to eliminate in colleges.
Unfortunately, this is a really hard threat to tackle. Most of those concerned with civil rights protections outside our small libertarian community are on the left, and these same people are often fully vested in the modern feminist belief that all men are rapists. It also puts libertarians in the position of defending crude and boorish speech, or at least defending the right to that speech.
But at the end of the day, the DOE needs to be forced to explain why drunk and stupid frat boys chanting crude slogans outside the women's center on campus should have fewer rights as accused than does a serial murder.
But more often they involve alleged offenses defined in vague terms and depending often on subjective factors. Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate put-downs of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).
All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?
Given the prevailing attitudes among faculty and university administrators, it's not hard to guess who will be the target of most such proceedings. You only have to remember how rapidly and readily top administrators and dozens of faculty members were ready to castigate as guilty of rape the Duke lacrosse players who, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper concluded, were absolutely innocent.
What the seemingly misnamed Office of Civil Rights is doing here is demanding the setting up of kangaroo courts and the dispensing of what I would call marsupial justice against students who are disfavored by campus denizens because of their gender or race or political attitude. "Alice in Wonderland's" Red Queen would approve.
As Lukianoff points out, OCR had other options. The Supreme Court in a 1999 case defined sexual harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." In other words, more than a couple of tasteless jokes or a moment of elevator eyes.
Women'g groups all the time say things like "all men are rapists." That's pretty hostile and degrading to men. My guess is that somehow this kind of gender-hostile speech will not be what gets investigated by these kangaroo courts.
Here is the next bit of news I bet we will hear: One of the victims or his/her families will sue Safeway, whose only involvement in the crime was that it had offered the parking lot as a location for Ms. Giffords constituent meeting. Increasingly, though, the tort system is not about justice, but about finding deep pockets somehow tangentially connected to a tragedy. I will bet that some lawyer right now is crafting a suit based on Safeway's inadequate security, poor judgement in allowing the meeting on their property, failure to warn customers of the potential dangers of attending such a political meeting, etc. etc.
I love to watch groups dedicated to victimhood argue with their peers over whose group constitutes the biggest victims. I enjoy it, that is, until I remember that they are fighting over the division of loot plundered from me.
Apparently, legislators in California can't get away with just passing a law that says something like "no damn foreigners can build trains for us." So they repackage their protectionism by finding a way to disguise it, in this case with a truly screwball piece of fiddling-while-Rome-burns legislation:
A bill authored by Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield (D "“ San Fernando Valley) requiring companies seeking contracts to build California's High Speed Rail system to disclose their involvement in deportations to concentration camps during World War II gained final approval from the state legislature today. AB 619, the Holocaust Survivor Responsibility Act, passed the Assembly on a vote of 50 "“ 7 and was sent to the governor, who will have until September 30 to act on it.AB 619 would require companies seeking to be awarded high speed rail contracts to publicly disclose whether they had a direct role in transporting persons to concentration camps, and provide a description of any remedial action or restitution they have made to survivors, or families of victims. The bill requires the High Speed Rail Authority to include a company's disclosure as part of the contract award process.
Apparently they have in mind specifically the SNCF, the French national railroad. Its loony enough to blame current corporate management and ownership for something the entity did three generations ago, but the supposed crimes of the SNCF occurred when France was occupied by the Nazis. Its like criticizing the actions of a hostage. And even if there were some willing collaborationists, they almost certainly were punished by the French after liberation, and besides the US Army Air Force did its level best to bomb the SNCF's infrastructure back into the stone age, so I am certainly willing to call it quits.
The media is portraying the $20 billion BP spill fund as a result of tough talk from the President. I think it was a lifeline that BP grabbed with great relish (so does the stock market, as their stock price has risen slightly in the day and a half since).
BP faces absolute bankruptcy from the torts resulting form this current spill, along with some criminal charges. Its best hope is to negotiate a deal, Chicago-style, with the US government. In exchange for a cash fund that will sound really large in the press but likely will fall short of actual claims, Congress will pass a law limiting its liability to just+ the settlement fund. The public justification will be that the settlement fund will provide much quicker and more efficient compensation to victims -- which might even be true.
If one wants a model, just look at the tobacco settlement. While they vilified them, the government in fact made tobacco companies their partners. Since the settlement, the government has in fact stepped in to protect the large tobacco companies from competition and price erosion, in large part to protect parties to the settlement from loss of market share to parties who are not on the hook to pay out large sums to the government. By the way, note that the vast majority of the tobacco settlement money did not go to its stated purpose of tobacco education and health care costs, but into the general funds to support politicians' whims.
This is how things work in the corporate state (and, I suppose, in organized crime). Once you have an entity like BP vulnerable and under your control, the last thing you want is for them to die. You want to milk them for years, both for cash and political support, the quid pro quo for being kept alive.
Update: OK, it seems I can't be original. Others are thinking this too
I have written any number of times about government health care as the excuse to regulate nearly everything, since nearly every individual decision and activity can be argued to affect one's health. If government is paying the health care bills, it now has an interest in regulating behaviors that might raise those bills. Given the US government has been on a 80-year mission to end the concept of individual responsibility, Obamacare is a huge milestone.
You see, Ms. Kaplan obviously thinks it is the role of government to "help Americans eat healthier" even if it means banning things. My guess is she'd not be quite as ready for government bans it they had to do with, oh I don't know, books or something similar.The excuse?
In Santa Clara County, one out of every four kids is either overweight or obese. Among 2- to 5-year-olds from low-income families, the rate is one in three. The county health system spends millions of dollars a year treating kids for health problems related to obesity, and the tab is growing.
If you haven't yet figured out that the passage of ObamaCare has emboldened the nannies at all levels, this ought to make the case. Trust me, this reporter didn't dig this nugget out. It was handed to her by those trying to justify this power grab.
Yeah, I know this is just a local action, but this is just a market test for future similar federal actions. I can just picture John Jay and James Madison arguing in a tavern. "Jimmy, I am just not sure what kind of Constitution we need. Well, John, whatever we do, we absolutely must make sure the Federal government has the power to ban toys from kids meals. Oh, and to regulate salt content too. After all, that's what we fought a war for."
Postscript: My question is, how long are health cost advocates going to nibble at the margins? Childhood obesity costs are probably close to zero, in the grand scheme of things, despite the BS numbers from "advocates." Two individual decisions drive a ton of health care costs - driving (the most dangerous activity we pursue, typically) and sex (not just in disease but in pre and post natal care). And I wonder how long it will be before government health care costs treating gunshot victims will be used to trump 2nd amendment arguments?
It's no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye.
The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.
Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.
Babeu's claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008"”deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend.
Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges.
El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.
When I grew up, one of my favorite movies when I was little was the Andromeda Strain (I am not sure why, the science in it is so goofy -- why do the people outside of the controlled area holding the diseases have to be so sterilized?)
Anyway, in that movie, they had some sort of scan that showed the disease progressing from the victims's lungs. That scan looks a lot like this interactive chart, which looks like the recession is a disease spreading from the Midwest and California.
The fall of the Berlin wall is probably one of the 3-4 "Where-were-you-when..." events that I remember in my lifetime. I remember turning on the TV and seeing people dancing on top of the wall and being struck with a strong sense of cognitive dissonance, wondering if I was watching some war-of-the-worlds style fiction. I don't remember even today if this was a surprising event to the whole world, of if it was just I who was holed up in some ignore-the-outside-world zone, but it certainly was a stunning surprise to me.
It was truly a great day, in my mind more great than 9/11 was bad, so it is kind of amazing to me how much it is already almost forgotten. In the late 1970's, I had the opportunity to take the East Berlin tour through Checkpoint Charlie to see the wrong side of the wall. Many Americans I have talked to had the same reaction to this tour -- that it was meant to be one long propaganda spiel for communist East Germany but in fact was pathetically self-mocking. The propaganda failed because even the writers of the propaganda could not conceive of how wealthy the west was compared to the East. So when they bragged that 70% of the residents had running water or that "almost" all of the city had been rebuilt from the war 30 years later, Westerners were unimpressed.
Update: Remembering the victims of communism.
Tennessee police said a mechanic was drumming up business by tampering with parked cars, then charging to help start them. Police arrested 41-year-old Christopher Walls of Johnson City on Thursday night.
Investigators said Walls disabled cars parked at restaurants, waited for the owners to try to start them and then offered his services as a mechanic. Police said Walls charged between $40 and $200 to get the vehicles running again.
He's charged with two counts of theft under $500, but police suspect there are other victims. They're urging anyone else who thinks they were scammed to call them.