Monthly Archives: February 2007

More Evidence Of Global Warming

Early Spring? We need Kyoto!

A new pair of hands pulled Punxsutawney Phil from his stump this year, so it was only fitting that the groundhog offered a new prediction.

Phil did not see his shadow on Friday, which, according to German folklore, means folks can expect an early spring instead of six more weeks of winter.

Since 1886, Phil has seen his shadow 96 times, hasn’t seen it 15 times and there are no records for nine years, according to the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club. The last time Phil failed to see his shadow was in 1999.

However, not everyone was convinced. One Global Warming Denier had this to say:

Rick McFerron, an administrator at Indiana University of Pennsylvania some 30 miles away, walked the whole way to the ceremony to celebrate his 60th birthday and to raise money for breast cancer research.

He said he was skeptical of the groundhog’s prediction.

“It’s supposed to get bitter cold this weekend,” McFerron said.

Just how much did Exxon pay you, McFerron?

The Latest Police Outrage

This time in Kansas City, Missouri. A pregnant woman was pulled over by police for a traffic violation. She tells them she’s pregnant and bleeding and they ignore her and take her to jail instead. The result was quite tragic:

Salva, a Sudanese native, was pulled over Feb. 5, 2006, by officers Melody Spencer and Kevin Schnell, who had seen her affix a fake temporary tag on her car’s back windshield.

“She told the officers repeatedly over the course of 45 minutes that she was bleeding, she was pregnant, she needed medical attention,” Protzman said. “And they ignored her request and refused to listen to her and refused to take care of her.”

Salva was taken to jail and kept overnight on traffic violations and outstanding city warrants. The next morning, Salva claims, she was released and delivered a premature baby boy who died a minute after birth.

“If Sofia could have her baby back, she would love to have that,” Protzman said. “But the police took that opportunity away from her. She’s pursuing the only recourse that’s available to her under the law.”

The suit, filed Friday in Jackson County Circuit Court, seeks actual damages exceeding $25,000 and punitive damages to punish and deter such conduct in the future.

The videotape seems pretty damning:

Seems pretty outrageous to me. And yet further evidence that the whole idea of “to protect and serve” doesn’t mean much anymore.

H/T: The Agitator

US Lags In Family Laws; Leads In Freedom

The AP is reporting that the US is far behind other nations when it comes to family-leave legislation.

The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries including Australia with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says. On top of that, Australians find it far easier and accepted to start legal proceedings against their employer for an injury suffered in the workplace. In Australia, a workplace injury will, in most cases, mean you can get some sort of compensation from your employer.

The new data comes as politicians and lobbyists wrangle over whether to scale back the existing federal law providing unpaid family leaves or to push new legislation allowing paid leaves.

The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.

“More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of,” said the study’s lead author, Jody Heymann, founder of the Harvard-based Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill’s Institute for Health and Social Policy.

I hate to bring up the “love it or leave it” idea, but there are 168 of 173 countries in this world that offer these “protections” that so many Americans are dreaming of, and yet it is America that has high economic growth (for a developed nation) and people who just dream of leaving their own shores and immigrating here. France’s bloated welfare state is in dire need of workers, so I’m sure those people who dream of workplace “protections” could take up residence there.

I’d like to say that American has chosen a completely different path, one of liberty and freedom of contract. One where we choose to allow workers and employers to decide what benefits are and are not necessary. But then I woke up. American laws haven’t always been completely pro-liberty. But we do have one feature here, which I would consider an advantage, but which makes it very easy to attack us on these grounds. We’re a federal system, where these decisions are left to individual states rather than mandated from above.

Fathers are granted paid paternity leave or paid parental leave in 65 countries, including 31 offering at least 14 weeks of paid leave. The U.S. guarantees fathers no such paid leaves.

At least 107 countries protect working women’s right to breast-feed; the breaks are paid in at least 73 of them. The U.S. does not have federal legislation guaranteeing the right to breast-feed at work.

At least 145 countries provide paid sick days, with 127 providing a week or more annually. The U.S. provides unpaid leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, which does not cover all workers; there is no federal law providing for paid sick days.

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week. The U.S. does not have a maximum work week length or a limit on mandatory overtime per week.

It’s easy to say that the US government doesn’t guarantee these things, and leave the impression in your readers’ minds that these things do not occur in the US. And in some states, that would be the case. In some states, there is very little legislation guaranteeing these sorts of “rights”. In others, though, a state will rank right up there with the “enlightened”.

That doesn’t change the fact that these laws are an infringement on freedom. But it’s easy to paint with a broad brush when you’re trying to compare a system which isn’t designed to be centrally planned, a system where we attempt to let competition between the various states show what system is better.

If the United States were operating anything like its federal, Constitutional design, these sorts of criticisms would hold no weight. People would see the true decisions being made at the state level, with the central government as merely a facilitator of cooperation and an arbitrater of disputes. Such a simple article, trying to talk about the United States as if we should be handling such decisions at the federal level, would be laughable.

But unfortunately, it’s not. The United States has long abandoned federalism, and our state governments have become the laughable, ignored entities. Now, when citizens want to enforce rules which infringe on other people’s rights, they head straight to the top, and expect the federal government to do it for them. Family-leave legislation is an infringement on the rights of workers and employers to set their own terms of contract. Because we haven’t completely allowed our federal government to infringe everyone’s freedom, we still have at least a few moderately free states left. It’s too bad that those states are dwindling, and even worse that the AP is actively lobbying for their demise.

Super Bowl Copyright Nonsense

As you may have noticed, the National Football League guards it’s copyright over the Super Bowl very jealously. That’ s why you never see any retailer who isn’t an official sponsor or advertiser mention the Super Bowl in their ads for, say, big screen televisions, soda, or beer. Instead, they call it “the Big Game.”

Considering the amount of money that the game brings in, it’s not surprising that the NFL would be protective of it’s product. This, however, strikes me as an immensely inappropriate extension of the copyright law:

Churches in Indiana and across the country are scrapping traditional Super Bowl viewing parties in wake of the NFL’s stance that mass viewings of the game on big screen TV’s would violate copyright law.

The issue came to light Thursday when the Star reported that the NFL had told Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that its plans for a Super Bowl watch party in front a big screen TV would be illegal.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Thursday the league stands by its interpretation of copyright law and would look into any violators that comes to the league’s attention. The main concern for the league, Aiello said, is groups that charge admission to watch games and those that use a TV screen larger than 55 inches to show the game.

A story about Fall Creek’s plan to cancel its game viewing plans prompted dozens of calls and more than 500 email comments to the Star’s website Thursday. Aiello said media from around the country have been inquiring with the league as well.

In Indianapolis, home of the AFC Champion Colts, Indian Creek Christian Church and Castleton United Methodist Church are among those who have cancelled plans to watch the game in their churches.

And it’s not just the issue that seems to annoy the NFL, because they even object to mass-viewing parties where no admission is charged:

Aiello said the league has a longstanding policy against “mass out-of-home viewings” of the Super Bowl, even if the hosts don’t charge admission. The NFL makes an exception to that, however, for sports bars that show televised sports on a regular basis.

Why the NFL should care if I invite 60 of my closest friends over to watch the Super Bowl, at no charge, on my bigger-than-55-inch television (if I had one, that is) is entirely beyond me. And it’s yet another example of how state-protected copyrights are used to restrict individual choice.

H/T: Vivian Paige

Minimum Wage Hike Passes

The minimum wage increase passed as expected today. My fellow contributors Jason, Stephen, and any other contributors I have missed have done an excellent in discussing how bad of an idea this increase, but the purpose of this post is to praise the three Republicans who voted against the bill, since they are the only ones with any thing resembling economic sense.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Senator Joh Kyl (R-Arizona)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)

Unfortunately, they’re the only ones in the Senate who still believe in limited government.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.
1 35 36 37 38