Archive for November, 2010

DOTSec: Let’s disable cellphones in cars

Sacrificing not only passenger convenience, but also important elements of emergency response and crime prevention, to the Government That Knows Best: “Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.” [Daily Caller, earlier] Post-furor update: DOT “currently has no plans” to do this.

“Lawsuits have cost Atlantic City $39 million in just 10 years”

That includes $14 million in payouts to defense lawyers, many of whom have close ties to local politicians, and $25 million to claimants, a figure that “dwarfs what area municipalities and larger cities including Camden and Trenton have paid, and nearly equals payouts in Newark, where the population is eight times larger than Atlantic City.” The casino town’s population is 35,000. [Press of Atlantic City]

Driver sues parents of teen he killed

Waterbury, Ct.: “A driver who’s serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim’s parents, blaming them for their son’s death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.” The hand-penned countersuit comes in response to the parents’ suit; it’s unlikely to help the inmate’s case that prosecutors say he was driving 83 in a 45 mph zone, a claim he denies, or that he had a history of drunk driving convictions. [Hartford Courant]

Schools for Misrule galleys are here

CoverSchoolsforMisrule
I’m delighted to announce that bound galleys of my forthcoming book on legal academia, Schools for Misrule, arrived last week from Encounter Books. Both Encounter and the Cato Institute have a limited number of these available for potential reviewers or others who may write about the book and its themes. (Or inquire about an advance PDF copy if you’re in this position.) And I’m further delighted to report that some blush-makingly favorable blurbs have already come in from well-known public figures and opinion makers who’ve had an advance look at the contents. I’ll share some of them in the weeks ahead.

Even before getting a copy of the book, law-blogger extraordinaire and leading corporate law scholar Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA did a wonderful post (thanks!) in which he called Overlawyered “one of the great voices in tort reform” and added, “I’ve preordered a copy from Amazon and am really looking forward to reading what I am sure will be an important critique of my chosen profession.” You can pre-order too.

“Whoppers with sleaze”

In today’s Washington Times: my take on the growing aggressiveness of “public health” officialdom in pushing scare campaigns about everyday consumption risks, including Mayor Bloomberg’s controversial new campaigns against sweetened drinks and (even more misleadingly) salty foods, as well as the FDA’s proposal to put corpse photos on cigarette packs. It begins:

The Puritans held that reminders of mortality had an edifying effect on the living, which is why they sometimes would illustrate even literature for young children with drawings of death’s-heads and skeletons. Something of the same spirit seems to animate our ever-advancing movement for mandatory public health. The Food and Drug Administration has just floated the idea of requiring cigarette packs to carry rotating pictures that would include corpses – yes, actual corpses – as well as close-ups of grotesque medical disorders that can afflict smokers.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s superactivist Health Department has begun public ad campaigns about the health risks of everyday foods, including a controversial YouTube video portraying soda drinkers as pouring globs of shimmery yellow fat into their open mouths and – just out – an ad showing an innocent-looking can of chicken-with-rice soup as bursting with dangerous salt. Whether or not you live in New York, you’re likely to be seeing more of this sort of thing because the mayor’s crew tends to set the pace for activist public-health efforts nationwide; the Obama administration, for example, picked Bloomberg lieutenant Thomas R. Frieden to head the influential Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Why should government use our own tax dollars to propagandize and hector us about the risks of salted snacks, chocolate milk or the other temptations of today’s supermarket aisle? The Bloomberg-Obama camp seems to feel that government dietary advice is superior to other sources of information we might draw on because (1) it’s more objective, independent and pure of motive and (2) it can draw on better science.

Whole thing here, and more on Bloomberg’s anti-soup crusade at the New York Post, Reason, and ACSH. More: My Food My Choice.