So does she have a valid claim for wrongful death of the baby? And does it matter that the abortion was not medically obligatory, but was something she elected after weighing medical advice on a variety of possible risks and complications? (Dave Newbart, Chicago Sun-Times, Apr. 6; SPRT, Apr. 9).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Thanks to Don Boudreaux
…for joining us the past week as a guestblogger. You can follow Don’s writing regularly at CafeHayek.com, “where orders emerge”. P.S. And thanks for the thanks.
Update: Calif. shakedowns
The New York Times “Small Business” section looks at how Garden Grove, Calif. liquor store owner Vinod Kapoor fought back when targeted by attorney Harpreet Brar, famed for his lawsuits demanding legal fees from small businesses over alleged regulatory infractions (see Aug. 20, 2002, Jul. 22, 2003, Nov. 1, 2004). Included are some updates:
In February, Judge Polos [Peter J. Polos of Orange County Superior Court] sent Mr. Brar to jail for two weeks for violating his order [not to name multiple businesses in one suit], calling him “an extortionist.”
Mr. Brar said his experience in jail was a “nightmare,” which he said included watching several inmates be beaten by guards. Mr. Brar said he planned to represent several of them.
On April 16, Mr. Brar was suspended from practicing law for 30 days and placed on probation for two years for filing a frivolous motion and appeal against the attorney general and for using the courts as a delaying tactic, according to Kristin Ritsema, one of several supervising trial counsels at the state bar.
“I think he is a huge threat to the public,” Ms. Ritsema said.
Another local liquor store owner, Herve Domange, who is from Paris, said: “You couldn’t do this in France. In France, these lawsuits would not be possible. But I don’t want to say too much. I’m afraid I might get sued.” (Regan Morris, “Picking the Wrong Mom and Pop to Sue”, New York Times, Jun. 1).
Sen. Clinton’s Untimely Proposal
As a means of conserving oil, Sen. Hillary Clinton wants Uncle Sam again to mandate a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH. Presumably she’s aware that lowering the speed limit will cause us to spend more time on the roads and less time at our destinations.
But on her website, Sen. Clinton expresses concern that Americans are strapped for time: “Today’s families are often stretched thin – working to make ends meet while also trying to carve out time to care for their young children and aging relatives.”
Assuming consistency across her various policy positions, we can conclude that Sen. Clinton is confident that the value of the time that a 55 MPH speed limit will force us to waste on the roads is worth less to us than oil we’ll save by driving more slowly.
Let’s explore. Assume that the typical car on the road today gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway and that a gallon of gasoline costs $3.00. Further assume (rather generously) that driving more slowly will increase the typical car’s fuel efficiency from 25 mpg to 35 mpg.
On highways where the speed limit currently is 75 MPH, reducing the speed limit to 55 MPH will cause a driver to cover 20 fewer miles in one hour of driving. To travel these 20 miles at 55 MPH will take 21.82 minutes. That is, the distance a driver covers in one hour driving at 75 MPH requires 81.82 minutes to cover while driving at 55 MPH.
At today’s average hourly wage rate for non-supervisory workers of just over $16 — but let’s call it an even $16 — this 21.82 minutes is worth $5.82. (That is, working at a wage rate of $16 per hour, a worker will earn $5.82 in 21.82 minutes of work.)
But how much does the driver save, fuel-cost-wise, by driving more slowly?
Driving at 75 MPH (and getting 25 mpg) costs the driver $9 of gasoline per 75-miles driven. (Remember that gasoline is priced at $3 per gallon.) Driving at 55 MPH (and getting 35 mpg) costs the driver $6.42 of gasoline per 75-miles driven.
In short, for every 75-miles covered on a highway, reducing the speed limit from 75 MPH to 55 MPH will save a driver $2.58 in fuel cost — and this assuming that the increase in fuel efficiency of the average car caused by the lower speed limit is a whopping 10 mpg. But the resulting greater time on the road will cost a driver earning the average non-supervisory wage $5.82 worth of his or her time per 75-miles driven.
The net cost to the average worker driving the average car will, under the above reasonable assumptions, be about $3.24 per 75-miles driven. Not a good deal, Sen. Clinton.
……
Here’s a challenge for a clever student: assume (as is reasonable) that an enforced speed limit of 55 MPH will cause the price of gasoline at the pump to fall. By how much would it have to fall (under the above assumptions) in order to make the $$$ saved on gasoline exceed the $$$ value of the extra time spent driving?
Federal Marriage Amendment vs. federalism
Among its other defects (see links gathered here), this misbegotten proposal would impose a single federalized outcome on states and localities which currently take widely differing views of same-sex marriage. Some FMA advocates have sought to depict the federalist objections to the amendment as mere makeweight and window dressing — tactical objections by opponents who dislike the proposal for its substance and are merely casting about for arguments against it. One hopes these advocates were suitably chastened in March when James Q. Wilson, doyen of conservative policy analysis, announced his opposition to the amendment citing exactly these federalist grounds:
The states should also decide about gay marriage. Some conservatives are urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment banning this, but this would be a mistake. People should vote on this matter and about the conditions of life they wish to experience where they live. Though I oppose gay marriage, voters in some states may approve it. If they do, we will have a chance to learn what it means in practice, with the costs and benefits falling on people who have accepted it….
The rising demand that every personal preference become a constitutional right is a worrisome disease. People, of course, do have rights; the Constitution and the first ten amendments spell most of them out. That document defines the essential requirements of life and liberty. Adding new invented rights by either a ratified amendment or judicial overreaching is a mistake.
(WSJ, Mar. 18, reprinted at AEI site). More: Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter’s new paper for Cato, Julian Sanchez (& welcome Volokh, Sullivan, Independent Gay Forum readers).
Paid matchmaker $125K, sent on dud dates
On the expectation that leisured multi-millionaires would be lining up to spend time with her, 60-year-old Erie, Pa. grandmother and social worker Anne Majerik paid big bucks to Beverly Hills, Calif. matchmaker Orly Hadida. The dates were duds, but her consolation prize was an L.A. jury’s $2 million award. Both sides had been in court before fighting matchmaking-disgruntlement actions against other parties. The jury forewoman said her colleagues wished they could punish Hadida without rewarding Majerik, but an award to charity wasn’t an option. (Jessica Garrison, “Woman Gets $2 Million in Matchmaker Lawsuit”, Los Angeles Times, May 31; Lattman, May 31).
“Student Sues Illinois University After Deer Attack”
Birthday cupcakes? Relax
A rarity indeed: a thoughtful rebuke to food nannyism that somehow managed to make it into the New York Times (Harriet Brown, “Well-Intentioned Food Police May Create Havoc With Children’s Diets”, May 30).
New Orleans judicial expense account spending questioned
A reader asks me to blog about an expose in this Sunday’s New Orleans Times-Picayune, calling it “appalling.” In 2003-2004, one judge (presumably the highest-spending judge) spent $16,717/year on travel, compared to the average $8,000 spent by other judges.
I don’t know whether this is a good judge or a bad judge, but that shouldn’t matter to my analysis. I’m less appalled. Someone has to be the highest-spending judge, and this one doesn’t appear to have violated any rules. $4,400 in taxpayer money was spent to teach a course in Colorado, but if the judge had been reimbursed by the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel, different people would be complaining about the supposed conflict of interest. The newspaper successfully nitpicks rental-car and airport transportation costs—but the judge must have travelled coach, because there’s no complaint about his airplane tickets. One can question the political savvy of a judge who doesn’t realize that his expense account reports are going to be scrutinized. One can also complain that the money comes from civil district court filing fees, but, at the end of the day, money is fungible and it doesn’t really matter what pot the money comes from. It would probably be more efficient to end travel reimbursements and just raise salaries—but because of tax implications, maybe not.
Louisiana state judges make less than first-year associates in private law firms, and I’m not about to complain that a judge was a little generous with himself in taking advantage of available and legal perks to the tune of a few thousand dollars. There appears to already exist a check in the system, in that this judge’s request for a week-long educational trip to Italy was rejected.
Or am I so overly jaded by plaintiffs’ bar abuses in the billions that I should be more appalled? Feel free to comment in the comment section, but be polite and on-topic.
Frozen dessert suit melts in NYC
Sad news for the boosters of obesity litigation: a Manhattan judge has dismissed a would-be class action which asked the maker of CremaLita frozen dessert to pay for weight-gain damages because it had wrongly advertised its product as fat-free and as having 60 calories per serving when in fact it had about 10 calories more than that. After a Consumer Affairs investigation had uncovered the misrepresentation, Stephen Brandt sued, claiming “that as a result of CremaLita’s alleged false advertising …he and countless ‘other members of the class’ were put at risk of ‘severe health problems, including but not limited to cardiovascular problems, mobility problems and cancer’ as well as the ‘negative self-esteem issues’ that the ‘social stigma’ of “excess weight gain carries” in today’s culture.'”
However, Justice Emily Jane Goodman ruled that Brandt was not an appropriate representative for a class action, in part because of his difficulty in demonstrating damages. To begin with, Brandt claimed to have consumed only one serving of CremaLita per week, which meant, said the company’s defense lawyer, that his extra calorie consumption would have amounted to only 10 calories a week. Brandt, whose weight ballooned by 41 pounds over a six-year period including the seven months in which he said he’d been a buyer of the dessert, also conceded that he’d enhanced it with crumbled cookie toppings.
In court filings, the defense was rather cruel about it all: “What Brandt fails to mention,” said its lawyer, “is that he regularly eats real ice cream, McDonald’s and Wendy’s cheeseburgers, french fries, pepperoni pizza, beer, corn chips, donuts, cookies, hard cheese, eggs, bagels, peanut butter, Chinese take-out meals and pasta, [and] that he never exercises.” Moreover, “although he provided no useful information regarding his weight gain during the period that he ate CremaLita, his medical records . . . show that he managed to pack on an additional 16 pounds in the nine months after he stopped” eating the confection. (Dareh Gregorian, “Suit melts away”, New York Post, May 25; Gothamist, May 25).