My wife is a veterinarian, and we have a household of eight pets, which is more than I would’ve thought a sane young couple could have. We’re newly married and don’t yet have children, and like a lot of people we treat our pets as our kids. Currently we have three dogs, two cats and three heritage-breed chickens. Some friends call this our menagerie, the less kind ones our circus. We prefer to call it our pack. It’s a life with a lot of noise and no small amount of dander.It began when I took my dog to the veterinary clinic where my wife works. At the time she was still in vet school and I was a first-time pet owner who’d chosen to spend most of my adult life responsible solely for my own fun and convenience. Archie, my dog, represented my first, hesitant step toward maturity. “He has a tick and I don’t know how to remove it,” I said to my future wife. Thankfully she pitied me, removed the tick, and thought I was cute enough to date. Three years later we got married with our dogs among the witnesses.Continue Reading… … Read More
Cop fired for using Trayvon Martin images in target practice
Sgt. Ron King of the Florida’s Port Canaveral Police Department allegedly offered paper shooting targets emblazoned with Martin’s image to two other officers, an internal review revealed. He was dismissed on Friday for possessing a number of such shooting targets. “Port Canaveral Police Department considers that behavior unacceptable,” John Walsh, CEO of the Port Canaveral Authority said. King reportedly acquired the paper targets online and brought them to a firearms training session. Martin, 17, was gunned down by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in February 2012 in Sanford, about 50 miles northwest of Port Canaveral. Zimmerman claims that he shot the teenager in self-defense, and will stand trial for second-degree murder in June. The Martin family says that Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman shot him, and had left his father’s house in the neighborhood to go to a convenience store.”It is absolutely reprehensible that a high-ranking member of the Port Canaveral Police, sworn to protect and serve Floridians, would use the image of a dead child as target practice,” attorney Ben Crump said in a statement. “Such a deliberate and depraved indifference to this grieving family is unacceptable.” In an unexpected move, Zimmerman waived his right to a ‘stand-your-ground’ in March of this year, relinquishing the opportunity to convince the judge pre-trial that he had acted in self-defense. Had he succeeded, his actions would have been deemed self-defense and the murder charges would have been dropped. The stand-your-ground law allows Florida citizens to defend themselves with deadly force in public if they believe they are being threatened. Martin’s death sparked a wave of protest against the controversial law demanding that it be overturned. Under this legislation, Zimmerman initially managed to evade arrest. … Read More
Homeless man arrested for allegedly setting 63-year-old on fire
A 39-year-old homeless man was arrested on Friday night for allegedly setting another man on fire inside his car. Witnesses told KABC-TV that the victim, a 63-year-old man, was approached by the unidentified suspect while he was parked outside a convenience store in Long Beach, California. The…
Reforming Boston’s Corrupt Taxi Cartel
Boston, like many cities, arbitrarily limits the number of
taxicabs on the streets via a medallion system. Lest the resulting
lack of competition tempt cab companies to overcharge passengers,
the city also imposes rigid price controls. This system has its
drawbacks.
According to Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, writing in the
Boston Globe:
The purpose of taxi regulation is simply to protect passengers
against being fleeced by unscrupulous cabbies, and to keep
passengers, bystanders, and the environment safe. Yet the system
instead has evolved mainly to enrich the holders of
government-issued taxi medallions, even as taxi drivers struggle to
earn a living and passengers pay some of the highest rates in the
country.
The Globe reports after a months-long
investigation of the industry that one fleet owner, who
controls a fifth of the city’s medallions, routinely cheats cab
drivers and skirts accident-insurance requirements. Last week,
long-time Boston Mayor Thomas Menino called for a review of the
city’s policies and floated the idea of creating a civilian review
board to mediate disputes between cabbies and medallion owners.
Glaeser proposes market-based reforms: replacing the medallion
system with an annual fee for whoever wants to drive a cab and
allowing cabbies to compete on price.
Back to the Globe:
Better regulation would base the fees on a hard estimate of the
burden each cab imposes on its surroundings. Just like other cars,
cabs create congestion, pollution, and safety risks for pedestrians
and other drivers; these and other problems associated with driving
amount to a social cost of 10 cents per mile, ;by one
estimate. So if Boston cabs travel an average of 60,000 miles
per year, the annual … fee should be about $6,000.
Cab companies should be allowed to post and advertise lower
rates—and then use electronic cab services, like Uber, to help
customers find cheaper cabs.
Currently, officials have determined that “public convenience
and necessity” dictates that there should be only 1,825 cab
medallions in Boston, though there are 6,000 licensed cab drivers
jostling for the opportunity to rent a car for 12 and 24-hour
shifts. According to the Globe, those medallions can fetch
$600,000.
In case you’re wondering, yes, established taxi businesses are
obstructing Uber in Boston too. Reason has covered
Uber’s regulatory travails in
Denver,
Chicago, and San
Francisco. … Read More
Putin orders ban on adoptions by LGBT foreign couples – report
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s order will most likely be fulfilled by the Ministry of Education and Science, which is currently dealing with issues concerning orphans and adoptions, Izvestia daily reported.The ministry has not yet commented on the news, saying that Putin’s instructions had not yet reached their office.Tensions over the issue arose in mid-February, after the French National Assembly voted to legalize adoptions by same-sex couples. At the time, the Russian plenipotentiary for children’s rights Pavel Astakhov said he would do everything to ensure that Russian orphans are only adopted by heterosexual families.In mid-February, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that it planned to verify the possible “psychological damage” inflicted on Russian orphan Yegor Shabatalov, who was adopted by a US woman who lived in a same-sex marriage with another US citizen, but concealed her relationship from Russian authorities when she filed the adoption request. Two years after adopting the Russian boy, the couple split and started a legal dispute over parental rights.The head of the ‘All-Russian Parents’ Assembly’ movement, Nadezhda Khramova, told Izvestia that a total ban of foreign adoptions would be a smarter move, as “it is technically difficult to verify the adoptive parents’ sexual orientation and their legal status can be marriage of convenience.” Khramova and her NGO previously organized mass events in support of the ‘Dima Yakovlev Bill,’ which banned US citizens from adopting Russian children.The main sponsor of the Dima Yakovlev Bill, MP Yekaterina Lakhova, earlier drew public attention to the French adoptions, claiming that only traditional families can offer their children a proper upbringing. Lakhova noted, however, that introducing new regulations could be a lengthy process, and that no one should expect the ban to immediately come into effect.The Russian Family Code does not allow same-sex marriage, making adoption by same sex-couples impossible. Adoption by unmarried individuals is allowed; authorities do not require future parents to present proof of their sexual orientation. … Read More
‘Russia and China are BRICS’ central pillars’
South Africa is making final arrangements for a summit of the world’s fastest developing economies – known as the BRICS group – which is due to start on Tuesday.The heads of government of Brazil, Russia, India, China and the host nation South Africa, will convene for a fifth time, with the group being hailed as potential game-changer for the International arena.Professor and dean of New Delhi-based Jindal School of International Affairs, Shreeram Chaulia says the BRICS has justified its existence, making achievements both on the economic and political fields.RT: This summit’s us significance is in the fact it concludes the first cycle hosted by all the members. So what’s the group actually achieved in that time?Shreeram Chaulia: It has grown in political maturity. I would say that from the early days when it was seen as an upstart, was still getting its act together and resolving and ironing out some differences – we have come a long way in five years. The fact that these summits are continuing to be held is silencing some of the critics, who said it was a marriage of convenience or just a short piece item, nothing more. What we are seeing now is that the agenda has quite advanced, especially, in the economic realm. The economic integration between Latin America, Asia and Africa has been spearheaded by this vehicle of the BRICS. And BRICS has become, I would say microcosm of the multi-polar world order. And it’s no small achievement. RT: The new Chinese leader Xi Jinping has strengthened relations with Russia on his first official visit abroad – to Moscow – will this have any significance on the group? SC: Definitely, Russia and China are the central pillars of the BRICS. If you remember they were the originators of the concept and they have in many ways brought along South Africa, India and Brazil to play a larger role. And also Russia and China are much more global in their overall approach towards the world order and trying to transform the world order. The other three I would say are a little more “status quiet”, although they too want to move towards multi-polarity.So, Russia and China, the fact that the leadership in both countries in emphasizing how this two can become a kind of a steering mechanism, within the five-member group of BRICS and in many ways set the agenda is undeniable. In India, we welcome the fact that Russia is there because it also helps us to overcome any concerns that China will somehow be the only dominant player. Russia and China together – it makes a fabulous combination because these two societies are emerging in a way of leading the pack in terms of the political agenda of this organization. RT: You’re talking about the impact on the world order, but BRICS are described as an economic group, are you saying they are going to cross to the political line and have influence on the world diplomatic agenda? SC: The BRICS represents 43 per cent of the world’s population. This is a huge chunk and they need a political change. People – and not only in the BRICS member countries, put peoples of the rest of the global South – are expecting change and this can’t happen without the political agenda be it in Syria, be it in Egypt, be it in Africa. We need to create multi-polarity. Multi-polarity is a political project. The economic vehicles, I see them as means for a achieving a political goal and end point, which is to create a more just and equitable world order. RT: Egypt’s also expressed interest in joining the bloc. What would it offer the group, and how attractive would it be to the current Power Five?SC: I hope they’ll eventually join, but right now the size and current state of the Egyptian economy doesn’t justify it, but eventually it’ll expand because there are more emerging economies and the more the better because that’s how we achieve the multi-polarity through multilateralism. … Read More
Philadelphia Mayor: Talking About Race = ‘Incitement’
Philadelphia, consistently one of the best
city magazines in the country, has an anxiety-ridden cover piece
out entitled “Being White in
Philly.” In it, author Robert Huber confesses to his physical
sense of unease in crime-ridden neighborhoods, tries to coax a
bunch of white Philadelphians to talk openly about race (very few
do so directly), and comes up with inoffensive observations like
this:
What gets examined publicly about race is generally
one-dimensional, looked at almost exclusively from the perspective
of people of color. Of course, it is black people who have faced
generations of discrimination and who deal with it still. But our
public discourse ignores the fact that race—particularly in a place
like Philadelphia—is also an issue for white people. Though white
people never talk about it.
Everyone might have a race story, but few whites risk the
third-rail danger of speaking publicly about race, given the long,
troubled history of race relations in this country and even more so
in this city. Race is only talked about in a sanitized form, when
it’s talked about at all, with actual thoughts and feelings buried,
which only ups the ante. Race remains the elephant in the room,
even on the absurd level of who holds the door to enter a
convenience store.
Read
the whole thing for testimony from people trying to cope with a
damaged modern city. Then sit back and wonder at Philadelphia Mayor
Michael Nutter’s attempt to stifle free speech, as transmitted in a
letter
about the article to the Philadelphia Human Rights Commission:
While I fully recognize that constitutional
protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media
from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other
constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and
notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the
public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the
Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay
is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded
theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an
incitement to extreme reaction.
Appreciate the scare-quotes there, Nutter.
UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh
responds:
The implication — which I think is very strong — that the
“speech” is indeed unprotected by the First Amendment under the
“incitement” exception is absolutely wrong:
Under ;Brandenburg v. Ohio ;and ;Hess v.
Indiana, the speech in the article is clearly protected. [...]
And it’s quite troubling, I think, when a mayor (who has power
over, among others, the Police Department) suggests that the
expression of opinions that he disapproves of about race is
constitutionally unprotected.
Read the rest of Volokh’s critique
here. And since we’re on the 10th year anniversary of the Iraq
War, let’s ;walk down memory lane when the pro-war types were
misusing the
dependably awful fire-in-a-theater analogy to complain
about press coverage of Abu Ghraib. … Read More
