| OTHER
1/4/03 <link>
Human Cloning
Julie Hilden discusses
in FindLaw some of the potential legal issues that might arise in
the context of human cloning. In her view, the legal controversy is
much ado about (almost) nothing. While she points out the stigma and
controversial negative aspects of cloning, she also points out that
history shows that the legality of cloning is not easily challenged.
For instance, she says (bold text is our emphasis), "...There
is also an argument to the contrary, however - in favor of allowing
parents to make the decision to clone. It is this: Without a simple,
clear rule (or, indeed, a constitutional right) that says parents may
do as they like when it comes to reproduction, the government may
interfere in reproduction and parenting in troubling ways - and that
is something the courts have consistently refused to allow to happen.
After all, people make stupid
reproductive choices all the time. They have children they do not
want, cannot support, or abandon, and they bring children into
psychologically traumatic situations that scar them forever. Yet so
far, the government has only rarely appointed itself as the
"reproduction censor," telling couples when and why they can
(or cannot, or must) have children. And when it has, the courts have
generally interfered to stop it from doing so. Indeed, so far, the
Supreme Court has supported broad reproductive rights. In Skinner
v. Oklahoma, it declared a right to procreate when it barred a
state from sterilizing a prisoner. In Griswold
v. Connecticut, it struck down a ban on contraception. In Roe
v. Wade and Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, it held unconstitutional laws that unduly
restrict abortion. Roe
and Casey are often discussed as decisions involving bodily
privacy and a woman's right to choose. Yet Griswold involves
not privacy, but a drugstore purchase. Moreover, its holding not only
the right of a woman, but the right of a couple to choose when
- and when not to - reproduce. And the right to choose implicated in Skinner
was a man's right to choose, not a woman's..."
Interestingly, Art
Kaplan argues in MSNBC that the media presented the recent
so-called revelations by a weird sect about a supposedly cloned baby
with much disregard for facts or questioning. He urges the media to do
better reporting on science.
10/15/02 <link>
Scientific fraud, this time from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs
Accusation is that reported discovery of element 118 was a
fabrication.
10/9/02 <link>
Once again it is proven that lie-detector tests cannot be believed and
have no legal value
This time is a National Academy of Sciences report. Here's a snippet:
"...No spy has ever been caught by a polygraph, the
318-page report noted, while a rigorous test could falsely implicate
up to 16 percent of those tested. 'National security is too important to be left to
such a blunt instrument,' said Stephen Fienberg, who heads the panel
of the National Academy of Sciences. 'The polygraph's serious
limitations in employee security screening underscore the need to look
more broadly for effective, alternative methods'..."
9/26/02 <link>
"Star"
Bell Labs researcher fired for falsifying scientific data
Jan Hendrik Schon, who was apparently on the fast path towards a
potential Nobel Prize, canned.
9/25/02 <link>
H1B
immigration laws put to the test
Lawsuit filed - something that we felt was inevitable.
California
the "trailblazer"
More reasons why we love California - the fact that it sets legal
trends often for the rest of the country. New laws passed recently
include family leave law, emissions law, stem-cell use law. Older
examples cited include Clean Air Act of 1970 and Assault Weapons
ban.
|
3/9/03 <link>
Violent
TV programs viewed during childhood significantly increase risk of
adult aggression/violence
Here is a summary of the results of an interesting study reported in
the journal Development Psychology (bold text is our emphasis):
"...The study involved 329 adults who were
initially surveyed as children in the late 1970s. Researchers
interviewed them again as adults, along with their spouses or friends,
and checked crime records. As children, the participants were rated
for exposure to televised violence after they chose eight favorite
shows from 80 popular programs for their age group and indicated how
often they watched them...As young adults, men in the study who had
scored in the top 20 percent on childhood exposure were about twice as
likely as other men to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their wives
during an argument in the year preceding the interview. Women who had
scored in the top 20 percent were about twice as likely as other women
to have thrown something at their husbands.
For one or both sexes, these “high TV-violence viewers” were also
more likely than other study participants in the previous 12 months to
have shoved somebody in anger; punched, beaten or choked an adult, or
committed a crime or a moving traffic violation...Along with
viewing of violent TV, the participants had been asked as children how
much they identified with violent TV characters and how realistic they
judged various violent TV shows to be. Researchers found that high
ratings on any of the three childhood measures predicted higher
ratings of overall aggression in adulthood. It made no difference how
aggressive the participants had been as children...Dennis Wharton,
spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, said not all
studies find a link between TV viewing and violent behavior. “I
think the jury is still out about whether there is a link,” he said.
The American Psychological Association, however, has concluded that
viewing violence on TV or other mass media does promote aggressive
behavior, particularly in children. Other mental-health and medical
groups have taken similar stands. Joanne Cantor, professor emerita of
communications at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the new
study was “a very strong addition to what I consider a large amount
of data that points in the same direction.”
11/17/02 <link>
Tort
Reform Myths
P.L.A.
refers us to this interesting
analysis by Charles Kuffner of the coffee-spill-liability verdict
against McDonalds and shows why the verdict (which was significantly
reduced by the judge) was the correct one. Other
statistics:
- "...A study of courts in the nation's 75
largest counties conducted by the National Center for State Courts
found that only 364 of 762,000 cases ended in punitive damages, or
0.047 percent..."
- "...a study of 16 states by the same center showed that the
number of liability suits has declined by 9 percent since
1986..."
- "...(Unusual
or big verdicts make news, said Michael McCann, a political science
professor at the University of Washington. McCann and William Haltom
of the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma found in a study that) the
large McDonald's verdict got extensive front-page coverage in 1994.
But only about half the newspapers carried articles when the judge
later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000..."
- "...In
similar research, Oscar Chase, a law professor at New York University,
found in a survey of cases in the New York area that the average
verdict reported by The New York Times in 1989 was $20.5 million. But
including the much larger number of cases that did not attract media
attention, the average verdict was really $1.1 million..."
The bottomline? Don't believe all that
you hear about the ridiculous lawsuits and massive verdicts!
The Robber Barons of the U.S.
Energy Industry <link>
10/17/02 <link>
Enron trader pleads guilty to ripping off California from 1998 through
2001
Of course we knew these criminals and their bosses have been at it.
The tragedy is how long it took to prosecute this.
9/27/02 Paul
Krugman on the energy industry robber barons, and their supporters
An op-ed worth reading
9/23/02 Evidence
that the CA natural gas market was also gamed
Again, under the unwatchful eyes of the Federal Government, in
2000-2001. Here's are snapshots from the article, "The nation's
biggest natural gas pipeline company illegally manipulated the
California market during the energy crisis, a federal regulatory judge
said Monday in a ruling that could bolster wide-ranging claims for
refunds. El Paso Corp. used a variety of strategies in 2000-01 to
withhold an average of at least 345 million cubic feet of natural gas
a day from California customers, creating an artificial shortage that
drove up prices, concluded Judge Curtis L. Wagner Jr. of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. Among the maneuvers, he said: El Paso
failed to use 21% of the capacity of its pipeline to the state....In
addition to operating at less than capacity, he said, El Paso did not
use all available shipment routes into California and scheduled
nonessential maintenance operations that sidelined some of its
facilities...." The LA Times article also points out, as an aside
that, "...The judge's finding is the latest addition to a growing
body of evidence suggesting that California's 2000-01 energy crisis
was the result of manipulative business practices and not merely
regulatory blunders and an imbalance of supply and demand. Last week,
the state Public Utilities Commission issued a report saying most
blackouts could have been avoided in 2001 had California's five big
private power plant operators produced as much electricity as they
were capable of generating...."
9/18/02 More
evidence that power companies gamed the California market
Of course, all under the unwatchful eyes of
the FERC.
|
