January 2012

Franken Uses Inflammatory Rape Claim to Destroy Arbitration of Employment Disputes, Including Disputes Totally Unrelated to Rape

by Hans Bader on October 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Employment, Labor, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

Recently, the Senate voted to ban defense contractors — that is, much of American business — from contractually mandating arbitration of employment discrimination disputes.  The bill’s sponsor, Al Franken (D-Minn.), pushed the bill by claiming that arbitration provisions in an employment contract kept Jamie Leigh Jones from suing her alleged rapists.  But they didn’t: a federal appeals court ruled the arbitration provisions didn’t apply to Jones’ case, leaving her free to sue in court.

Franken’s amendment to a defense appropriations bill banned contractors from requiring arbitration of employment discrimination disputes and sexual assault cases, including “arbitration” of “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment.”  The language about sexual assault was irrelevant to most employers: Lawsuits against employers for employment discrimination vastly outnumber lawsuits over sexual assault, which are a tiny fraction of all court cases, so the bill’s real purpose was to ban arbitration of discrimination cases, not to do anything for rape victims.  Few rapes occur in the workplace, as opposed to private settings like homes; and even rapes that do occur in the workplace often fall outside the scope of arbitration clauses.  (Arbitration does not, of course, prevent criminal prosecution.)

Liberal trial lawyers have long objected to Supreme Court decisions like its 7-to-2 Gilmer decision upholding contractual provisions that require binding arbitration of employment discrimination cases, even though arbitrators often rule in favor of employees and consumers, and award them substantial monetary damages (although they do permit plaintiffs less discovery than courts do; on the other hand, arbitration typically results in “lower litigation costs and expenses“).   Franken’s amendment largely fulfills their fantasy of banning arbitration in discrimination cases.

Although Franken’s amendment has a big effect on discrimination cases — and no effect at all on most rape cases — it has been falsely described ever since as an “anti-rape amendment,” and the 30 senators who voted against the amendment have been depicted ever since by liberal sites such as Huffington Post as the “Republicans for Rape“  — even though the Defense Department opposed Franken’s amendment, and even though Senators like Bob Corker said they might have voted for the amendment had it merely covered rape and violence claims, rather than a vast array of unrelated employment disputes.

Jon Stewart, for example, depicted the amendment as being all about rape, asking his viewers “How is ANYONE against this?” and suggesting that only a nut or a misogynist could do so.  (This is the same Jon Stewart who selectively edits taped interviews to make conservatives look stupid, or make them appear to say the opposite of what they actually said).  But the liberal Stewart has aimed this criticism only at conservative lawmakers, not at the Obama Defense Department (or the liberal Supreme Court justices who voted with their conservative colleagues to allow all employment disputes, including those involving sexual assault, to be governed by contractual arbitration provisions in the Gilmer case).  So has Huffington Post, whose first inflammatory article on the vote generated over 2000 comments, many of them angry and vituperative.  The inflammatory coverage has resulted in Senators who voted against the amendment receiving hate mail and angry and hateful messages.

Liberal journalists and bloggers complain a lot about the use of so-called “wedge issues,” but they themselves are the ones who typically use inflammatory wedge issues, as the Franken amendment illustrates.

Another example is the many false claims made by liberal journalists and Obama about the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, a subject I addressed at length here.  In the Ledbetter case, the press claimed that the Supreme Court had created a rigid 180 day deadline for suing over pay discrimination — when in fact it did no such thing.

By the way, studies show that Jon Stewart’s viewers aren’t any smarter than Bill O’Reilly’s — contrary to what liberal journalists believe.

Hot time in EU

by Tatiana Kryzhanovskaya on October 20, 2009

in International, Politics as Usual

The first half of Fall 2009 was a busy season in European politics.

On September 27, the general elections took place in Germany. The results were pretty optimistic–conservatives won the elections and kept the top spot, socialists lost and left the coalition, while liberals became a new member of a ruling coalition. The same weekend, elections took place in Portugal. The results were less optimistic, as the socialists stayed in power and will probably form a coalition with the Left Bloc, another socialist political party. And on October 4, Greece elected a new socialist government.

In the first weekend of October, Ireland voted for the second time on the referendum concerning the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, which would further concentrate political and economic power in Brussels. This time Irish citizens approved ratification, which now makes Czech President Václav Klaus the lone holdout. With the Lisbon treaty close to being ratified, things are heating up on the EU political stage. The treaty would create two significant vacancies for the top body of the European Commission. And even though the treaty is not yet ratified, there are already huge debates among the EU countries about the candidates for these two posts. But for these two positions–that are supposed to be the most important ones for the EU–European citizens are not expected to be asked for their opinions or suggestions. Now it will all be decided for them…

Surprising comments on NYT article on climate treaty

by Fran Smith on October 20, 2009

in Environment, Global Warming, International

Today’s New York Times carries an article, “Hopes fade for comprehensive climate treaty.“  It’s not that important an article about the lead-up to Copenhagen.  What’s most interesting are the comments from these NYT readers — many expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming, confusion about the science, and linkages between energy use and economic growth. Here are some examples of those views – of course, the usual “sky is falling” comments are there too.

MrPitchfork

Maybe some day, someone will finally say, “Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and other green technology invested twits to make themselves rich at tax payers expense” and it fall and die and turn into “Global cooling”… again..

Dan DiLeo

Faced with the pressing desire of their citizens for improved living standards,it is hard to imagine the leaders of poor and emerging countries to do anything that might conceivably inhibit the most rapid and most well-tested possible path to development. The only conceivable way to get them to sign on is through some enormous and very reliable transfer of wealth to those countries. Very hard to envision.

Paul

Good news! I knew we could count on the international bureaucrats to disagree and throw a monkey wrench into this farce called global warming. As the world starts a cyclical cooling trend maybe they will come to their senses, if that is even possible for these people.

Glenn

[Excerpt from lengthy comment]… My suggestion? I would love for a news source like the New York Times to host a series of debates between the scientists on both sides of this issue. No politicians or other loudmouths allowed. I’d like to see an agenda created ahead of time, negotiated by both sides so the issues are framed properly and also have the encounters structured so that the key issues are given enough time to be thoroughly explored. If the AGW folks win this hands down – as they should if the debate it’s structured properly, than folks like me can feel more assured in demanding the very difficult policy decisions that we must make from our leadership.

Finally, I know that the Gore’s of the world, and many other’s, say “the debate is over” but clearly, in the real world, it’s not, otherwise we’d be seeing different behavior. Let’s do this, let’s make it global and make it a learning experience for all of us. Instead of cursing the darkness and hoping our government can force policy on folks who don’t believe in AGW, let’s lead people to understand this issue more clearly. I think that may be the only chance we have, and if the planet is really at risk, then of course the effort is worth it.

AlexBell

The USA march toward European Socialism will result in the colapse of our ecconomy and way of life. Countries like Brazil, India, China, and Russia are growing because the have and is energy as a way of growing their ecconomy. The USA can not shrink its self to propserity. Renewable energy – Yes. Energy indepentence – Yes. Cap and Trade (tax) – NO NO!!

Health Insurer Competition and Democratic Saber Rattling

by Greg Conko on October 20, 2009

in Culture, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Last week, after the industry association America’s Health Insurance Plans released a study showing that premiums would rise 18 percent under the Senate Finance Committee’s reform proposal, top Democrats took to the airwaves to condemn the industry for standing in the way of health care reform.  President Obama used his Saturday radio address to accuse the industry of using “deceptive and dishonest” attacks to derail reform legislation.  And Obama and congressional Democrats threatened to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts insurers from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws.

It is true that a handful of states have highly concentrated markets.  In Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Alaska, for example, 95 percent or more of the health insurance market is served by just two insurers.  But, federal intervention would do nothing to address this problem.  After all, insurers are still governed by state competition law, which prohibits anticompetitive practices.

The main benefit insurers get from McCarran-Ferguson is antitrust immunity for sharing the actuarial data on which firms individually base their premiums.  Ordinarily, information sharing of that kind of  would be a big no no, since it suggests pricing collusion.  But, state insurance laws permit it because it helps small insurers gain access to a sufficiently large pool of information to set premiums at an appropriate level.

The only way federal antitrust enforcement could significantly reduce market concentration would be to break up the firms into smaller pieces—think of the dissolution of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil trust, or the break up of AT&T’s local service monopoly into seven regional Baby Bells.  But, as Boston University health economist Austin Frakt  notes:

“Taxpayers will be best served by insurers with sufficient market power to bargain down provider rates, but with not quite enough power to keep the savings (“rents”) for themselves.  … How to balance the power of insurers and providers is far from simple. Many have pointed to the alleged dominant market position of insurers as a substantial source of high health care costs. However, the health economics literature supports the notion that recent increased market power of insurers does not lead toward monopolistic pricing, but rather it provides a counter-balance to the power held by hospitals and provider groups.”  (Hat tip, Tyler Cowen.)

Democrats know this of course.  And, in the end, it’s not clear that they really do intend to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, or if they’re just sending a signal to health insurers and other dissenters that “this is how we deal with people who stand in our way.”  As my wife said yesterday, they’re playing Chicago hard ball now.  They’ll do whatever it takes to win.

Bill Gates Says Africa Needs GMOs

by Greg Conko on October 19, 2009

in Agriculture, Environment, International, Nano & Biotech, Natural Resources, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Trade

Last week, Bill Gates announced at the World Food Summit in Des Moines that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would be redoubling its efforts to improve agricultural productivity among poor farmers in less developed countries.  He announced that the foundation would be making $120 million worth of new grants for agriculture research and development.  Importantly, Gates eschewed the politically correct approach urged by major environmental organizations and explained, as Reuters put it, that:

“The fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa, Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft, said on Thursday. Gates said GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools — although not the only tools — to help small farms in Africa boost production.”

That’s great news, of course, but not the only good news on the food biotech front.  Today, the UK’s Telegraph reports that a year long investigation into food biotechnology by the Royal Society is expected to conclude in a report issued next week that:

“GM crops should be used in the future to alleviate food shortages. This study is going to move the debate forward. The Government will have to take notice of this. The world is undergoing dramatic change and it won’t be long before people are thinking ‘where is my next meal coming from?’ Where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else resistant to diseases it should be used in the UK. GM crops need to be looked at one by one. They are not the only solution to world hunger but they are part of it.”

And Reuters reports that, even European Union Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has given a modicum of support to food biotech, suggesting that “EU countries should look at scientific evidence rather than emotions, as is now the case, when deciding on authorisations for new biotech products.”  Boel said last Thursday that “For the [EU] farm sector, the imbalance in GMO approval between the European Union and the rest of the world is a clear and present financial threat.”

All in all, I’d count that as a good week.

FTC Sets its Sights on Bloggers

by Elizabeth Jacobson on October 19, 2009

in Features, Tech & Telecom, Zeitgeist

The blogosphere has been up in arms over the last two weeks, ever since the Federal Trade Commission issued an update to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” In the past, these guidelines have determined the kinds of research claims companies or celebrity endorsers can make about products in advertising. With the recent update, though, the FTC has chosen to extend its reach onto the Internet, applying its regulations to blogs, Facebook pages, even Twitter feeds. L. Gordon Crovitz explains in the WSJ:

The guidelines require people to disclose online if they have what the FTC vaguely defines as “material connections” with the sellers of a product or service. This could include getting free samples on which they base comments or reviews. Bloggerl objected to the double standard that exempts traditional media from the rules – many newspapers, magazines and broadcasters accept free books and other products for their reviewers.

The FTC’s aim is to go after advertisers, but its vague definitions don’t offer much clarity. Further complicating the issue is the FTC’s intention to handle violations on a selective, case-by-case basis. Laws ought to be clear and enforcable, not ambiguous and imposed at the whim of some unelected government regulator. Either all bloggers who break the rules are criminals, or none of them are.

Netizens should recognize how unnecessary these regulations are. Bloggers who care about their reputations already practice honesty and transparency. Bloggers who don’t disclose their commercial ties risk alienating their readers and losing traffic. This relationship between content creators and users is what makes social media self-regulating. Citizens don’t need the government to clean up the Internet’s garbage.

SuperFreakonomics generates heat on global warming

by Fran Smith on October 19, 2009 · 3 comments

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Even before publication, the book SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance is the topic of hot debate – on economists’ blogs, including Krugman’s, on Amazon, and, of course, on environmental sites.  SuperFreakonomics’ authors are Steven D. Levitt, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and Stephen J. Dubner, a former writer and editor at The New York Times Magazine.

The heat was generated by Chapter 5 of the book, which deals with global warming and mitigation techniques, such as geoengineering.  Since the chapter is no longer available for perusal on Amazon, it’s hard to take part in the debate.  But here’s one of the co-authors, Dubner, defending the chapter:

Our global-warming chapter has several sections. We discuss how it’s a very hard problem to solve since pollution is an externality – that is, the people who generate pollution generally don’t pay the cost of their actions and therefore don’t have strong incentives to pollute less. We discuss how even the most sophisticated climate models are limited in their ability to predict the future, and we discuss the large measure of uncertainty in this realm, given that global climate is such a complex and dynamic system. We discuss some of the commonly held misperceptions about climate and energy, including the fact that the historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is more complicated than is generally thought.

The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer.

Here’s how Krugman, with his usual understatement, puts down the authors:

. . .they didn’t even look into the debate sufficiently to realize what company they were placing themselves in.

And that’s not acceptable. This is a serious issue. We’re not talking about the ethics of sumo wrestling here; we’re talking, quite possibly, about the fate of civilization. It’s not a place to play snarky, contrarian games.

Here’s a review of the whole book in the Financial Times this past weekend.

WashPost buries coldest day in 138 years

by Fran Smith on October 19, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, Odds & Ends

It’s got a good lede that should have won at least a front-page Metro slot.  Instead, buried in Saturday’s Washington Post’s Metro Section amid the obituaries on p. B5 was this startling weather note:  On Friday, October 16, 2009, in Washington, DC, the high temperature was the lowest temperature recorded for that date in 138 years! Friday’s high was a low 45 degrees. Here’s the Post:

Something happened in Washington on Friday that had not occurred in 138 years of weather history: For the first time since the National Weather Service began compiling daily data here, the high temperature for Oct. 16 was below 50 degrees.

Now, just imagine if October 16 was the warmest in 138 years – where do you think the Post would have placed the article? Surely not buried in obituaries.

Congress Moves to Reinflate the Housing Bubble That Caused the Financial Crisis

by Hans Bader on October 19, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Features, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Veteran political commentator Michael Barone reports that liberal congressional leaders are pushing policies to “inflate the housing bubble again,” even though “our financial system broke down because we had, thanks to government policies, a housing bubble.”

Congressional leaders are ignoring warnings from experts across the political spectrum, such as conservative Peter Wallison’s October 16 piece in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Barney Frank, Predatory Lender,” and liberal Charles Lane’s recent piece in the Washington Post, “Doubling Down On the Wrong Housing Policy.”  (Wallison, a banking expert, prophetically warned for years about the risky practices of the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the core of the financial crisis, and later had to be bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of around $200 billion.)

The Obama administration is also busy promoting the junky, risky mortgages that fueled the housing bubble, showing that it has learned nothing from history.

In the Washington Examiner, Meghan Cox Gurdon explains how housing policies affected two sisters, one responsible and one irresponsible.  The financially-irresponsible sister, who was unable to manage her own finances, and had recently defaulted on a small car loan, ended up getting a taxpayer-subsidized mortgage.  Meanwhile, the responsible sister and her husband were unable to obtain a mortgage loan, despite having an “excellent credit rating” and money for a large downpayment.

Regulation of the Day 62: Government Employees and Texting while Driving

by Ryan Young on October 19, 2009

in Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Many, if not all, people depend on government employees to be positive role models for their children. They can give kids something to which to aspire; to show what they can be if they only work hard and stay in school. To give us all a walking, talking example of a life well lived.

It is in that spirit that Executive Order No. 13513 prohibits federal employees and contractors from texting while driving while on duty.

As the Order reminds us, “With nearly 3 million civilian employees, the Federal Government can and should demonstrate leadership in reducing the dangers of text messaging while driving.”The texting-while driving ban will “set an example for State and local governments, private employers, and individual drivers.”

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →