Categories
Political

Missouri veto day

photo of Eades bridge and St. Louis Arch in black and white

update

Evidently the pod people arrived today, stealing legislator bodies, because both the gun nullification and tax cut bills did not survive a veto override attempt. A half dozen bills did survive including a silly law created specifically for one powerful corporation, Doe Run.

earlier

Today is what’s known as Missouri Veto Day. This is the day when Missourians learn whether our state resumes a normal life or continues being fodder for much head shaking and laughter.

This special session of the Missouri legislature was organized to address several vetoes by Governor Jay Nixon. Among the many bills entering the override sweepstakes, two in particular stand out: HB 253, the latest in Rex Sinquefield’s social experiment to see how one can go about buying a state; and HB 436, otherwise known as That Damn Gun Nullification bill.

HB 253 is the granddaddy of “starve the government” bills. It’s a massive tax cut that benefits corporations and the affluent, while severely restricting desperately needed cash flow. Since Missouri also has a balanced budget amendment enshrined in our Constitution, this bill forces Missouri to dramatically cut education and other necessary services—and Missouri isn’t a particularly generous state to begin with. We’re thinking of changing our motto from “Show me” to “Send help”.

Nixon vetoed the bill, and haven’t we had fun since. You can’t watch news without seeing 10 or more of the Sinquefield funded ads accusing Nixon of various nefarious acts by not supporting the bill. I thought this crap was over after the election, but no, here in Missouri, we like political doggerel fed to us 24×7.

Veto supporters did manage to scrape together enough money to produce one ad, which I saw once. Most of the effort to support the veto came about by Nixon doing the boots-on-the-ground, press the flesh, eat ham at the fair, grass roots effort…and talk to every single reporter from anything even remotely resembling a publication. Heck, he even talked to webloggers.

(I found it humorous when State Rep. Holly Rehder compared what Nixon did in his grass roots campaign to the Nazi propaganda machine. That’s like saying Hitler rose to power by kissing baby cheeks and eating Leberkäse.)

Then there was the visit by Rick Perry, Texas Governor. Missouri’s Chamber of Commerce decided the best way to convince people to call their representatives and demand a veto override was by bringing in a man who ran ads telling businesses they should leave Missouri and go to Texas. Texas, where their lack of regulation is only matched by their spiffy highway system.

Missouri can proudly lay claim to having the only Chamber of Commerce actively trying to send business elsewhere.

There is one good thing about HB 253: no one has doubted the sanity of the people who support it. We may wonder about their fiscal responsibility, empathy to the average person, foresight and intelligence, but HB 253 supporters seem to be sane. The same cannot be said for HB 436 supporters.

There’s all sorts of good reading in HB 436, but my favorite part is the following:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any Missouri citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section shall have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting such enforcement.

According to this bill, not only can our sheriffs arrest ATF agents for enforcing federal laws, anyone busted in the state based on these same laws can sue the ATF agents. In what reality is this a good idea? Even the NRA isn’t embracing this puppy.

Fortunately, whatever sanity is lacking in Jefferson City can be found elsewhere in the state. Every major law enforcement organization in the state is against this bill, including the rural-reflecting Sheriff’s Association:

The sheriffs’ association – particularly influential in rural Missouri — announced early Friday that the bill “violates the sheriff’s oath of office.”
…

The Sheriffs’ Association says that several provisions also “would serve to hamstring the sheriffs and their deputies from enforcing or participating in all federal, drug, and violent gang task forces currently operating in the state.”

In addition, the association said, “language in the bill would expose all local law enforcement” to legal liability as authorities try to enforce any state laws regarding firearms violations.

Our Attorney General, Chris Koster, wants nothing to do with this bill. He sent a letter to the legislature reminding them of what happens when states attempt to nullify federal law. Of course, if the state implements the law and when it gets thrown out in court, Missouri legislators can just whip up another bill making it illegal for federal courts to operate in the state.

Categories
Books Critters

Sharing photos

Ringling Brothers: The Greatest Show in Court book coverThe photo for my newest book comes from Shutterstock. It’s not a perfect photo. It’s a little dark, a little blurry and out of focus. But no other image worked for the book. When I saw it, I knew this was the image I wanted for my cover. Authors get funny that way, which is why publishers rarely let us anywhere near the cover.

Thankfully, O’Reilly’s Director of Brand Management and expert on all things book covers, Edie Freedman, kindly volunteered to help me pummel the photo into shape. She also helped educate me on what makes a good book cover. For instance, I didn’t know about needing to leave space on all sides of the cover page. I also wasn’t aware that when you’re a relatively unknown author, as I am, you want to put your name at the top of the page; get a little name recognition going. She helped polish away many of the photo’s distractions, and find a font that, I think, really makes the cover snap—especially in smaller sizes, which is what shows up on Amazon pages.

The cover image is probably the only photo I’ll be using from Shutterstock in my book. Most of the images will come from the court case and investigations the book covers. The others are coming from photos at Flickr made freely available for use with a Creative Commons license. You can use a photo in a book, as illustration, if the CC license permits noncommercial use.

Some of the photos are from folks who have attended the Ringling Brothers circus or the associated animal walks. Others, though, come from the Circus collection of the Boston Public Library. This wonderful institution has not only uploaded extraordinary graphics and photos to its Flickr account, it kindly allows people like me to use the photos in a non-commercial setting (such as within a book for editorial or illustrative purposes). My favorite set of theirs is, of course, the one related to the circus.

I’ve always been reluctant about the Creative Commons license, not the least of which, the licenses are a bit confusing. For instance, it took me the longest time to figure out that using a photo as illustration within a book that isn’t focused on selling said photo is not a commercial use of the photo. Or at least, that’s the interpretation I’ve seen most frequently given, and the one I’m sticking with.

I can now see, though, why having a licensing scheme such as the Creative Commons is so helpful. It wasn’t necessary to have older photos and circus posters in the book…but the added color and history makes it more lively.

Old circus poster

I was so grateful to the Boston Public Library that I decided to upload all of my photos to my new Flickr account and offer them for use. The CC license I picked is very open, other than I restrict commercial use because I don’t have model releases for people and buildings and don’t want to hassle with the potential content copyright issues.

I’ve already had one of my photos used in a Missouri Department of Tourism pamphlet, for illustrative purposes. I don’t claim to be the best photographer in the world, and most of my photos are ordinary. But you never know when one of your photos might help someone, so I just uploaded them all, let folks use them or not.

Categories
Healthcare

Here come the unwashed masses

ratty fur coatMy roommate was surprised by a card he received from his doctor this week. The doctor stated he was changing the way his practice worked, in order to provide a more “personalized approach”. There will be time to really discuss medical needs, the card noted. The appointments will be unhurried and quickly obtained.

“To achieve these goals, my practice size will be smaller and there will be an annual fee.”

The return address listed a Specialdocs Consultants. A quick look up on Google told us all we needed to know: Roomie’s doctor is going concierge. Going concierge just in time to avoid the unwashed masses who promise to invade medical offices next year thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

The unwashed masses…that’s folks like you and me who for whatever reason, don’t currently have medical insurance. For all the lofty rants about freedom and liberty echoed by those who fought against Obamacare the last few years, bottom line is much of the pushback is coming from folks who don’t want to have to compete for medical care with the additional 10-15% more of Americans who will soon be able to get healthcare when they need it. And compete we all will, if the medical profession meets the newly insured by fleeing to walled practices, doors open only at the ka-ching of a dropped coin.

What can we expect from these new, walled practices?

Lest you’re thinking Royal Pains, and doctors that come to your home (and who also donate much of their free time to treating those who can’t afford their services), the reality is that you’ll still need to visit the doctor in his or her office. However, you will most likely be able to get an appointment more quickly, and yes, the doctor will be able to spend more time discussing your health issues with you. But you’ll get all of this only after you pay a hefty premium. In the St. Louis area, average concierge fees run between $1500.00 and $2000.00 a year.

In a glowing opinion piece on concierge medicine, a doctor writing for Forbes magazine implied that the fees paid are “within the means of most middle class families”. However, there are few families I know that can quickly and easily absorb an extra $150 or more a month, just for the honor of being able to call in for an appointment. For all that doctors bitch about receiving less money from Medicare, they still are doing much better than the average middle class family, whose income has remained fixed as grocery and other costs have increased.

What we’re seeing is the beginning of a class system within the medical industry, with the wealthier having quick access to medical care, while the rest of us scrape by, getting whatever we can get. Of course, there’s always been a class system in the medical industry, but now it’s more obvious.

In the Forbes piece, the doctor wrote:

Over the next decade, we will likely see the evolution of primary care delivery into two tracks. Some patients receive high-quality care from happy, motivated concierge doctors, whereas others will have to make do with rushed “assembly line” care from overworked providers trying to get their patients in and out the door as quickly as possible.

Over the next decade what we’ll see is a different attitude towards the medical community, thanks in part to these new walled off medical practices. Gone will be the days when doctors are treated like Gods. More people will get their medical advice from Dr. Google, than from Dr. Baker or Dr. Hsieh. We’ll also be seeing more of nurse practitioners and physician assistants than doctors, which is a trend we should encourage. Gone, too, are the days when we just accept whatever the doctor says—whether she says it in 10 minutes or 30.

We’re already seeing a change in how we view medicine. Rather than rush in and get antibiotics any time we or our kids get a sniffle, we suck it up and drink our orange juice. We’ve found that antibiotics have been over-prescribed in the last few decades, leading to antibiotic resistant infections that, unlike the common cold, can kill us.

We’re discovering that many of those medical tests our doctors want us to take are unnecessary, or could be replaced by less expensive alternatives. We’re even discovering that the annual physical that we’ve been told is absolutely necessary for good health may not be necessary after all for many of us. As for treating the measles or the mumps, most parents get their kids immunized, and do so at the local school or pharmacy, not the doctor’s office.

(Well, most parents that don’t belong to certain churches. that is.)

We already know what we need to do to be healthier in this country. We need to eat less processed, fat and sugar laden foods We need to lose weight. We need to quit smoking, and not drink so much. We certainly shouldn’t take Molly, or whatever “kill me” drug is currently popular.

We need to get off the couch and walk. And when we walk, we need to turn off the damn phones. We’d do better spending that $2000 on a relaxing vacation or fun new hobby than paying a concierge fee.

In other words, we need to practice common sense when it comes to our health. We don’t need a doctor telling us what we already know if we’d only be honest with ourselves.

So, we need our doctors, true, but we need to work on needing them a lot less. Maybe then the doctors won’t flee from us in terror.

Is roomie going to pay the fee? He visits the doctor once a year. He isn’t particularly fond of him. He certainly doesn’t like him well enough to pay for the privilege of just being his patient.

Categories
Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

Hearing in the horse case expedited

update

My bad. The Judge did modify the TRO to adjust the wording on August 21. In addition, there will be no oral arguments in the case. Each side will file its motions, and the Judge will rule by October 31st.

Previous

The Judge has agreed to the motion for an expedited hearing based on the merits of the case in Front Range Equine Rescue et al v. Vilsack et al.

The schedule is as follows:

  • The USDA files the Administrative Record on or before August 29 (they have filed it, docket 136-1)
  • The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor will file their Opening Briefs on the Merits on or before September 12.
  • The USDA and Defendant-Intervenors will file their responses on or before September 26.
  • The Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor will file a reply on or before October 10, 2013.
  • It looks like Judge Armijo will make her decision on or before October 17th.

I can see nothing on the plaintiff request to modify the TRO and bond amount. I imagine since the case is moving along so quickly, the Judge decided to leave things as they are. If she does issue an amended TRO and bond adjustment, I’ll update the court documents, accordingly.

So, here we go. Unlike other court cases I’m following (such as the ASPCA et al vs. Feld Entertainment and the counter RICO case) that have lasted for years, this case is over and done with, quickly.

Categories
Critters

Horses in the Oven: The USDA is not the Enemy

Today, Judge Armijo will hold a status conference with all the lawyers in the Front Range Equine Rescue et al v. Vilsack et al court case.

The USDA and defendant interveners have asked for an expedited hearing on the merits of the case, rather than go through the preliminary injunction process. The plaintiffs have agreed, but have also asked the Judge to modify her Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) so that it’s impacting on the USDA only, and not the two meat processing plants who have been given a horse slaughter inspection permit. The groups have also asked for a bond reduction, as the bond amount is excessive for a NEPA action.

Several in the horse welfare movement are up in arms about the government’s request—thinking that the government is trying to ram through a court decision. That’s not happening, and I’m concerned there’s a hostility towards the USDA that isn’t warranted. At least not in this case. I think much of this hostility is due to the fact that there’s as much rumor as fact surrounding the case. I’m not a lawyer, but I have been following other, similar court cases, so I’m going to take a shot at laying out the facts in the case. If I make a mistake in my understanding, please let me know.

The plaintiffs based the lawsuit on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Basically, what’s happened is the USDA has made a decision to begin inspections at horse slaughter facilities. The plaintiffs assert this agency decision causes them harm. They have exhausted all other efforts to seek redress for this harm, and seek a remedy in court. According to the amended complaint, “The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (“APA”), provides that “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”

What is the legal wrong? That’s where NEPA comes in. The legal wrong is that the USDA did not perform an environmental analysis of the possible negative consequences of its decision to issue horse slaughter inspections; did not provide a statement of such an analysis; and did not provide opportunity for the public to comment on the potentially negative consequences of the agency’s action. Returning to the amended complaint, “Under the APA, a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; [or] without observance of procedure required by law.”

Considering the negative environmental consequences of horse slaughter plants in the past, the plaintiffs should be able to establish standing. To sue, the plaintiffs have to establish that they have a stake in the outcome of the court case, that they have suffered a legal injury by action of the defendant, and that the court can redress this injury. Among the plaintiffs are people who live in the immediate vicinity of these plants, and who can, and most likely will, be impacted by the operation of these plants. These people are members of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), who is participating in the suit on their behalf.

In addition to the HSUS and other plaintiffs, the State of New Mexico has been granted leave to intervene on the side of the plaintiffs in the case. In its memorandum in support of its intervention, the Attorney General for the state writes:

New Mexico has a legal interest in its sovereign right to regulate land, air and water quality within its borders within the parameters of federal law. The impacts of Valley Meat’s
proposed horse slaughter operation, particularly its disposal of carcasses and other wastes, on the environment and public health are subject to regulation by the New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Department of Health. Moreover, federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, allow states to regulate and enforce their own environmental quality programs, so long as such programs are approved by the federal government.

Since the meat processing plants have processed beef in the past, some may question why there’s concern about horse meat, but not about beef. Well, the major difference, as noted by the Judge in her TRO, is that horses, unlike cows, are primarily companion animals. As such, *companion animals are given drugs strictly forbidden to food animals. These drugs can not only lead to dangerously adulterated meat (which New Mexico does not want sold from the state), they can also enter into the ground, and into the waterways surrounding the plants. These drugs could impact on the health and safety of the people surrounding the plant, as well as potentially impacting negatively on other food products. The state, as guardian for land and water for New Mexico, will also incur added expense ensuring these drugs do not contaminate the land and the water. I’m actually astonished other potentially impacted states have also not sought to intervene, for this same reason.

According to Judge Armijo’s decision:

Turning to the grants of inspection, as previously stated, the grants of inspection were based, in relevant part, on the existence of the FSIS Directive to protect the public health and safety. The Court is not persuaded that the grants of inspection would have been issued in the absence of this Directive, the express purpose of which was to protect the public health and safety from the unique chemical residues possibly present in equines. Although the Court must afford deference to the FSIS’s actions, the Court does not find credible the Federal Defendants’ assertions that the grants of inspection would have been issued in the absence of the Directive given the express purpose of the Directive to protect the public health and safety and given the fact that FSIS specifically incorporated the Directive into their grants of inspection. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA and APA claims challenging the grants of inspection.

Now, returning to the issue of an expedited hearing. The USDA did not ask for this because it’s a bad ass or meanie. It did so, because once it submitted the Administrative Record relevant to its decision to begin horse meat plant inspections, all the relevant facts pertinent to the case are now available to the judge. Some of the defendant intervenors had requests for discovery, but these really aren’t relevant for an APA case (as the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Bruce Wagman, noted).

(Note, I have a FOIA into the USDA to get a copy of the documents linked in the Administrative Record Index. When I get copies, I’ll post at my Documents web site.)

The plaintiffs concur with the request for an expedited hearing, as long as their motion for re-wording the TRO and a reconsideration of the bond amount are considered. I imagine these will be discussed in today’s Status hearing.

The point is, the facts are in, the arguments have been made, and are being made, and the Judge will have what she needs to make a decision sooner, rather than later. This is better for everyone. An expedited hearing doesn’t strengthen the USDA’s case, or undermine the animal welfare folks case. Point of fact, based on precedent and argument, it’s highly likely the plaintiffs will win this case. I would be extremely surprised if they didn’t.

So the USDA is not the bad guy in this.When Congress reinstated horse meat inspection funding, the USDA had no choice but to begin the process to issue horse meat inspection permits. When Valley Meat et al sued the USDA to begin issuing permits, it had no choice but to hasten its deliberations (and skip NEPA in the process). And the USDA has no choice when it comes to arguing this case in court to the best of its ability, or to work for an expedited decision, as responsible representatives of the citizens of the country, as well as the agency tasked with enforcing the laws passed by Congress.

If the plaintiffs succeed, then the permits will be on hold while the USDA fulfills its NEPA responsibilities. While this is happening, those of us who do not support slaughtering horses for meat, have an opportunity to permanently ban horse meat slaughter, and the transport of horses for horse meat slaughter, by supporting the SAFE Act.

Front Range Equine Rescue et al v. Vilsack et al court documents

*More on this in a companion article, Eating Flicka: A Good Idea?