text:
Monday, March 09, 2009
Should expunction burden fall on defendants when charges fall through?
That's the crux of the question raised by HB 293 by Rep. Harold Dutton which was heard in a subcommittee hearing of the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee this morning. (See the video here starting at the 7 min., 30 second mark.) While some significant questions were raised that could result in the bill's alteration, the legislation was relatively well received and the members mostly appeared to support it.
Dutton's bill would require automatic expunction in cases where the defendant was pardoned, acquitted, or the case is dismissed. As mentioned previously, the legislation would also shift the burden to the state to clear the defendant's name when accusations never come to fruition.
I testified for the bill on behalf of the Innocence Project of Texas because so many DNA exonerees have trouble finding jobs, housing, etc., even though they've been cleared by the courts and in many cases received pardons. State and private databases continue to dredge up information about their cases that causes employers and landlords to reject them.
Especially for lesser offenses, the collateral consequences of having bad information in public databases can be more serious, even, than incarceration or other punishments.
Several of Texas' DNA exonerees have told me they must carry newspaper clips about their exoneration to job interviews in order to explain why they still show up as violent felons in state and private databases. But even with that documentation, once their application is submitted, too often some bureaucrat in the Human Resources department will later run a database query that keeps them from getting a job.
The bill's main sticking point, as a functional matter, was whether it should include "dismissals" that occur after a defendant has been given deferred adjudication and successfully completed a community supervision stint. Some prosecutors said that such information should be kept in case the person commits more crimes in the future, but the subcommittee didn't seem exceptionally sympathetic to that complaint.
Rep. Paula Piereson, to her credit, spoke knowledgeably and forcibly about flaws in Texas' deferred adjudication statute, complaining that defendants took such deals because they were told there would be no "conviction" on their record, only to learn years later that employers, landlords and others could still access the information and they were not eligible for the information to be expunged. Piereson declared that Texas should either "do away with deferred adjudication" or allow the records to be expunged, as Rep. Dutton proposed. "Deferred [adjudication] does not work," she opined.
The subcommittee seemed inclined to identify a list of specific offenses - mostly violent crimes, sex crimes, and possibly family violence, to judge by the discussion - where records should not be expunged.
Another prosecutor concern dealt with whether an expunction would harm cases where charges are dismissed with the intent of later refiling them. It seems to me, though, this could be easily addressed by inserting language that requires a prosecutor to declare whether they intend to keep open the option for re-indictment, perhaps establishing a deadline beyond which, if no new charges are filed, the records would be expunged.
Neither of these seemed like insurmountable objections.
The only other significant concern raised about the bill was a lame argument that this would be an unfunded mandate. Of course, DAs have no problem paying to pursue these cases, they just don't want to pay to do right by the defendant after they make a mistake.
In terms of cost, the committee was told that some counties charge a court fee to apply for expunging records - in Harris County, e.g., the fee is $250 - plus the defendant must typically pay an attorney, perhaps somewhere in the range of $1,500 to file the motion with the court.
As drafted, Dutton's bill entirely places the onus on the state to pursue expunction in these cases, including the cost, but there was some discussion of whether a $250 fee to the defendant might overcome the "unfunded mandate" objection. On fairness grounds, I don't particularly like that idea. If the burden of proof in court is on the state to obtain a conviction, it seems only just that the state should be responsible for making the individual whole when they're unable to meet that burden.
If prosecutors have enough manpower to pursue a case, they should be willing to devote the manpower to see it through to the end, win or lose. HB 293 is a terrific bill and, with a few adjustments, I'm hopeful the committee and the Legislature will approve it.
23 comments:
That deadline, beyond which no charges are refiled and the record can be expunged, is called the statute of limitations.
- Gritsforbreakfast said...
atx - what about offenses like murder where there isn't a statute of limitations? How long do you think dismissed charges should remain part of the record in those instances?
I appreciate Rep. Pierson's comments, and agree with her. I have first-hand experience with both the prosecutor and defense attorney stating that the defendent would have "no criminal history" after a nolo contendre plea. Even a non-disclosure motion isn't necessarily granted.
Rep. Farrar's HB 2213 is very good, too, and provides for "grandfathering" of cases occurring before Sep. 1, 2009. Besides that and the "automatic" expunction provisions in Dutton's bill, how are the two different and could they not be merged into one really good piece of legislation? - 3/09/2009 09:50:00 PM
So a person commits an offense and receives deferred adjudication and then later in the future commits another offense. Someone is actually trying to argue that the fact that the person had already received some form of probation, how that person did on probation, and the facts underlying the offense that the person was put on probation for are off limits, not relevant, destroyed forever? No decision maker will have access to that information when trying to determine the appropiate punishment for offense #2???
What an absurd and ridiculous proposition and so indefensible it borders on the moronic! - 3/10/2009 06:51:00 AM
Sec. 20 of Article 1, Texas Bill of Rights: NO CITIZEN SHALL BE OUTLAWED.
Per my testimony yesterday; Expunction should be automatic upon dismissal or acquittal and after completion of a sentence. WHY?
(1) Because the effect of a PUBLIC arrest record is to put the Citizen outside the protection of the law. It subjects them to all sorts of discrimination. It deprives them of the full Rights of Citizenship.
(2) Because the INTENT of the provision of our Bill of Individual Rights was to guard against this. This is obvious to one that knows History. Per Sec 29; excepted from the powers of government to forever remain inviolate. The Expunction Law has been utilized to DEPRIVE Citizens of this Constitutionally secured Protection. www.informed.org - 3/10/2009 06:57:00 AM
This problem with the state criminal justice system is the same as it is in the civil courts. The loser doesn't have to pay. Upon acquittal, the state should pay all costs for returning the accused reputation and life to the status it was before they were accused. The same thing should happen when these vultures try and sue McDonalds for hot coffee. The loser should pay all costs.
- Gritsforbreakfast said...
To 6:51 who writes: "Someone is actually trying to argue that the fact that the person had already received some form of probation, how that person did on probation, and the facts underlying the offense that the person was put on probation for are off limits, not relevant, destroyed forever?"
You're confusing deferred adjudication with "probation," which is a punishment after conviction.
The (deceptively framed) incentive for people to accept deferred is that there is no conviction and when they complete it their case will be dismissed. But employers, etc., still hold it against them the same as a conviction. As for "how that person did on probation," the records wouldn't be expunged unless they successfully complete the supervision period. So if the records are expunged, they must have done okay. - 3/10/2009 07:36:00 AM
Wouldn't the solution be to block access to the information of the prior offense or limit access to the information instead of destroying it and thus depriving judges and juries of valuable information on what an appropriate sentence should be for a "repeat offender."
The sane solution should be to protect and limit access not destroy. The more information available to people who make important sentencing decisions the better the outcome. - 3/10/2009 08:26:00 AM
- Don said...
As Rep. Pierson said, and several bloggers here, and Grits, one of the problems with deferred is the LYING. I don't know how many people I've known that were misled, both by the prosecutor and their own defense attorneys. You can argue about whether or not to even have deferred, but let's don't have it under the farce that it has been so far. You should either have a conviction or not. As it stands, it's just a way to get someone to plead guilty, period. Much injustice has been perpetrated under this crap called Deferred Adjudication. If you dismiss the charges, expunction should be automatic.
Cheers for Rep. Pierson! Deferred Adjudications are not convicitions!! This is stated in the Criminal Code of laws and people are told this will not show on their record, but someone either willingly or on purpose left this fact go and DAs have hurt a lot of people and those people who have been hurt were lied to by the court system, especially the District Attorney's as well as their own attorneys.
Who dropped the ball, well to begin with, the courts dropped the ball first, they were to notifiy DPS the Deferred Adjudication had been completed and the record was to have been removed, but this was not done by the courts and DPS is so out of control they would not have any idea what was the next step. Something needs to be done in order for those who made mistakes either in their youth or in some mistaken thought or action and some who actually did nothing, deserve a chance to be able to work, find happiness and a place to live and raise their families.
Legislators, get on the ball and pass this bill, make the courts responsible for this autrocity they have caused in the lives of many in Texas. Do the right thing. - 3/10/2009 10:42:00 AM
Re. the McDonalds/Hot Coffee reference - McDonalds was serving coffee so hot it caused third degree burns, requiring skin grafts. The lady asked for her medical expenses, and didn't get them, so she sued. The history of the case is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I don't vouch for its complete accuracy, but it's an interesting story and there seems to be much more to it than the urban myth suggests. - 3/10/2009 11:02:00 AM
Regarding the woman and the coffee, She took fresh coffee, and placed it between her legs in an automobile. it spilled thus burning her legs and that region.
If this were the 40's everyone would know that you don;t take something that is effectively boiled in a paper cup, and place it between the two strongest muscles on your body and then use those muscles to drive a motor vehicle at the same time. but no, this was the last part of the 20th Century where we forgot about common-sense and went with sue them all sense... Maybe that explains all of the laws being passed the last 20 years that are now being looked at again with elected officials slapping foreheads and wondering why they ever passed such stupid laws... - 3/10/2009 11:48:00 AM
There should be NO exception list. If the state wants to ensure that someone remains carrying a record, then they need to take DA's off the books for the crime, much like DWI.
This a very bad idea to say we are gonna offer you this deal of no conviction, but oh yeah, now that you have signed, YOUR crime cannot be expunged because of this itty bitty type right there.. see it?
Deferred adjudication is a second chance for one time offenders. The State needs to keep up its side of the agreement. If the person on DA makes it through the period of time without committing a new crime, or if they abide by the rules, then the state should be forced to release them from any further record. - 3/10/2009 11:53:00 AM
This is a little off the topic, but it does have to do with criminal records and someone mentioned crimes that take place in one's youth.
I understand the concern that we cannot have a situation where career-types can essentially start over when they turn 17 or 18, but there are those cases of a single incident at a young age which ought to have a remedy such as a pardon.
You can get the record sealed, but I believe certain entities, such as the military, can still access it. I heard testimony from an Army General and he told a couple of ridiculous stories for which they had issued waivers.
In these days of Zero Tolerance and add to that "the law of parties", there should be a method of correction.
There are probably some out there who do not know that waivers are available for a thing that might have happened when they were 8 and choose another career path.
Of course, even a pardon won't absolutely ensure that these data bases are correct. - 3/10/2009 11:56:00 AM
The only problem I see with Dutton's HB 293-is that is includes offenses occurring after the bill is passed. This does not include expunging anyone who had an offense in the past. Many people have a one time offense from years ago, and have been model citizens with no further incidents. What about these people? How long must one be punished for something they never were convicted for?? Anonymous 06:51, you obviously are uninformed as to what deferred adjudication actually entails. Grits did a great job of explaining in the 07:36 post. Thanks to Grits for the clarification. If someone successfully completes all terms of the supervised period-while on the deferred adjudication-the judge dismisses the charge, with absolutely NO CONVICTION imposed. That is the purpose/benefit of opting for a deferred plea-instead of taking the case to a trial. But-the collateral consequences, such as denial of occupational licenses, gainful employment, housing, volunteering,etc are almost worse than the actual supervision. These collateral consequences include the presence of the arrest record/files related to the original charge. Currently, only those with a Class C misdemeanor offense qualify for expunction of this information. Please see Rep. Dutton's HB 945, and Rep. Farrar's HB 2213 for reference.And kudos to Rep. Pierson for her support on this injustice. The time for change is NOW.
The person plead guilty and was placed on community supervision. To say that the facts surrounding the offense and how the person performed on community supervision should not be made available to the people who are charged with deciding the appropriate punishment and rehabilitative needs should that person violate the law again in the future is pure insanity. It seems a reasoned solution would find a way to have that information available to law enforcement and court personnel only. To have a sentencing authority believe that they are dealing with a first time offender when that is not the case is the ultimate LIE and would cause people to have even less faith in the justice system.
- Gritsforbreakfast said...
3:20 - They didn't "plead guilty." There is not a conviction in deferred adjudication cases. You just don't understand what you're talking about.
- Don said...
Anon. 11:48 et al, In the first place, Ms. Liebeck didn't lose. She won. So McDonalds should pay. One normally expects coffee to be hot, not 180 degrees, roughly the same temperature as the water in your car's radiator after it has been driven. Would you expect a cup of coffee to cause 3rd degree burns and need skin grafts? Further, McDonald's had complaint after comlaint and had been asked to not serve their coffee so hot, but they refused. I don't know what this has to do with this thread, but I quit McDonald's because of that incident. I won't buy anything from any of them. She should have gotten the original 15 million or whatever it was she won initially. But some right-wing wacked out Big Business judge reduced it. She barely paid her hospital bill.
Good grief - sorry I mentioned McDonalds LOL! The point is, like deferred adjudication in criminal cases, many civil respondents just decide to pay rather than pay to fight it, whether they are in the wrong or not. Back in the 80's, I owned a small manufacturing company, and got sued for descrimination because I fired a guy for showing up on the job drunk. I fought it, and it cost me over 10,000 but I won. (If you can call that winning.)
So, the problem just isn't on the criminal side of the courts system. It's on the civil side, too. - 3/11/2009 07:51:00 AM
They DO enter a plea. It's just the finding of guilt that is deferred. You, my friend, are the one who does not know what he talketh abouteth.
Ok here's my case. I got pulled over for having the bulbs that shine my plates burn out. I had just came back from traveling all day and went to see my G/F before going home - exhausted after driving all day. I had two beers within 45 minutes and I left to go home. Willco pulled me over.
COP: "Sir, I need you Dl and Insurance."
Me: "Ok, here. Why did you pull me over?"
COP: "The bulbs that are supposed to light your plates are out."
Me: "Oh really, let me see."
COP: Remain in your car, sir" hand on gun.
Me: "Ok. Whatever you say (hands in the air). Someones getting raped, robbed or murdered but those lights on those plates are pretty damn important I see.
COP: "I'll be back.
Me: "OK, say hello to my past please..."
He does what cops do and runs your records and driving records. I had a 20 year old driving under the influence. I was in college, my second year back in the 80's. I admit, I smoked pot and went to Taco Cabana for the Super Tex-Mex Plate. I got pulled over for an expired inspection sticker. My car wouldn't inspect, and for that matter, neither would I back then.
Cop comes back.
Cop: "Where you been tonight?"
Me: "Came back from San Angelo about 9:00 p.m., went and saw my g/f, and am now going home. Why do you ask?"
Cop: You been smoking anything tonight?"
Me: "No. I don't smoke." Why do you ask?"
Cop: DO YOU MIND IF I'M THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE????"
Me: "Well quit frankly, yes I do, why do you...."
Cop: "HAVE YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK TONIGHT?" REALLY AGITATED.
Me: "This conversation is over. I'm terminating this interview."
Cop: GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE."
Me: (Silent)
Cop: Searches vehicle and finds nothing.
Me: Remaining silent, I notice my plate lights are working (one of them and that's all that's required to pass inspection.
Cop: COME HER SIR AND STAND RIGHT HERE. I NEED YOU TO... WHAT, NO? WHY ARE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD?
Me: remaining silent..
Cop: "WELL THEN JUST COME OVER HERE AND BLOW IN THIS AND I'LL LET YOU GO."
Me: (thinking to myself, I could pass this If I blew, but If I blew and anything showed up,under the limit or not, this guy could get me anyway. So why do it, self? Make him work for his evidence.) I remained silent.
Cop: (very red faced)- YOU KNOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ARREST YOU!!!
Me: silent
Cop: pissed. places handcuffs on his "subject" and makes them tight. Sits subject in vehicle. His Friday night "prize" is going to jail.
Went to court and my attorney said "Your video looks real good. They have no evidence. They are offering to dismiss the DWI. But they want to give you deferred adjudication for "obstruction of a highway."
DL suspended 2 years. 80 hours community service. Classes that made me even more smarter, and 18 months probation. Willco won't contest my expunge request for the DWI. BUT, I have to pay my attorney 1200 to get it done.
The problem I have with my situation is that they were using a past 20 year old conviction against me when I was a 19 year old kid, and the fact that police can still arrest you even if you blow under the limit, they can still make the case that you did not have full use of your mental whatever and you still go to jail. I knew all that before "Cop" so I just shut up and offered nothing. No evidence: no open containers in vehicle, no failed field test, and no blood/breath.
The ironic thing about it all is that my incident happened the same week as Dutton's alleged DWI incident downtown, so I'm glad he filed this bill because he knows, believe me, he knows first hand of what many of us went through and the challenges and expenses of having to defend it and the expense of having that non-sense expunged. - 3/11/2009 08:20:00 PM
". It's just the finding of guilt that is deferred."
No, Stupid. when a judge finds someone guilty they state I adjudicate you guilty. Deferred is to put of Adjudication.. i.e, I see the facts, however I will not render judgement on this UNLESS you give me cause to.
As for pleading guilty, nope there too. Some enter a plea of no contest which is neither not guilty nor guilty. It is " I will not, or do not contest charges against me" i.e. Whatever dude, just send me to Deferred Adjudication so we can this thing started.
So you are 0 for 2 tonight.. so 'talketh abouteth this' sheesh..
Bottom line, Texas wrote checks it KNEW it would never allow to be cashed. It is wrong. - 3/11/2009 11:39:00 PM
- Jaded Consumer said...
Many felony charges simply cause too much harm on a record just as a charge or arrest even without a record of conviction -- aggravated assault charges that fail because the conduct was self-defense, sexual molestation allegations brought solely because the family courts didn't make custody decisions the complainant liked and not because there was any evidence of misconduct, you name it -- to require defendants to live with the record for a decade or more until the statute of limitations passes, then to notice the statute of limitations has passed and hire an attorney to explain the defendant's right to an expunction under Texas law.
Deferred is routinely sold to clients as a dismissal, which is why they take it: it's ostensibly not a conviction, it's a chance to prove you're not a bad seed after all and to earn a dismissal by jumping through all the court-required hoops and paying a host of court-required fees (courses, supervision, etc.). Clients are shocked to learn they are regarded by folks reading public records as having been convicted after their lawyer explained they were getting a dismissal.
The current system has serious issues, not the least of which is the utterly incomprehensible (at least to clients) mystery of what a dismissal following deferred adjudication really means, and how (if at all) no contest differs from a plea of guilty (in Texas, there is authority that either plea is admission of all the alleged elements of the offense, so what's the difference? What do you do to attorneys who plea clients to deferreds by telling them it's a dismissal and they don't have to plead guilty?).
In Harris County, incidentally, clients have to admit the offense to get a deferred. No guilty plea (on which later to adjudicate guilt in case probation goes poorly), no plea deal.
In the federal system, expunction is crazier still. You can expunge a CONVICTION for small-peanuts possession of weed (there's a statute specific to it), but you have no right to expunge utterly unsubstantiated allegations that lead to a dismissal, because the feds think they have a criminal justice interest in maintaining an arrest record even of your completely bogus charges. Maybe Congress thinks it'll get tagged for weed but never accused of transferring a weapon without a permit, and wrote itself an expunction statute accordingly. - 10/07/2009 05:20:00 PM


text:
Boston Funeral Home Trades Orthodox Burial Society for Nondenominational Group
A new nondenominational Jewish burial society has replaced an Orthodox one at a Boston-area Jewish funeral home.
Community Hevra Kadisha of Greater Boston, which launched this fall and is part of a growing movement of Jewish burial societies that include non-Orthodox volunteers, began performing tahara – the ritual preparation of bodies for burial – at Brezniak-Rodman Chapel in West Newton, Mass., on Dec. 16.
Until this month, the Orthodox-run Chevrah Kadisha of Greater Boston, whose membership is by invitation only, had been the sole provider of tahara at Brezniak-Rodman and other area funeral homes.
After Brezniak-Rodman announced that it would provide space for the new group, which has more than 100 volunteers, Rabbi Naftali Horowitz, who is known as the Bostoner Rebbe, sent a letter stating that the Chevra Kadisha of Greater Boston would continue operating there only "if we are the only one using the facilities." Allowing a nondenominational group to use the funeral home's facilities would "add great confusion regarding the standards which will be administered," the letter said.
Last week, Brezniak-Rodman confirmed that the Chevra Kadisha of Greater Boston had stopped working with the funeral home. David Brezniak, owner of Brezniak-Rodman, said of Horowitz, "I respect his decision, and he needs to respect mine. I thank him for whatever he's done over the years, and that's it."
Officials from the Chevra Kadisha of Greater Boston, including Horowitz, did not respond to inquiries from JTA.
Brezniak said the new group employs the same standards in conducting tahara as the Orthodox one, and that he has been pleased so far with their work.
"The people doing this are very dedicated," he said. "They're not cutting any corners."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On the eve of the Fortnight for Freedom, there are those within the Catholic Church who are denying that the two-week observance has anything to do with the Church's teaching on contraception and everything to do with upholding the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religious expression. That's a false dichotomy and misattribution of the causal nature of our current dilemma.
It's akin to those who say the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, that it was all about states' rights; which of course begs the question: The right to do what?
There is no doubt that the states who seceded feared the loss of self-government to the Federal Government, but the loss of liberty was rooted in the issue of slavery which was woven into the very social and economic fabric of the South. In the case of slavery (which took on a more prominent role for Northerners as the struggle wore on) it was an example of the Federal Government getting it right. The unalienable (That is, God-given) right to liberty had been denied to African-Americans for far too long. Federal troops were sent to both preserve the Union and end slavery for good.
In the current struggle, the Federal Government has sought to attack the Catholic Church over an issue that is central to her identity and mission, the teaching that all human life is made in the image and likeness of God from the moment of fertilization and is to be respected as such until natural death. Our loss of freedom is centered on the mandate by the Federal Government that we pay not only for birth control pills, some of which are known abortifacients, but that we pay for sterilizations and known abortifacient morning-after pills such as RU-486 and Ella.
Further, the Government is dictating what institutions constitute "religious" institutions and which do not. The only "religious" institutions that qualify for an exemption by the Obama criteria would be those who violate equal opportunity law by hiring most of their employees who are members of that church, and whose services go mainly to members of that same church.
Otherwise, Catholic hospitals, schools, and social service agencies are required to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and abortions, and sterilizations. If the bishops do so, they shred Humanae Vitae and every decent moral precept undergirding Catholic Anthropology. If they voluntarily close down these institutions, they cooperate with evil by giving our enemies precisely the evisceration of our Church that they seek.
Perhaps jails overflowing with civilly disobedient Catholic bishops, clergy, religious, and laity will be the sole salvation of religious liberty in America. We'll see soon enough how this situation breaks. The Supreme Court ruling on the HHS mandate is due out any day, and then there are the November elections.
That's plenty of reason to pray during this fortnight.


text:
June 1, 2006
There's no way around it: co-mingling and transporting cattle stress them. And any stress can lose money. Since that's the case, University of Arkansas cattle researchers have been looking at several ways to reduce impacts on the animals.
"Stocker cattle bought from Arkansas market channels are frequently stressed," says John Richeson, Extension Beef Improvement Program associate. "Without a doubt, that stress negatively affects an animal's ability to respond to vaccines. Stressed cattle have a weaker immune system and lower response rate."
Researchers studied two groups of high-risk stocker cattle. One group was given a five-way modified live vaccination (MLV) on arrival. For the other group, the vaccination was delayed 14 days — the only difference between the two groups.
"We took 528 crossbred calves out of an Arkansas livestock barn and received them at the station," said Richeson, who spoke at the recent Livestock and Forestry Branch field day outside Batesville, Ark. "The two treatments were applied to those cattle, which were randomly selected for one of the treatments when they arrived."
To help monitor performance during the receiving period, the cattle were weighed several times. Fourteen days after arrival, the delayed vaccination calves had greater weight gain. The same was true for the overall 42-day receiving period. This finding was part of a trend showing cattle better handle transport, immunity buildup and acclimation to new surroundings when MLV vaccination is delayed.
"When we give cattle a vaccine, we want them to mount an immune response. What's common is to get a load of cattle and do all the processing, vaccinations and everything else almost immediately. We wanted to see what would happen if we let the cattle come in, rest for a couple of weeks and get over the market stresses and any sickness they already have and then vaccinate."
Upon arrival, many of the stocker cattle have most likely been exposed naturally to the viral strains contained in a five-way MLV vaccine.
"Another thought behind the study is when you give a vaccine, especially a MLV, to a high-risk, stressed animal, it can have negative effects. That MLV is behaving similarly to the actual virus. While it's modified and isn't as harsh as a real infection, it's still causing cattle's immune systems to respond and develop antibodies."
Titer levels, which provide an indication of an animal's response to a vaccine, were also looked at.
"We wanted to check IBR Titer levels on the same day post-vaccination. Since one group was given the vaccine when they arrived and the other group on day 14, we compared the Titer levels for the arrival group on day 14 and for the delayed group on day 28. That's an equivalent post-vaccination Titer testing date."
On day 28, the delayed vaccination cattle showed greater IBR Titer levels.
"If the management situation allows, perhaps it's better to delay vaccination. The combination of greater performance in addition to the overall better response to vaccines later in the feeding period would seem to justify that."
How about the financial incentive to delay the vaccination versus the threat of contracting a disease? How can those be put on the scales together?
"That's the huge issue. We aren't really saving money on input costs — the vaccine is still being given. But we could be earning dollars through better performance by delaying that vaccine.
"As far as animals contracting BRD during the proposed 14-day delay, high-risk cattle often are previously exposed at the auction barn to the viruses the MLV fights. The BRD viruses — whether IBR, BVD, PI3, or BRSV — are a precursor to bovine respiratory disease.
"What causes cattle to become sick or die from BRD is typically the bacterial infection that comes later. The bacterial infection is secondary, after the cattle try to fight off the initial virus. The pasteurella bacteria — commonly occurring in cattle's nasal areas and lungs at low levels — take advantage when the immune system is compromised by a virus. That allows the bacteria to increase replication and causes major problems with morbidity and mortality."
While viral vaccines do nothing to fight against bacteria, there are some bacterins on the market. "There's even one for pasteurella that has shown some effectiveness."
What about response rates?
"Say you bring 100 head of stocker cattle in. Even under the most ideal conditions, if they're low-stressed and low-risk, perhaps only 70 to 80 of the animals will develop the desired immune response to the vaccine.
"In high-risk cattle, only half the cattle may get to the desired immunity level/antibodies needed with one injection. In those cases, you may need to revaccinate and improve on that 50 percent, maybe add another 25 of the animals."
Many of the questions Richeson takes on the study are in the context of cow-calf operations. "Producers should understand this is strictly for stocker cattle — the phase after the cow-calf segment. It doesn't apply to pre-weaned calves at all. It only applies to calves that are weaned, sold and shipped to the next phase."
Richeson also fields questions about giving a MLV to cows. MLVs can cause cows to abort and can lead to other problems. However, "there are some new MLV vaccines that can be given to open cows if directions are closely followed."
e-mail: [email protected]
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like


text:
Big Boi says his estranged wife is perfectly capable of getting a job and supporting herself.
The rapper and wife Sherlita Patton are in the midst of a messy divorce and custody battle for their 12-year-old son. Patton wants full custody of the young boy along with child and spousal support, but Big Boi is fighting back.
MUST READ: Big Boi & His Wife Of 11 Years File For Divorce
According to TMZ, the Outkast star says he's willing to pay whatever the State of Georgia deems appropriate. However, in his legal papers, he claims the mother of his two kids is young, healthy, well-educated and capable of supporting herself financially.
In related baby-mamas-who-need-to-get-a-job news, Ludacris was ordered to pay the mother of his 2-month-old daughter Cai $7,000 a month. That may seem like a lot but it's a huge bargain compared to her orginal request of $15K a month.
MUST READ: Toni Braxton Tells Bethenny About Her Divorce: We Were 'Very White About It'
According to reports, Luda said he was counting on checks from Fast and Furious 7. Since the film's production was put on hold, he claimed he could only pay $1,800 a month. The judge met his half way and ordered 7K a month for now.
Maybe it's just me, but "baby mamas" stay winning!
LIKE HelloBeautiful On Facebook!
Apollo Nida Slams Divorce Rumors Following Recent Arrest
Khloé Kardashian Speaks Out For The First Time Since Filing Divorce
Check Out This Gallery
Outkast's Big Boi Says His Estranged Wife Needs To Get A J-O-B was originally published on hellobeautiful.com


text:
Norway's Most Energy-Efficient Office Building Unveiled for Cop15
by Olivia Chen, 12/08/09
At Inhabitat, we've been showing our support for COP15 by telling our readers about the need to take action on climate change. Various Architects in Oslo, Norway has taken a different path and did what they do best – designing a concept for an ultra energy-efficient building that could help mitigate the world's climate problems! The building features a variety of energy-saving measures including operable insulated shutters on the building's facade, wind turbines, a green roof, and the use of local and sustainable building materials – sounds like a pretty fitting tribute to COP15 if you ask us
With a jigsaw puzzle-like facade, the building's exterior is made up of operable shutters that can transform the building's facade from 60% to 20% window area. The shutters can be opened up during the day for passive heating — but can also be closed to keep heat in. Due to the longitude of the Nordic countries, the architects also thoughtfully designed in LED lights in the interior of the shutters to provide lighting for the winter months when days become much shorter. The shutters, as well as the building's structure, are made of woods with a low carbon footprint.
The building's location next to the sea also provides the building with numerous benefits. The sea water can be used to heat and cool with the help of water-controlled heat pumps. The architects also note that air heat recovery, demand-led controls and efficient insulation would make the building's energy use much lower. Up on the roof, 4 wind turbines would harness the wind of the sea for energy. Also on the roof, the normal hard-scape has been turned into a landscape that collects and filters rainwater and stores the water away in tanks for later use.
With a plethora of eco features, the architects of the building hope that the design will prove how architecture can ward off climate change:
Various Architects and Ramboll believe that the ØKOffice project demonstrates that architects, engineers, and developers of new office buildings should push harder to develop highly energy efficient buildings with a zero net-carbon construction. We should not accept the minimum reductions required by law as standards, but should see them as a challenge to do better. Good luck to the COP15 representatives.


text:
I do not favor extending unemployment benefits. The bill signed into law by the President last Wednesday would extend unemployment benefits by up to 13 weeks (depending on a state's unemployment rate) for persons, estimated to number some 2.3 million, who have been unemployed for six months or longer, up to a maximum of 99 weeks (almost two years), at a total cost to the government estimated at $34 billion.
I would not object to the government's giving the states some fraction of $34 billion to enable them to make additional welfare payments to persons experiencing serious economic hardship. But extending unemployment benefits beyond the standard six-month limit is a bad idea.
As Becker points out, the total amount of the additional benefits is too small to have a significant positive effect on employment—and for the further reason that a transfer payment cannot be assumed to have a positive effect on consumption or investment. The effect will depend on what the recipient of the transfer does with it. If he saves it, at least in an inert form such as cash or a federally insured demand deposit that the bank in which the money is deposited uses to buy a Treasury security, then it will not stimulate production and hence employment. Even if he uses it to buy something, it may turn out that the seller is selling from inventory and doesn't plan to restock, in which event the effect on production will depend on what the seller does with the money he receives for the sale—maybe he will save it in some inert form!
Far from being effective as stimulus, the extension of unemployment benefits will have two negative effects on employment. First, it will increase the opportunity cost of the recipient's rejoining the labor force. Unemployment benefits are set lower than earnings to reduce the moral hazard that Becker discusses, but the gap between benefits and earnings is narrowed by the costs of work (such as commuting, and any disutility associated with work, such as fatigue and boredom) and by the benefits of household production and of leisure—and those benefits, unlike earnings, are not taxed. The gap is so small for many unemployed people that studies show that they do not begin a serious job hunt until their unemployment benefits are about to expire.
So extending or otherwise enhancing unemployment benefits, far from stimulating employment, is likely to reduce employment and so slow the pace of economic recovery.
Second, extending unemployment benefits has a negative long-term effect on employment. The longer a person is unemployed, the less likely he is ever to return to the labor force, at least in a job comparable to the one he held before becoming unemployed. Apart from erosion of skills and of the habit of working, persons unemployed for a long time are unattractive hires because employers are suspicious of these persons' attachment to or aptitude for work.
Thus the net effect of the just-enacted extension of unemployment benefits is likely to be to reduce employment and output. And while the amount of the benefits involved in the extension is not large, the negative effect on the economy may be if a substantial number of the 2.3 million persons who will be receiving the benefits are unemployed for a longer time, as a result, than they would otherwise be.
So the extension has to be defended if at all as a welfare measure. It is a bad measure because it is not means-tested. To be counted as unemployed you have to be looking for a job, so one can assume that the unemployed are involuntarily unemployed and so would prefer to work. But that doesn't mean that they necessarily face economic hardship as a result of being unemployed. They may be unemployed because their attachment to the labor force is actually quite week; they do not try very hard to meet their employer's expectations and so are quick to be laid off in bad times, or their search for employment is lackluster. They may have large savings or a high-income spouse. No doubt the bulk of the long-term unemployed are hardship cases, but it is only hardship cases that make a strong claim on a welfare program.
The fact that not all persons who have been unemployed for a substantial period of time are hardship cases reinforces my concern that extending unemployment benefits will cause disemployment. The persons who can afford, as it were, to be unemployed are likely to pocket any additional unemployment benefits that they receive and slow their search for a job.


text:
LOS ANGELES – Chris Paul will supply the Los Angeles Clippers with so much more than alley-oop passes to Blake Griffin when he arrives in Hollywood on Thursday night.
A bold trade for New Orleans' superstar point guard on Wednesday just might alter the entire sports world's perception of the Clippers. After managing just six winning seasons in their first 41 years of existence, the bumbling Clippers suddenly look slick and scintillating after swinging arguably the biggest trade in franchise history, giving them two of the NBA's elite players and a capable supporting cast.
Outfoxing the Lakers and thrilling their long-suffering fans, Los Angeles on Wednesday traded high-scoring guard Eric Gordon, former All-Star center Chris Kaman, forward Al-Farouq Aminu and a first-round draft choice acquired from Minnesota for Paul, the four-time All-Star widely considered to be the NBA's best point guard.
"We decided for a player of Chris' caliber that it was just time to make a move and push all our chips into the center of the table," Clippers vice president of basketball operations Neil Olshey told the team's website. "We're pleased about it. Chris is the kind of player that makes everybody around him better. He's a general. He wins. He's a warrior, and he's going to take this whole organization to the next level."
Even the Clippers themselves had trouble believing what their front office had just done in the moments after the trade was announced. Most of the players — including the ones who were traded — were on a holiday bus ride with season-ticket holders when their phones blew up with the news.
Griffin's reaction was captured by television cameras after he chest-bumped center DeAndre Jordan: "Lob city!"
It's already a T-shirt in Los Angeles, and it should be a way of life when the playmaking Paul and the high-flying NBA Rookie of the Year get together.
While armchair analysts debate who won the trade and wonder whether the club can keep its newfound assets for the long term, it's clear that suddenly the Clippers don't seem to be the modern archetype for sports ineptitude.
Sure, Los Angeles has missed the playoffs 13 times in the last 14 seasons, going 32-50 last spring in the Clippers' 18th non-winning season in the past 19 years. The former Buffalo Braves have won just one playoff series since 1976.
And sure, the Clippers are still owned by Donald Sterling, the much-criticized real estate magnate who sometimes heckles his players from his center-court seat. But the Clippers have been gathering momentum since Olshey replaced Mike Dunleavy in March 2010, patiently stockpiling good players around 2009 top pick Griffin while making runs at free agents such as LeBron James, who gave them a courtesy meeting last summer before heading to Miami.
When Paul made it clear he wouldn't sign a contract extension with the Hornets and was interested in playing in Los Angeles, the Clippers watched while the Lakers' three-team trade for Paul was blocked by the NBA last week — and then they pounced, offering a deal that not even Commissioner David Stern could reject.
"It was a pivotal moment for us," Olshey said. "It took a long time to accumulate the assets for a deal like this."
The 26-year-old Paul is in his basketball prime after averaging 18.7 points and 9.8 assists in his sixth season in New Orleans, which he capped by almost singlehandedly throwing a scare into the two-time defending NBA champion Lakers in the first round of the playoffs.
Paul will earn $16.4 million this year, and he's expected to exercise his player option for the 2012-13 season, making $17.8 million. The Clippers are counting on it, hoping two seasons with Griffin will entice both players to form a long-term partnership.
For Paul, Wednesday night's trade means no more lame-duck practices — or ducking questions — in New Orleans. He's headed from the Bayou backwater to the bright lights of North America's second-largest market, teaming up with a forward whose finishing skills are a playmaker's dream.
The deal required Stern's approval because the Hornets are owned by the league — just one of the many reasons Paul wanted out.
Paul nearly ended up in a different locker room at Staples Center. The Lakers had a deal in place to give up Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol for Paul, only to have Stern nix the trade in a widely criticized decision that gave another black eye to the NBA just as it emerged from a protracted, damaging lockout.
Stern told New Orleans general manager Dell Demps to scrap the Lakers deal because he thought the Hornets could get younger, better players and more enticing assets. Demps claimed he and Stern were acting "hand in hand," even though Demps agreed to the deal with Lakers general manager Mitch Kupchak, who voiced the 16-time champions' fury to the league.
"I knew we were doing the best thing for New Orleans, and that was my job," Stern said. "You have to stick with what you think was right. I must confess it wasn't a lot of fun, but I don't get paid to have fun, even though I generally do."
At least the Hornets know who coach Monty Williams will have available when the season opens.
Gordon, who turns 23 on Christmas, averaged 22.3 points last season with a smooth jumper and scoring instincts honed by a stint with the U.S. national team. Aminu is a second-year pro who averaged 5.6 points and 3.3 rebounds as a rookie, making only a negligible impact, while the 7-foot Kaman was an eight-year veteran who averaged 12.4 points and seven rebounds last season — and has a valuable expiring contract that will pay him $12.2 million this season.
"With this trade, we now have three additional players who were among the top eight draft picks in their respective drafts as well as our first-round pick and (another) first-round pick," Demps said. "Aminu is a young talent with a bright future, Gordon is a big-time scorer and one of the best (shooting) guards in the league and Kaman is a proven center and former All-Star."
New Orleans also sent two 2015 second-round draft picks to the Clippers.
Paul showed up for Hornets training camp last Friday but has not spoken to reporters since. He was excused from a usually mandatory media event Wednesday, hours before the trade went through, in which players pose for photos in uniform and talk about the upcoming season.
He should have plenty to say when the Clippers introduce him to Los Angeles.
"We wanted to make sure that we got the best possible deal for a player of Chris' caliber, and we feel great about the outcome," said Jac Sperling, whom Stern appointed as the Hornets' governor after the league bought the team in December 2010.
The Clippers open the 2011 – 2012 season Vs the Golden State Warriors. You can purchase Warriors Vs Clippers Tickets now.


text:
Livestream Concert Calendar
Looking for an online concert to watch? Browse our free calendar to find a show! Submit ConcertThis resource is available for free to everyone in the folk music community, whether a fan or part of the industry. It is updated and maintained by the staff of Folk Alliance International. If you'd like to support FAI in continuing to providing free community resources like this, we invite you to make a tax-free donation here.
- This event has passed.
Fridays 12:15pm PDT w/ Aireene. Music + Good Vibes
June 9, 2023 @ 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM PDT
|Recurring Events (See all)
An event every week that begins at 12:00 PM on Friday, repeating indefinitely
Music + Good Vibes every Friday 12:15pm – 1pm PDT streaming live on Facebook and YouTube. Stompin' Swayin' Timeless Americana.


text:
Dallas Lawyers Group
We Treat Every Case As If It Is Our Most Important Case
At Texas Lawyers Group, we utilize our in-depth legal knowledge and experience to secure the most favorable case outcome for our clients. Our passion is to protect injured victims and get justice for them and their loved ones. We will dedicate our time, energy, and resources to help seek justice for your injuries and losses. Whether you are in Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, Houston, or San Antonio, you can get the representation you deserve with our experienced attorneys.
Dallas () is a city in the U.S. state of Texas and the largest city in and seat of Dallas County, with portions extending into Collin, Denton, Kaufman and Rockwall counties. With a 2020 census population of 1,304,379, it is the ninth most-populous city in the U.S. and the third-largest in Texas after Houston and San Antonio. Located in North Texas, the city of Dallas is the main core of the largest metropolitan area in the Southern United States and the largest inland metropolitan area in the U.S. that lacks any navigable link to the sea. It is the most populous city in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the country at 7.5 million people.Dallas and nearby Fort Worth were initially developed due to the construction of major railroad lines through the area allowing access to cotton, cattle and later oil in North and East Texas. The construction of the Interstate Highway System reinforced Dallas's prominence as a transportation hub, with four major interstate highways converging in the city and a fifth interstate loop around it.
Belmont Park, Bluffview, Bonton, Bryan Place, Cadillac Heights, Caruth Terrace, Casa Linda, Casa View, Cedars, Claremont, Eastwood, Eastwood Hills, El Tivoli Place, Elmwood, Far North Dallas


text:
Monday - Thursday 8 am to 4:30 pm
Friday 8 am to 2pm
We protect our property, our health and even our professional reputations, but many of us fail to protect our ability to provide for ourselves and our families in the event of a disabling injury or illness.
Disability Insurance bridges that gap. The disability insurance plan offered by Harold Diers & Company is specifically designed for our professional clients. Our disability plan does not coordinate with other benefits you might receive. In addition, ours is an "own occupation" policy form. This means that the policy pays if you cannot perform the duties you went to school to learn. Some forms pay only if you cannot perform the duties of "any occupation". It is more difficult to collect under this type of policy and is less attractive to our professional clients. At Harold Diers & Company, we avoid the use of "any occupation" contracts.
To apply for this important coverage; open, complete, print, scan and e-mail or fax the application to Harold Diers & Company in Omaha at 11635 Arbor St., Suite 230, zip is 68144. Click below to open the form.


text: Are you upgrading your phone system equipment? Or has your phone system been damaged and you learned that it is not worth the cost to repair? Whether or not it is Avaya, Definity, Intuity, Lucent, Merlin, Partner, Spirit consider selling us your phone system equipment and we will make it worth your while. Other companies may offer you a minimal amount for your equipment, we realize that there is still some value in your older or non-working unit. Please fill follow the directions below and fill out the form, and a Buy Back Represetative will contact you, or call 1-800-955-6082.


text:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
The Failed Theory of Relativity
Column by tzo.
Exclusive to STR
Voluntaryism is, primarily, an ethical philosophy applied to the organization of society. Most of the common modern social organization theories (e.g., "democracy") focus on organizing society based upon what the majority feels is right and always with an eye toward the utilitarian target that is the greatest good for the greatest number. In such systems, ethics plays a secondary role at best to other considerations, and there can be no absolute ethical standards because exceptions continually must be made to achieve the twin goals of securing majority acceptance (or at the very least a minimum of majority outrage) and maximizing the public good. If there is a way to reach goals in a somewhat ethical manner, then that is all very well and good. If not, then that also is very well and good.
These modern social systems also share one common feature: Government is deemed necessary to control society. Since government is necessarily coercive (aggressive), then all such systems are a priori unethical, which just goes to prove the point that ethics are not and cannot be a primary concern in any government-ruled social system.
Since no one wants to admit out loud that they advocate unethical behavior, justifications must be invented. Let's see…if we say that ethics is purely a subjective proposition, then we can always deem certain actions ethical. Oh, I know! Let's include instituting a coercive government as being absolutely necessary, hence an ethical action! Yes! Problem solved!
And so ethics are deemed relative—fuzzy, inexact oddities that are always subject to change. As far as they exist, they must be molded to conform to the framework of popular opinion and utilitarian considerations.
Thus was born the Theory of Ethical Relativity.
Now consider the following statement: A law that forbids murder is ethical, while a law that demands that all redheads be killed is unethical.
The subscribers to the Theory of Ethical Relativity would deny the absolutism of that statement and declare that it merely reflects an opinion and has no factual basis in reality. Ethics are subjective and ethical law, claims the ethical relativist, is not discoverable in the same way as is the law of gravity, but will differ depending on the individuals or the societies or the times being considered.
Is ethics indeed purely subjective? Is the tenet of Voluntaryism set upon a foundation of nonexistent ethical objectivity? Does the ethical relativist have it right? Well, let's dive right on in and see of what ethical relativism is made.
Absolute Relativity
Will the ethical relativist admit that it is acceptable for another individual to rob him just for fun? Why not, if it's all relative? Perhaps the thief really likes to take stuff, and so why should he be judged by anyone else's "relative" standards? How unfair!
Must the relativist remain neutral, neither praising nor condemning the robbery since no value can be assigned to the action? What if he "naturally" feels wronged about the action? Does this uncontrolled emotion shatter his neutrality since by definition it is an emotion related to the concept of justice?
Or can he accept his aggrieved status as valid while at the same time give equal weight to the validity of the thief's desire to steal? Now instead of human actions having no value, every individual can assign values to their actions but all such values can be different and all are equally valid. Now the relativist can justly feel wronged by the thievery, but he cannot seek redress because the thief did not behave in any manner that violated some universal objective framework. The thief behaved reasonably within his own personal framework—it just so happened that the action fell outside of the victim's personal framework of reasonability. But since both are equally valid, there is no injustice and so no redress can be rightfully sought.
So we end back up in the situation where the person being aggressed against feels he has been wronged. He is upset because he perceives that the action taken against him was unjust. The injustice is the only reason for the bad feeling and the desire for redress (or even revenge), and so redress is the tacit admission of the existence of injustice. Separate the concepts of just and unjust from the definition of redress. Go ahead, try.
While there is no arguing that every individual has his own unique set of values from which he evaluates all the actions that he undertakes and all the other human actions he observes, there can also be no arguing that there exists some universal set of values that all human beings share, and from this base comes the understanding of the concepts of justice and ethics.
The ethical absolute-relativist must accept that anyone, at any time, may do whatever he wants and there can be no logical reason for any restraint of any impulse. I don't believe that this particular relativist creature actually exists, although there are individuals who label themselves as such.
Space Relativity (ethics depend upon where you are)
Now some ethical relativists will claim that societal ethics are absolute (for the moment, at least), but are relative in relation to other societies. It is unethical for us to (do act x) here in our society, but in some other far-flung society, it may be deemed ethical to (do act x), and we cannot judge the ethics of that other society by our standards. These relativists want to play both sides and categorize ethics as locally objective yet universally subjective. As you might guess, this type of definition quickly leads to a logical contradiction.
This type of ethical relativist constructs (in defiance of his relativistic position) an objective ethical standard—Tolerance is a good thing. Tolerance, then, must be ethical. If those folks think (act x) is OK, well, then fine for them. We must be tolerant of this behavior, because there is no absolute standard of ethics outside of our two societies for us to gauge their actions. It would be intolerant and unethical of me to condemn the practice of (act x) within their society.
Of course, that society may be quite intolerant of our (non-x) acting society. Some of them may decide to drop in on our society and commit some x in accordance with their beliefs. How will the ethical relativist respond? Must he remain tolerant and nonjudgmental of these acts of x? If he condemns them, then he declares his intolerance of the behavior, which is unethical according to his standards. If he tolerates it, he feels that the outsiders are doing wrong but he can do nothing about it.
Of course we have arrived back at the "Absolute Relativity" problem here, wherein one individual acts ethically according to his framework, this time as defined by his society, but his action is unethical according to the victim's ethical framework as defined by his society. The action is simultaneously ethical and unethical. Or neither. You go figure.
In the end, Space Relativity boils down to Absolute Relativity, in that all human actions are undertaken by individuals (not societies) and each action is judged by the individuals involved and their judgments are arrived at by utilizing the universal set of values that all human beings share.
The space-relativist claim that it is ethical for a human being to (do act x) if he is standing at this latitude and longitude but unethical if he is at that latitude and longitude is a trifle odd, no?
Time Relativity (ethics depend upon when you are)
Another ethical relativist concept is that ethics change over time. Again, both sides are being played here, as ethics are deemed temporarily objective now, but they are different than they once were and are subject to change in the future. Slavery, for example, was not unethical in the past because it was an accepted part of society. Today we categorize slavery as unethical, but don' be hatin' on the slave owners because they were just doin' what they had to do.
Now this type of relativity is a bit easier to hold on to, as clashing ethical definitions are separated by time, preventing clashes of individuals with differing ethical standards.
But now, a simple question. Is the world a better, or worse place without slavery? The ethical time-relativist must say that the world is no better off, no worse off, just different. Unfortunately, he must also answer that it is a better place, since his current viewpoint on slavery classifies the practice as unethical. Given the choice between slavery and no slavery, he must choose what he calls the ethical over the unethical. He therefore has no choice but to say that the world is better off without slavery than with, and so he must admit that society has improved with the abolition of slavery. Notice that the concept of improvement (better off) is a value judgment, and the relativist cannot escape it no matter how hard he tries.
If one compares today to the past and concludes that today is better, one must be utilizing a standard of value that is neither of today nor of the past. Yes, he must be using that old universal standard of value, an objective standard of value that applies equally well to the past, present, and future.
Otherwise, the true time-relativist must proclaim with all his conviction that Jesus and Martin Luther King were unethical during their lifetimes, while the institution of slavery and the Nazis were ethical while they existed. He must acknowledge that the torturing of children may become an ethical practice on some future day, and further, that his opinion is that it would be neither a good thing nor a bad thing if it were to occur. Just different.
You never hear anyone say all that, do you?
Ethical relativism, in any of its peculiar forms, does not stand up very well to scrutiny.
There must be universal objective human values and ethics that are inextricably tied to human existence and grounded in empirical fact that apply to us all. Exploring what some of them may be is beyond the scope of this little essay, and human beings have been struggling with these issues for thousands of years, and so obviously the solutions are not simple. However, difficulty does not equal impossibility. What we have shown here, briefly, is that to declare universal human values and ethics nonexistent does not correspond with logic and the reality we all experience. If ethics is not purely subjective, then it must be at least partly objective. That is a statement of fact, and nothing less.
Voluntaryism is thus based upon a firm foundation of objective ethics, and rejects ethical relativity. The Voluntaryist merely wishes to be consistent in applying objective ethics across all the strata of society. If ethics is objective, then no one is exempt from ethical law. This consistency is the bugbear of government and its assumption that ethics are relative and are dictated by the government itself through positive law.
Objective ethics is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, government necessarily disappears.
And that would be an objectively good thing.
"Objective ethics is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, government necessarily disappears." ~ tzo [Emphasis added]
Amen, tzo, amen!!
Furthermore, as I see it, it is the ONLY "MORTAL enemy of government"; all the other ways and means that have been tried have eventually led right back to the same old thing, except that over the centuries "the same old thing" seems to have gotten progressively worse.
Quick definitions (mortal) ▸ adjective: causing or capable of causing death
Looks like you got two tens, tzo, and that equals what I would have given this treatise, a whopping twenty! Thank you for all your time and effort.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking the root." ~ Henry D. Thoreau
- Login to post comments


text:
A wave of anger is sweeping the cities of the world. Politicians beware
A familiar face appeared in many of the protests taking place in scores of cities on three continents this week: a Guy Fawkes mask with a roguish smile and a pencil-thin moustache. The mask belongs to "V", a character in a graphic novel from the 1980s who became the symbol for a group of computer hackers called Anonymous. His contempt for government resonates with people all over the world.
The protests have many different origins. In Brazil people rose up against bus fares, in Turkey against a building project. Indonesians have rejected higher fuel prices, Bulgarians the government's cronyism. In the euro zone they march against austerity, and the Arab spring has become a perma-protest against pretty much everything. Each angry demonstration is angry in its own way.
Yet just as in 1848, 1968 and 1989, when people also found a collective voice, the demonstrators have much in common. Over the past few weeks, in one country after another, protesters have risen up with bewildering speed. They have been more active in democracies than dictatorships. They tend to be ordinary, middle-class people, not lobbies with lists of demands. Their mix of revelry and rage condemns the corruption, inefficiency and arrogance of the folk in charge.
Nobody can know how 2013 will change the world—if at all. In 1989 the Soviet empire teetered and fell. But Marx's belief that 1848 was the first wave of a proletarian revolution was confounded by decades of flourishing capitalism and 1968, which felt so pleasurably radical at the time, did more to change sex than politics. Even now, though, the inchoate significance of 2013 is discernible. And for politicians who want to peddle the same old stuff, the news is not good.
Online and into the streets
The rhythm of protests has been accelerated by technology. V's face turns up in both São Paulo and Istanbul because protest is organised through social networks, which spread information, encourage imitation and make causes fashionable (see article). Everyone with a smartphone spreads stories, though not always reliable ones. When the police set fire to the encampment in Gezi Park in Istanbul on May 31st, the event appeared instantly on Twitter. After Turks took to the streets to express their outrage, the flames were fanned by stories that protesters had died because of the police's brutal treatment. Even though those first stories turned out to be wrong, it had already become the popular thing to demonstrate.
Protests are no longer organised by unions or other lobbies, as they once were. Some are initiated by small groups of purposeful people—like those who stood against the fare increases in São Paulo—but news gets about so fast that the organising core tends to get swamped. Spontaneity gives the protests an intoxicating sense of possibility. But, inevitably, the absence of organisation also blurs the agenda. Brazil's fare protest became a condemnation of everything from corruption to public services (see article). In Bulgaria the government gave in to the crowd's demand to ditch the newly appointed head of state security. But by then the crowd had stopped listening.
This ready supply of broad, fair-weather activism may vanish as fast as it appeared. That was the fate of the Occupy protesters, who pitched camp in Western cities in 2011. This time, however, the protests are fed by deep discontent. Egypt is suffering from the disastrous failure of government at every level. Protest there has become a substitute for opposition. In Europe the fight is over how to shrink the state. Each time the cuts reach a new target—most recently, Greece's national broadcaster—they trigger another protest. Sometimes, as in the riots of young immigrants in Sweden's suburbs in May and of British youths in 2011, entire groups feel excluded from the prosperity around them. Sweden has the highest ratio of youth unemployment to general unemployment in the OECD. Too many young Britons suffer from poor education and have prospects to match. In the emerging economies rapid real growth has led people to expect continuing improvements in their standard of living. This prosperity has paid for services and, in an unequal society like Brazil, narrowed the gap between rich and poor. But it is under threat. In Brazil GDP growth slowed from 7.5% in 2010 to only 0.9% last year. In Indonesia, where GDP is still below $5,000 a head, ordinary families will keenly feel the loss of fuel subsidies.
More potent still in the emerging world are the political expectations of a rapidly growing middle class (see article). At the end of last year young educated Indians took to the streets of several cities after the gang rape of a 23-year-old medical student, to protest at the lack of protection that the state affords women. Even bigger protests had swept the country in 2011, as the middle class rose up against the corruption that infests almost every encounter with government officials. In Turkey the number of students graduating from university has increased by 8% a year since 1995. The young middle class this has created chafes against the religious conservatism of the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who wants large families and controls on alcohol. The 40m Brazilians who clambered out of poverty in the past eight years are able for the first time to scrutinise the society that their taxes finance. They want decent public services, and get overpriced sports stadiums instead.
Trouble in Brussels and Beijing
How will this year of protest unfold? One dark conclusion is that democracy has become harder: allocating resources between competing interest groups is tougher if millions can turn out on the streets in days. That implies that the euro zone's summer will surely get hotter. The continent's politicians have got off lightly so far (the biggest demonstrations in Paris, for instance, were when "Frigide Barjot" led French Catholics in a bid to stop gay marriage). Yet social instability is twice as common when public spending falls by at least 5% of GDP as when it is growing. At some point European leaders must curb the chronic overspending on social welfare and grapple with the euro's institutional weakness—and unrest will follow.
Happily, democracies are good at adapting. When politicians accept that the people expect better—and that votes lie in satisfying them—things can change. India's anti-corruption protests did not lead to immediate change, but they raised graft up the national agenda, with the promise of gradual reform (see article). To her credit, Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff, wants a national debate on renewing politics. This will be neither easy nor quick. But protest could yet improve democracy in emerging countries—and even eventually the EU.
Democrats may envy the ability of dictators to shut down demonstrations. China has succeeded in preventing its many local protests from cohering into a national movement. Saudi Arabia has bribed its dissidents to be quiet; Russia has bullied them with the threats of fines and prison. But in the long run, the autocrats may pay a higher price. Using force to drive people off the streets can weaken governments fatally, as Sultan Erdogan may yet find (see article); and as the Arab governments discovered two years ago, dictatorships lack the institutions through which to channel protesters' anger. As they watch democracies struggle in 2013, the leaders in Beijing, Moscow and Riyadh should be feeling uncomfortable.