I used to sing this in a dinky little bar in Delaware County, and my best friend would sit in the audience and weep. Bonnie Raitt:
I actually felt better after eating liver for dinner last night. I’m still really sleepy, but I got some stuff done today, anyway. The earliest appointment I could get with the endocrinologist is May 24, but they told me to keep checking back for cancellations.
Also, someone mentioned that I’m probably having a problem with the kale and the chard because it’s too concentrated in the juicer, so I used them in a big salad instead.
David Dayen on the coming Grand Bargain:
Democrats and Republicans in Washington are going to look for a substitute deficit package in the lame duck session, the point of the lowest ebb of political accountability, with members of Congress who will never face voters again participating, after America has elected a new Congress and possibly a new President. We know that deficit hawks of both parties are already making their plans on this substitute. It could include slashes to entitlement programs when they actually need to be increased to be adequate. It could include a raft of tax cuts even though they have done the brunt of the work on exploding the deficit, without the value of helping the economy. And what it will most surely not include, unless the work gets done today, is the perspective of those ordinary Americans who would rather not see their futures sacrificed for the betterment of the well-off in society.
And remember, “White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.”
Oh, come on. Your law did exactly what it was intended to do: Give paranoid minority-hating gun nuts a ‘get out of jail free’ card:
Ironically, the author of FL’s ‘stand your ground’ law former Sen. Durell Peaden, thinks George Zimmerman should be arrested for Trayvon’s murder. From the CBSNews link:
The authors of Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald.
“He has no protection under my law,” former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper.
Florida’s law, called “stand your ground” by supporters and “shoot first” by critics, was passed in 2005 and permits residents to use deadly force if they “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Traditionally, self-defense laws did not typically extend beyond a person’s home, but the Florida law, and at least 20 more passed across the country since them, allows a resident to “meet force with force” almost anywhere, including the street or a bar.
No, it wasn’t a “bad apple” who killed those Afghan families. It’s all too common.
Oh yes they did. They did it by lobbying to pass the crazy “stand your ground” guns laws that allow you to kill someone for no other reason than the fact that the person with the gun thought you looked threatening. And this is where that leads us:
The legislation apparently preventing the successful prosecution of Trayvon Martin’s killer was reportedly adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as model legislation that the shadowy group has spent years promoting across the country with the help of their allies in the National Rifle Association.
Formed in 1973 by conservative activists including Paul Weyrich and state legislators like then-Illinois State Rep. Henry Hyde, ALEC has earned infamy throughout the progressive movement for its ability to promote model legislation favorable to its corporate funders through statehouses across the country.
Legal experts have noted that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law may prevent George Zimmerman from ever being successfully prosecuted for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has claimed that he acted in self-defense, and court precedent indicates that the State has the heavy burden of disproving this in order to win a conviction.
Florida’s statute on the use of force in self-defense is virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act model legislation as posted on the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to CMD, the model bill was adopted by ALEC’s Civil Justice Task in August 2005 — just a few short months after it passed the Florida legislature — and approved by its board of directors the following month.
Since the 2005 passage of Florida’s law, similar statutes have been passed in 16 other states. This was no accident. In a 2008 interview with NRA News, ALEC resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of conservative state legislators:
HOUGH: We are a very pro-Second Amendment organization. In fact, last session, I’ll get off-topic here real quick, but some of the things that we were pushing in states was the Castle Doctrine. We worked with the NRA on that, that’s one of our model bills that we have states introduce.
NRA got what it paid for. According to a 2002 report from Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRA is “a longtime funder of ALEC.” The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reports that the gun lobby group was a “Vice-Chairman” level sponsor of ALEC’s 2011 annual conference, and that an NRA operative was “the co-chair of ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011.”
The language in Florida law which may protect Martin’s killer from prosecution states:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
The language is identical to ALEC’s Castle Doctrine Act model legislation, which they have been working hand in hand with the NRA to pass across the country:
3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or vehicle] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
So thanks to the corporate whores on SCOTUS, we get outcomes like this:
Debbie Schork, a deli worker at a supermarket in Indiana, had to have her hand amputated after an emergency room nurse injected her with an anti-nausea drug, causing gangrene. She sued the manufacturer named in the hospital’s records for failing to warn about the risks of injecting it. Her case was quietly thrown out of court last fall.
That result stands in sharp contrast to the highly publicized case of Diana Levine, a professional musician from Vermont. Her hand and forearm were amputated because of gangrene after a physician assistant at a health clinic injected her with the same drug. She sued the drug maker, Wyeth, and won $6.8 million.
The financial outcomes were radically different for one reason: Ms. Schork had received the generic version of the drug, known as promethazine, while Ms. Levine had been given the brand name, Phenergan.
“Explain the difference between the generic and the real one — it’s just a different company making the same thing,” Ms. Schork said.
Across the country, dozens of lawsuits against generic pharmaceutical companies are being dismissed because of a Supreme Court decision last year that said the companies did not have control over what their labels said and therefore could not be sued for failing to alert patients about the risks of taking their drugs.
Now, what once seemed like a trivial detail — whether to take a generic or brand-name drug — has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company. The cases range from that of Ms. Schork, who wasn’t told which type of drug she had been given when she visited the hospital, to people like Camille Baruch, who developed a gastrointestinal disease after taking a generic form of the drug Accutane, as required by her health care plan.
“Your pharmacists aren’t telling you, hey, when we fill this with your generic, you are giving up all of your legal remedies,” said Michael Johnson, a lawyer who represented Gladys Mensing, one of the patients who sued generic drug companies in last year’s Supreme Court case, Pliva v. Mensing. “You have a disparate impact between one class of people and another.”
Bug, or feature?
The Supreme Court ruling affects potentially millions of people: nearly 80 percent of prescriptions in the United States are filled by a generic, and most states permit pharmacists to dispense a generic in place of a brand name. More than 40 judges have dismissed cases against generic manufacturers since the Supreme Court ruled last June, including some who dismissed dozens of cases consolidated under one judge.