Friday, September 12, 2008
Oil Below $100 a Barrel
So Bush lifts the executive ban on off shore drilling and oil drops from $140 a barrel to under $100. How much further would it drop if we actually began drilling? ARTICLE.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Gay Marriage
One of the reasons that I started this blog is that I think a lot (which will come as a surprise to many of you)-especially about politics. I wanted a place where I could put down all of the random thoughts and insights that I have. The best part is that it isn't too hard to find people who have already written (and much better than I could) things that I have thought and felt before.
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinki
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
When it comes to gay marriage, I have always thought that: 1) Marriage is not a right under the Constitution. 2) There is NO similarity between inter-racial marriage and homosexual marriage. 3) The very definition of the word marriage is the union of one man and one woman-and you can't change the definition of a word just to fit your political motivations. 4) In the common law sense, the definition of marriage has been the same for several hundred years. It is dangerous and misguided to tamper unnecessarily with a precedent when it has withstood the test of time in order to claim an imaginary right. 5) If homosexuals can marry, then why can't polygamists? Why can't a person marry a goat? Why can't siblings marry?
Adam Kolasinski explains all this and more in greater depth in his article.
Adam Kolasinki
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
No wonder Obama won't debate McCain.
I don't know how much of the "interviews" you saw between McCain, Obama, and Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback church, but McCain whooped Obama. The big O fumbled around his answers and looked anything but decisive. He also looked like he was really trying to appease everyone by giving indirect and noncommittal answers. (Who's the panderer?) This article from Investor's Business Daily puts it best. By the way, you can tell that the Obama camp thought it was a poor performance by their star because the very next day they claimed (without any proof, valid reason, or sources anywhere) that John McCain had "cheated" by hearing all of the questions while Obama was on stage-even though McCain was in a motorcade on the way to the event and then a sound proof green room once he arrived.
No Contest
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.
After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.
"It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.
The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."
For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."
Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.
When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.
On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."
To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.
It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.
No Contest
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: Last weekend's McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won't keep his promise to debate McCain "anywhere, anytime." McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.
It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.
After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.'s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama's Achilles' heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.
"It's one of those situations where the devil is in the details," Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.
The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."
For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."
Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.
When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.
On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."
To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.
It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Surprise! Common Sense Prevails Again.
For YEARS Democrats and environmental extremists have opposed opening new areas for oil drilling. They have tried to mask their extreme views the last 30+ years by pushing the point that any oil drilling begun wouldn't produce marketable results for another 10 years. Over three decades later gas is at $140 a barrel and gas is over $4 a gallon. President Bush FINALLY lifts the Executive ban on off shore drilling and the price of oil has dropped for four days straight!!!!
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9!
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Do You Notice Any Difference?
The Army recently nominated Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody for a promotion, which would make her the first female four-star general in the United States. Dunwoody's comments to the press not only reveal her strength of character but also a stark difference between those who see America as an unjust and hateful place and those who understand why America is the greatest nation ever to exist. Said Dunwoody:
"I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement. I grew up in a family that didn't know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career-that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform."
Contrast that with Hillary's comments when she suspended her campaign.
"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time."
Void of any humility Hillary's comment betrays a typical strategy of liberals: blame any failure or lack of success on barriers and 'injustices' of society. Instead of believing that America is a country where dreams are accomplished and that those who work hard are rewarded for their efforts, it is portrayed as a place of rampant injustice where honest people cannot succeed. (Conveniently, liberals would like to fool you into believing that only THEY can fix the 'injustices' of society and that Americans are helpless without government intervention). Could Hillary's defeat have been the result of her husband's horrible and disgraceful 'service' as President? Could it have been that Hillary is seen as way too liberal to be a viable candidate for mainstream Americans? Could her numerous ridiculous ideas, her poor public image, or sorry political decisions have lead to the loss? Could it have been that Barack ran a better campaign? Apparently not to Hillary. According to her it is everyone else's fault-but most importantly it is America's injustice that is at fault.
Maybe, Hillary, you lost because you blame others for your own shortcomings.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Feinstein/Craig Agriculture "Guest-Worker" Plan Dies
Here is an article about the agriculture amnesty legislation, proposed by Senators Diane Feinstein and Larry Craig, dying in the Senate. The war funding bill is still moving forward, just without that gem added by America's most respected Senators.
Feinstein ag worker plan dies
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 05/22/2008 09:09:25 AM PDT
WASHINGTON—An attempt by California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein to attach an agriculture guest worker program to a must-pass Iraq war spending bill has failed.
The Senate Appropriations Committee that Feinstein sits on agreed to the plan last week, but it was scuttled this week amid Senate negotiations on the multibillion-dollar bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been various disputes about attempts to add domestic programs to the bill.
Feinstein long has sought to create a guest-worker program to meet shortages of farm workers in California and elsewhere. Her latest plan would not have guaranteed permanent residency to the workers, but still met resistance from opponents who viewed it as amnesty.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Illegal Alien Worker's Compensation
Here is an article that highlights my point in the last post about Worker's Compensation for illegal aliens.
Can a work injured illegal immigrant obtain benefits? In Indiana, it depends
Thanks to www.workcompcentral.com (subscription required) I have a case study of the snarl-ups often experienced today when an illegal immigrants suffers a work injury, about which there is no dispute it happened. Her or his payments can still be cut off. A guest worker program will eliminate all of these trap doors, which I have found the large majority of work injury experts are unaware of.
The matter at hand in this Indiana case is whether the injured worker is entitled to benefits after having reached “maximum medical improvement” and is still disabled – that is, simply is not going to get any better. The worker, Benjamin Marrufo, says through his lawyer that he is still not at “MMI.” The problem for him in reaching MMI is that the court may decide (as it appears to in other jurisdictions) that an illegal worker is not eligible for ongoing permanent benefits.
The article says….
Mindel [his lawyer] disputes that his client is at MMI, and said that under Indiana workers' compensation law his client cannot request an independent medical examination because of his illegal status. To be eligible for an independent medical evaluation, an injured worker must have received total temporary disability -- which an undocumented cannot collect under the law, Mindel said, adding that he doesn't expect his client's claim to be a test for the state high court.
Marrufo is a 47-year-old Mexican national who admittedly came to the United States eight years ago. He filed a workers' compensation claim for a May 2006 back injury and received medical benefits.
He did not receive any temporary disability for loss of wages during his recuperation, his attorney said.
Indiana courts have not decided whether undocumented workers are entitled to workers' compensation benefits. State courts in California, New York, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota and Alabama [and other states – PFR]have all ruled that illegal aliens are entitled to medical benefits. Most of the courts, however, have said no to wage-replacement benefits or vocational rehabilitation because the worker is in the country illegally.
A South Carolina lawmaker this year will push to exclude undocumented workers from his state's workers' comp system.
"My bill is a very simple bill," Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, was quoted as saying last month. "It says that if a person applies for workman's compensation, they must show that they are a legal citizen."
Can a work injured illegal immigrant obtain benefits? In Indiana, it depends
Thanks to www.workcompcentral.com (subscription required) I have a case study of the snarl-ups often experienced today when an illegal immigrants suffers a work injury, about which there is no dispute it happened. Her or his payments can still be cut off. A guest worker program will eliminate all of these trap doors, which I have found the large majority of work injury experts are unaware of.
The matter at hand in this Indiana case is whether the injured worker is entitled to benefits after having reached “maximum medical improvement” and is still disabled – that is, simply is not going to get any better. The worker, Benjamin Marrufo, says through his lawyer that he is still not at “MMI.” The problem for him in reaching MMI is that the court may decide (as it appears to in other jurisdictions) that an illegal worker is not eligible for ongoing permanent benefits.
The article says….
Mindel [his lawyer] disputes that his client is at MMI, and said that under Indiana workers' compensation law his client cannot request an independent medical examination because of his illegal status. To be eligible for an independent medical evaluation, an injured worker must have received total temporary disability -- which an undocumented cannot collect under the law, Mindel said, adding that he doesn't expect his client's claim to be a test for the state high court.
Marrufo is a 47-year-old Mexican national who admittedly came to the United States eight years ago. He filed a workers' compensation claim for a May 2006 back injury and received medical benefits.
He did not receive any temporary disability for loss of wages during his recuperation, his attorney said.
Indiana courts have not decided whether undocumented workers are entitled to workers' compensation benefits. State courts in California, New York, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota and Alabama [and other states – PFR]have all ruled that illegal aliens are entitled to medical benefits. Most of the courts, however, have said no to wage-replacement benefits or vocational rehabilitation because the worker is in the country illegally.
A South Carolina lawmaker this year will push to exclude undocumented workers from his state's workers' comp system.
"My bill is a very simple bill," Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, was quoted as saying last month. "It says that if a person applies for workman's compensation, they must show that they are a legal citizen."
Jobs Americans won't do...
I'm sure that we have all heard the excuse that without cheap immigrant labor (especially ILLEGAL immigrant labor) that there would be hundreds, nay, thousands of jobs left vacant, which no self respecting American would take. Isn't the argument in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens that they simply do the jobs that Americans are not willing to do? I caught a few moments of Bill O'Reilly's show where he had as his guest Mike Rowe, host of the Discovery Channel show Dirty Jobs. The show consists of Mr. Rowe traveling around the country in search of (and then participating in) the dirtiest jobs. While O'Reilly's segment with Rowe was light-hearted and comical, the point was obvious. In every episode Rowe interacts with all kinds of hard working American citizens who do some of the most nauseating work. For example: septic tank cleaner, church steeple bird poop cleaner, clam farmers, pest control (in this episode the house was crawling with cockroaches), horse semen collector, and so on. If Americans can be found working these kinds of jobs, isn't it a little bit offensive to claim that Americans won't clean hotel rooms or work on farms?
I think the reality of the situation is that the industries dominated by cheap, unskilled labor WANT illegal alien workers because they are easily exploitable. If an employee is desperate for a job and in the country illegally how likely are they to file a sexual harassment claim (especially if they don't speak English, have no resources to pull from, and aren't familiar with the system)? How likely are they to seek disability if they are injured? How likely are they to complain if they are being treated unfairly or being paid below minimum wage? All an employer would have to do is threaten to report them to ICE.
The fact of the matter is that employers* lobbying for amnesty for illegal alien workers do so because it saves them money. Employees being paid under the table don't require health coverage, social security payments, disability payments, or even often times minimum wage. If hotels and farmers (and numerous other employers) would only offer a fair wage and decent benefits, Americans WOULD work those jobs.
*It came to my attention that Senator Diane Feinstein attached a nifty little piece of legislation to the recent war funding bill in the Senate. It would have allowed illegal alien farm workers and their families a five year grace period in the U.S. When I called all four of Senator Feinstein's California offices to complain that this was nothing more than short term amnesty and political dishonesty , the girl in the San Francisco office was nice enough to explain to me that the good Senator had added it to the bill at the request of California farmers. They claimed, the girl explained, that they were going to face a labor shortage for the coming harvest and that this would only add to rising food costs. For this reason Senator Feinstein had added it to the war funding bill at the last moment when few people noticed (a bill that should have sailed through Congress). I am happy to report that it died in the Senate today (besides the fact that President Bush promised to veto it with that provision still attached). I called all four of the Senator's office today to tell them that I am happy that the bill died and that Ms. Feinstein should get the hint by now that Americans don't want amnesty (of any sort) for illegal aliens.
I think the reality of the situation is that the industries dominated by cheap, unskilled labor WANT illegal alien workers because they are easily exploitable. If an employee is desperate for a job and in the country illegally how likely are they to file a sexual harassment claim (especially if they don't speak English, have no resources to pull from, and aren't familiar with the system)? How likely are they to seek disability if they are injured? How likely are they to complain if they are being treated unfairly or being paid below minimum wage? All an employer would have to do is threaten to report them to ICE.
The fact of the matter is that employers* lobbying for amnesty for illegal alien workers do so because it saves them money. Employees being paid under the table don't require health coverage, social security payments, disability payments, or even often times minimum wage. If hotels and farmers (and numerous other employers) would only offer a fair wage and decent benefits, Americans WOULD work those jobs.
*It came to my attention that Senator Diane Feinstein attached a nifty little piece of legislation to the recent war funding bill in the Senate. It would have allowed illegal alien farm workers and their families a five year grace period in the U.S. When I called all four of Senator Feinstein's California offices to complain that this was nothing more than short term amnesty and political dishonesty , the girl in the San Francisco office was nice enough to explain to me that the good Senator had added it to the bill at the request of California farmers. They claimed, the girl explained, that they were going to face a labor shortage for the coming harvest and that this would only add to rising food costs. For this reason Senator Feinstein had added it to the war funding bill at the last moment when few people noticed (a bill that should have sailed through Congress). I am happy to report that it died in the Senate today (besides the fact that President Bush promised to veto it with that provision still attached). I called all four of the Senator's office today to tell them that I am happy that the bill died and that Ms. Feinstein should get the hint by now that Americans don't want amnesty (of any sort) for illegal aliens.
A Sad Day for California, America, and Democracy.
A nice summation of the court decision.
Article published May 22, 2008
Court reversal of reality?
May 22, 2008
By William Murchison - Marriage isn't just the chief underpinning of society or, for that matter, a raunchy comedy routine. In the minds of easily the great majority of Americans, marriage is an institution reflective of divine intent concerning human relationships and duties.
Well, never mind. The California Supreme Court doesn't seem to mind, having ruled by the margin of a single vote that California can't constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
Um ... can't? Can't affirm, in a judicial finding, the large, historic, profoundly rooted beliefs of the human race? Seemingly not.
Only in California. Or Massachusetts. Or certain other cutting-edge American addresses not worth the trouble of naming. There's a tendency to laugh aloud at the sheer presumption of people with law school educations in lecturing fellow citizens on their outmoded modes of belief, and, correspondingly, on the need — Now! No back talk! — to get with the new program.
If no judicial decree can make marriage anything other than an institution reflective of the large realities in which humans participate, there's no cause for alarm. Two people of the same sex holding hands before a judge or clergyman is ... two people holding hands before a judge or clergyman, nothing more.
Marriage it ain't. That's between people of opposite but complementary attributes and physiologies. The merger, so to speak, of those attributes and physiologies is what we call marriage. Flap your arms and attempt to try an aerial passage across the Grand Canyon: You'll have as much luck at that as at same-sex marriage. Can't do it. Period.
The problem, in California, isn't that you can't do it. The problem is that the state's highest court has attempted this metaphysical heavy lifting in defiance both of logic and popular sentiment.
As one dissenting justice, Marvin R. Baxter, wrote in the gay marriage case, "[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves."
It's what they do in North Korea and Iran, in case we've forgotten: Decide in the People's name what the People need — then give it to them, to choke on, as often as not.
I can't forbear from noting that John McCain promised, if elected president, to appoint federal judges unwilling to torture constitutional or statutory language to secure particular outcomes. California's high court, though not a federal venue, demonstrates what he means.
The California majority said prohibition of same-sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. Shocking that no one had noticed before. All this time, the assumption that men and women had been created for each other, not least in order to procreate — and no one raised a finger. Not the old guys in the Bible. Not Plato. Not Aquinas. Not even Norman Mailer! Up pops the California, Supreme Court — I mean, its four-judge majority — to explain what forevermore had been said and thought and believed and practiced. Gosh — aren't judges something?
Well, they are. Which is why Californians are being asked in November to amend their constitution and so prohibit as a legal matter marriages between Californians of the same sex. California's highest court is causing Californians a lot of unnecessary bother and expense, while stirring up intramural ill will and setting an unwholesome example of judicial arrogance and intellectual disconnectedness.
Sad. Not prejudicial, ipso facto (in legalspeak) to the reality of marriage — which, as I say, is beyond reach — but sad. That's because the California Supreme Court's imprimatur will convince various folks that A is B and up is down. Some of these folks, newly convinced or reinforced in what they believed already, will then operate on those assumptions, with possibly tragic consequences.
Why don't judges get it? Legislators write law. Judges interpret what others have written. Anyway, a national election coming up. The California Supreme Court, without knowing it, just put on a heck of a fund-raiser for John McCain.
William Murchison is a nationally syndicated columnist and senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Link.
Article published May 22, 2008
Court reversal of reality?
May 22, 2008
By William Murchison - Marriage isn't just the chief underpinning of society or, for that matter, a raunchy comedy routine. In the minds of easily the great majority of Americans, marriage is an institution reflective of divine intent concerning human relationships and duties.
Well, never mind. The California Supreme Court doesn't seem to mind, having ruled by the margin of a single vote that California can't constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
Um ... can't? Can't affirm, in a judicial finding, the large, historic, profoundly rooted beliefs of the human race? Seemingly not.
Only in California. Or Massachusetts. Or certain other cutting-edge American addresses not worth the trouble of naming. There's a tendency to laugh aloud at the sheer presumption of people with law school educations in lecturing fellow citizens on their outmoded modes of belief, and, correspondingly, on the need — Now! No back talk! — to get with the new program.
If no judicial decree can make marriage anything other than an institution reflective of the large realities in which humans participate, there's no cause for alarm. Two people of the same sex holding hands before a judge or clergyman is ... two people holding hands before a judge or clergyman, nothing more.
Marriage it ain't. That's between people of opposite but complementary attributes and physiologies. The merger, so to speak, of those attributes and physiologies is what we call marriage. Flap your arms and attempt to try an aerial passage across the Grand Canyon: You'll have as much luck at that as at same-sex marriage. Can't do it. Period.
The problem, in California, isn't that you can't do it. The problem is that the state's highest court has attempted this metaphysical heavy lifting in defiance both of logic and popular sentiment.
As one dissenting justice, Marvin R. Baxter, wrote in the gay marriage case, "[A] bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves."
It's what they do in North Korea and Iran, in case we've forgotten: Decide in the People's name what the People need — then give it to them, to choke on, as often as not.
I can't forbear from noting that John McCain promised, if elected president, to appoint federal judges unwilling to torture constitutional or statutory language to secure particular outcomes. California's high court, though not a federal venue, demonstrates what he means.
The California majority said prohibition of same-sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. Shocking that no one had noticed before. All this time, the assumption that men and women had been created for each other, not least in order to procreate — and no one raised a finger. Not the old guys in the Bible. Not Plato. Not Aquinas. Not even Norman Mailer! Up pops the California, Supreme Court — I mean, its four-judge majority — to explain what forevermore had been said and thought and believed and practiced. Gosh — aren't judges something?
Well, they are. Which is why Californians are being asked in November to amend their constitution and so prohibit as a legal matter marriages between Californians of the same sex. California's highest court is causing Californians a lot of unnecessary bother and expense, while stirring up intramural ill will and setting an unwholesome example of judicial arrogance and intellectual disconnectedness.
Sad. Not prejudicial, ipso facto (in legalspeak) to the reality of marriage — which, as I say, is beyond reach — but sad. That's because the California Supreme Court's imprimatur will convince various folks that A is B and up is down. Some of these folks, newly convinced or reinforced in what they believed already, will then operate on those assumptions, with possibly tragic consequences.
Why don't judges get it? Legislators write law. Judges interpret what others have written. Anyway, a national election coming up. The California Supreme Court, without knowing it, just put on a heck of a fund-raiser for John McCain.
William Murchison is a nationally syndicated columnist and senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
