A tax increase is being proposed in Wisconsin that would increase the price of cigarettes. Oh no! A lobbyist has taken exception. She makes a pitifully weak case in today's Wisconsin State Journal. I couldn't resist writing a rebuttal. I don't actually care what they do here but I felt the need to attack what was written. Does that make me a bad person?


In a Monday guest column, Polly Reber does her best to present a case that it is unfair to single out smokers for an increased tax on cigarettes to provide "the only funding source for a $35 billion expansion of...a program known as SCHIP -- the State Children 's Health Insurance program." If hers is the best case that can be made I think they are lost.

Consider her key points:

"...adult smokers shopping at Wisconsin retail stores would have to pay $30.20 per carton in cigarette excise taxes alone!"

They would not "have to" though many might choose to. Some may choose to exercise their right to avoid this tax by not buying this completely unnecessary product. She makes room for this possibility and points out that

"Also, because one-third of the total sales revenue of the average convenience store comes from tobacco, such an explosion of tax charges would create a substantial decrease in sales resulting in substantial job loss."

Using this logic I guess we should commit to always having a war going because of the jobs that would be lost during any peace time.

Also she seems to get it backwards when she says "And many of these employees are among low to moderate wage earners who can least afford to lose their jobs."

That would seem to be the easiest kind of job to replace or even improve upon.

She finishes with

"Many say that raising tobacco taxes to pay for these new programs is a good idea because people will quit smoking. What will happen when they succeed? Will the new programs go away? I do not think so."

But what would be gone (in her worst case scenario) is a smelly annoying habit and public nuisance that I don't believe anybody would miss (except the profiteers, I guess).

At which point, as she says, some other source of revenue would need to be found. I can think of one or two but let's see if this doesn't work first; either it will provide sufficient revenue or it will virtually eliminate cigarette smoking. I'm not sure which would be better, either would be good.

I found this on "The Nation"'s web-site:

In less than three weeks Kenneth Foster, an African American man sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Michael LaHood, is scheduled to be executed in Texas.

LaHood's actual killer, Mauriceo Brown, was executed in 2006. Foster, who was in a car about 100 yards from the crime when it was committed, was convicted under the controversial Texas state "law of parties", under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom, Brown, left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.

Foster maintains that he did not know that Brown would either rob or kill LaHood. According to an Amnesty International investigation, there is evidence not heard at trial that the murder was an unplanned act committed by Brown, as the latter himself claimed before his execution.

In 2005, a federal district judge found a "fundamental constitutional defect in Foster's sentence" and ruled that Foster's jury had not been asked to determine if he had any intent to kill LaHood, and that this failure represented a misapplication of the law. However, the state of Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the decision.

The crazy thing about this case is that no one argues that Foster killed the victim. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's award-winning columnist Bob Ray Sanders wrote, the case "is further proof of how cruel, capricious, unjust and utterly insane our death penalty laws have become....Because of this tainted system, whether you believe in capital punishment or not, a man who did not plan or commit a murder will die August 30 unless somebody -- a judge, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and/or the governor-- has the heart and the guts to stop it."

You can help these folks get up the guts at freekenneth.com. Find updates on the case and urge members of the Texas legislature to stay Foster's execution and ask for a re-trial based on new evidence.


George W. to the rescue? Ha!

It's starting to look like it's unanimous (except for the Bushies):

Iran urges US pull-out from Iraq
Iran's vice-president has said efforts to improve security in Iraq depend on the withdrawal of US-led forces and an end to US interference in the country.
Parviz Davoodi said Iran wanted a secure and stable Iraq, and was doing what it could to achieve this.

He was speaking after a second day of talks in Tehran between senior Iranian officials and Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki.

US commanders have repeatedly accused Iran of training and arming sectarian militias in Iraq, which Tehran denies.

The BBC's Pam O'Toole in Tehran says the two countries have forged increasingly close ties and Mr Maliki received a warm welcome there.

Further co-operation

On Wednesday evening, Mr Maliki met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranian media said that after the meeting Mr Maliki expressed appreciation for Iran's positive and constructive stance on Iraq, including providing security and fighting against what he described as terrorism.

Several Iranian officials criticised the US position in Iraq.

"Establishment of peace and tranquility in Iraq depends on withdrawal of occupiers and their avoidance from interfering in Iraq, and also on the authority of the government of Mr Maliki," Mr Davoodi said after talks with the prime minister.

"We regard Iraq's security as our own security and that of the region," he added.

Iraqi officials have said Mr Maliki will be seeking further co-operation from Iran in helping to quell the violence in his country.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6938740.stm

Published: 2007/08/09 14:03:04 GMT

From a Wednesday letter:

"Just a reminder: there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima if there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor."

Quite true, no doubt. Cause and effect. They bombed Pearl Harbor, we bombed Hiroshima (we'll forget about Nagasaki for the moment). But what happens if we examine this idea a bit? Who exactly attacked Pearl Harbor? The Japanese military, right? Who was bombed at Hiroshima? An entire city consisting of mostly civilians, tens of thousands of whom were incinerated immediately with many more deaths in the aftermath.

Fair? Hard to say. War, it's been said, is hell. I'm not looking to argue the merits of that particular bombing, my point is that it's always the "leaders" who make the decisions, start the wars, order the bombings, whatever. It's always the people of the countries involved who pay the price.

Do we assume that every single person in Japan in 1941 was in favor of launching a sneak attack on a U.S.military installation? Do we think there was a vote? Do we think the majority (or any) of the people of Japan even knew it was coming? And what about when they did hear about it? How was that story framed? I wasn't there but I assume it was presented as a necessary action against an aggressive enemy (us).

Of course one can argue that at that point it was incumbent upon the Japanese people to stop their war-making leaders. Their failure to do that is what justifies our perceiving all of them as the enemy.

So, what should they have done? Hmmm... well, I suppose they could have started an anti-war movement. Sure, they could have had marches of protest, they could have burned draft cards or the equivalent thereof, maybe they could have had, I don't know, some lanterns or something as a sort of symbol. Naturally it would not have been easy. It was wartime and patriotic fervor was no doubt running high. But nevertheless it was their duty to speak out and to try to stop the madness. Could they have? Probably not but at least they would have tried, right?

"What does "Lanterns For Peace" do on December 7th?"

Business as usual I hope.

Here's a shocker:

No-sex programmes 'not working'
Sex abstinence programmes do not stop risky sexual behaviour or help in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, a research team has concluded.
The Oxford University team reviewed 13 US trials involving over 15,000 people aged 10 to 21.

They found abstinence programmes had no negative or positive impact on the rates of sex infections or unprotected sex, the British Medical Journal said.

Abstinence programmes are popular in the US and have supporters in the UK.

A UK branch of the US Silver Ring Thing was set up four years ago to promote sexual abstinence among young people.

Abstinence-only programmes don't work because they provide no safety net for those young people who do have a sexual relationship - and research shows that many do
Genevieve Clark, of the Terrence Higgins Trust

However, such groups have so far failed to gain the foothold they have in the US where a third of the President's HIV budget is given to abstinence programmes.

The latest study, which included trials comparing young people attending abstinence-only programmes against those receiving no sex education, raises questions over whether they work in developed countries.

Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.

One trial did show a short-term benefit with participants reporting that they were less likely to have had sex in the month following one abstinence-only programme.

But the researchers said this finding was offset by six other trials that showed the programmes had no effect on the participants' recent sex lives.

Another trial even showed that participants in abstinence-only programmes were significantly more likely to report pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, compared to participants using the usual services.

However, other studies did not show this.

Effective

This compared to programmes that promote the use of condoms which greatly reduce the risk of HIV, the BMJ reported.

Lead author Kristen Underhill said: "Our analysis suggests that abstinence-only programmes that aim to prevent HIV are not effective.

"This finding has key implications for policy and practice, especially in the US, where abstinence-only programmes receive both federal and state funding."

Genevieve Clark, of the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "Young people need to know that they can say no to sex, just as they need to know how to protect themselves from pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections if they decide that a sexual relationship is right for them.

"But abstinence-only programmes don't work because they provide no safety net for those young people who do have a sexual relationship - and research shows that many do."

And Ivan Blake, of the young people's sexual health charity Brook, added: "There are even studies which show they can make things worse as people do not have the knowledge or confidence to have safe sex."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/6927733.stm

Published: 2007/08/02 23:41:10 GMT

© BBC MMVII