Is Schapelle Corby a Victim of Circumstance?

The FBI announced today that they have arrested 18 people in a drug smuggling operation that operated out of JFK airport. During the 2 year investigation, the feds seized 90 pounds of cocaine and 50 pounds of heroin. The drugs were smuggled by airport personnel by placing packages of drugs in passenger's baggage (after security screening) at one airport then removing them at another airport, then returning the bags to the passenger.

This should send shivers down every flyer's spine. What would happen if a package was not picked up for some unforeseen reason? What if you were caught with a few pounds of heroin in your baggage? Would you use the "I have no idea how that got in there!!" line? Do you think anyone would really believe you?

It didn't work for Schapelle Corby who is now serving a 20 year sentence in an Indonesian prison for smuggling 9 lbs of marijuana in her unlocked luggage. Corby has long maintained that she didn't know how the drugs go in there and there's some evidence that she's telling the truth. Even circumstantially, it's hard to fathom he improbability of someone, on a family vacation, smuggling 9 lbs of marijuana into an Muslim country that is well known for its harsh drug laws.

In the United States, the federal government needs to crack down hard on this type of smuggling. IMHO, if an airline/airport employee is caught smuggling ANYTHING in passenger luggage, they deserve life in prison. Not so much for the relatively minor issue of drugs, but the huge potential for terrorism. How closely are they checking the "box of cocaine" to make sure that's what it really is? How much would it take to bribe them to take on a box of unknown origin?

The airline security breach in this case is massive and frightening. And you just know it's still happening somewhere.

The Republican Party: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers?

I've watched most of the Republican debates over the last few weeks and I am just about as confused as the RNC must be right now. Which of these guys is actually a Republican? Or more accurately, "How did all these Democratic candidates get into the Republican debates?" A story in the Politico suggests that Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the best ticket for the Repubs. Wow. That would be a "good" ticket?. First of all, I am still somewhat astounded that a RINO like Rudy Giuliani is the leader of the pack, considering that he is pro-abortion (favors taxpayer funded abortions no less), is for same-sex unions, and is anti-gun. Overall, he's looks to be somewhat to the left of Hilary Clinton. Am I missing something here? Which "Republicans" are the pollsters calling anyway?

Will Iraq be the big issue in 2008? Survey says:....Yes...well, maybe

A recent Rasmussen poll says that 68% of Americans want to be out of Iraq within a year. Yet all the front runners, both Democrat and Republican, want to be more into Iraq. Hillary and Giuliani are the exact same type of war hawks as Bush, with both of them mirroring his current policies with regard to Iran in their campaign rhetoric. Only three candidates, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are suggesting that the whole thing was a huge mistake. And all of them are polling in the single digits.

And how is Giuliani polling so high anyway? The whole thing begs the question that was brought up in the 2004 election. How big an effect are cell phone-only households having on telephone polling. In 2004 the alarm was sounded over the rise of cell phone only households. This caused great consternation for the pollsters as federal law prohibits automated dialing of cell phone numbers (used almost exclusively in telephone polls). In 2004, the error introduced by these people was non-existent: Polls matched actual results. However back then, cell only households made up just 3% of all households. Today 13% of all adults are using only a cell phone or VOIP. More importantly, 33% of 18-29 year olds only have a cell phone. None of these people are being polled. That's a huge concern, specifically for pollsters trying to gauge issues that revolve around a particular age group (elections anyone?). Those opinions might now show up in a telephone poll, but may at the ballot box. In June 2007, the Pew Research Center wrote:

The picture is not entirely positive, however. While the cell-only problem is currently not biasing polls based on the entire population, it may very well be damaging estimates for certain subgroups in which the use of only a cell phone is more common. This concern is particularly relevant for young adults. According to the most recent government estimate, more than 25% of those under age 30 use only a cell phone.

This might help to explain Ron Paul's huge internet support, near total dominance in Republican straw polls, but weak telephone polling. Interestingly enough, Paul has also done very well on text message polls, which would favor a younger more technically savvy audience.

When Does A Horrific Wrong Instantly Become A "eh...it wasn't that bad, really"?

*When you find out your friends did the 'wrong'.

Administrators at The George Washington University, promising expulsion for students who distributed xenophobic posters, suddenly get cold feet when they realize the guilty party wasn't the conservative group they thought it was

On Monday of this week, anti-Islamic posters distributed on The George Washington University campus (complete with university seal and forged signature of a conservative student group) were called hate speech. Today, after the revelation that 7 student members of the liberal Students for Conservativo-Facism Awareness group made and distributed the posters in a smear campaign, the fliers have been downgraded to mere "controversial posters". This, after GW Administrators had initially attacked the conservative Young America's Foundation group and demanded they sign an agreement disavowing any hate speech that might occur at their event (which was the subject of the poster smear tactic). I guess the GW administration had found their criminal and wanted a signed confession.

Now the world waits with bated breath on their very uncomfortable and public response. What's a slap on the wrist between friends?

Scenes From The Upcoming Police State

Wow. This really creeped me out. Someone has developed (and you've no doubt financed) some seriously Orwellian toys to keep track of you. If you haven't seen the movie Brazil yet, I highly recommend it. It looks like it's our future.

Global Hysteria Swarms the Globe Like A Heat Wave

The global warming debate is becoming so hysterical I can barely stand it. An October heat wave is pushing through the mid-Atlantic states causing the Weather channel to call it "Wild Weather". The Drudge Report is calling it "Heatwave in the Heartland". Below that story is a not-so-subtilly placed story about fashion designers having a hard time because "...there is no strong difference between summer and winter any more". Yeah, ok. You go ahead and wear your shorts in February, Beppe.

A quick check of Accuweather shows that the historical high temp for October in Washington, D.C. was 96 degrees in 1941. OMG! Global warming must have started back in at least the 1940's!

My point is that it's been crazy hot before and that can't be blamed on global warming without claiming that global warming began before the huge carbon release of the 1950's.

Additionally, why hasn't anyone pointed the finger at this guy?

Image Courtesy of SOHO (ESA & NASA)

Now, admittedly, I haven't really been keeping up on this issue and maybe some rigorous science has ruled it out. But our Sun has a history of causing global warming and cooling. All without our help. It would seem like good investigative work to rule out the cause of the Earth's last couple of the global climate changes, wouldn't it? Perhaps it's too terrifying to contemplate a global crisis that is unfazed by UN resolutions and business meetings.

There are plenty of reason to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not the least of which is national security and clean air. However I would hate for scientific principals to be discarded in the race to a 'good end'.

Hypocrites at the Washington Post call out Virginia candidate

I had to laugh when I saw this article in the Washington Post, in which the Post 'outs' a candidate running for the position of Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. The Post has uncovered that the Republican candidate (Gary H. Baise) took "nearly $300,000" in subsidies for an Illinois farm over the last 10 years. All of this was completely legal mind you. It's just that the Post felt there was something inherently shameful with a wealthy individual taking a government subsidy.

So what's funny about that? Well, for starters, I'd bet a large chunk of the wealthy Washington Post elite are taking somewhere between $6,000-$10,000 in government subsidies every single year as well. This subsidy is in the form of the mortgage interest deduction. Sorry but it's true - mortgage interest deduction will be a $100 billion tax-payer funded subsidy by 2009. And not only that, but it's a subsidy that disproportionally benefits the rich over the poor. Year 2003 IRS data shows that taxpayers who had an adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than $30,000 received only 9% of the interest deduction subsidy, in spite of filing more than 52% of all tax returns. Yet those having more than $100,000 in AGI claimed 36% of the money. In fact, those making more than $75,000 in AGI claimed more than half of all mortgage interest deductions.

In 2004, the government handed out $89,500,000,000 in mortgage subsidies. 53% of that money (over $48,000,000,000) went to the 11.8% of taxpayers with AGIs over $100,000. And more than 20% of the money (~$18,400,000,000) went to the 2.3% of tax filers with AGIs over $200,000. Some of those people no doubt live in what would typically be called 'mansions'.

Ending this subsidy of course, is not popular. That's because so many benefit from it. But keep that in mind next April 15th. Do you really need that deduction? I'm sure everyone at the Washington Post will keep their pristine hands out of the cookie jar [/sarcasm]

For more info see HERE

Nobel prize winner calls for a halt to water fluoridation

Nobel prize winner Arvid Carlsson (awarded the prize for research into Parkinson's disease) along with about 600 other medical and science professionals calls for the halting of water fluoridation. Looks like the debate is heating up again:

Read/watch the story by clicking here

Professionals sign Fluoride Action Network call to end water fluoridation

Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson, one of 600 signers

American Dental Association guidance on infant formula

Former EPA scientist Bob Carton analyzes National Academy of Sciences report

Centers for Disease Control study cites statistics on fluorosis in children

National Academy of Sciences executive summary, Fluoride in Water

CRS Report for Congress: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues

Another Judge Rules Driver Fees Unconstitutional

"An Arlington County General District Court judge has ruled that Virginia's abusive-driver fees are unconstitutional, saying they violate guarantees of equal protection because they apply only to state residents."

The County says they will appeal to the circuit court.

First round won: VA Driver's fees declared unconstitutional

A Henrico judge declared the new VA traffic fines unconstitutional. The ruling only applies to Henrico County, but will be appealed. Of course, this gives every defendant a path to follow.

Running for cover, Kaine & Co. try the Jedi mind trick

Found this gem in a WTOP story this afternoon:

"Some of the widespread alarm over the fees, Kaine and the legislative leaders said, is the result of inaccurate claims on blogs and elsewhere that led people to believe they would pay thousands for traffic violations as minor as improper turn signals"

Huh?? Who was claiming you would "pay thousands"? Of course, once again, the little details slip through our legislator's hands.

In fact, if you were cited for failing to use your turn signal, you would be charged with reckless driving. That's because the Code of Virginia defines it as such. And since it's reckless driving, a publication by the Office of the Executive Secretary for the Supreme Court of Virginia states that the Civil Remedial Fee for failure to signal would be (3) installments of $350 each. While not thousands (who claimed that again?), it is $1,050.00 in addition to whatever court fine you would pay.

I don't think anyone should be scolded by Virginia legislators who *all the sudden* claim they didn't completely understand OR read what they had voted on. If they can't manage to find the time to read what laws they're giving their 'thumbs up' to, maybe they shouldn't be voting at all.

And while the politicians go about trying to deflect blame, it's becoming clearer that the real reason the fines went from "everyone will pay" to just "Virginians will pay" has little to do with the enforcement of the fines. The current talking points are that since Virginia couldn't make out-of-state people pay, they wouldn't even try. Now who is really going to believe that? If they had a 10% voluntary payment rate, that would still be a lot of money, wouldn't it?

I think the real reason is this: Politicians feared a backlash (tourism and truck drivers??) Imagine the negative publicity someone like AAA might generate if they warned drivers about taking a vacation to Virginia (AAA oddly sided *with* the fines...btw, something I might rant about later). Or what if truck drivers staged some type of protest?

Instead, they opted to spring this on the stupid people of Virginia, who are too busy working and paying taxes to notice. I hope our memories are not as short as our Virginia legislator's work day.

Growing support for traffic fine repeal

Looks like there's a growing sense of just how ridiculous these new traffic fine laws are. A story on WTOP this morning notes there is a web petition that currently has 14,000 + 'signatures'. We'll see. At this point I thought everyone would have forgotten about it and gone back to watching their American Gladiators.

Online Petitions:

http://petitiononline.com/va3202/petition.html (14,000 + signatures at the time of this posting)

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/VAtrafficfees/signatures.html (1,000 + signatures at the time of this posting)

Virginia's new (and completely unconstitutional) traffic fine law

Starting this July 1, 2007, the state of Virginia will be imposing new “Civil Remedial Fees" on drivers who get certain types of driving citations (tickets). Money generated from these fines will be used to pay for highway improvements throughout the state. And they're no ordinary fines, they're huge. These new 'fees' will be in addition to any fines that are currently charged. A speeding ticket could now easily cost you more than $3,000 in fines. The infractions, along with the fines are listed here.

Aside from the general shock of how steep the fines are, I was also amazed to learn that these fines will only apply to Virginia residents:

“The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be assessed on any resident of Virginia operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Virginia, including persons to whom Virginia driver's licenses, commercial driver's licenses, or learner's permits have been issued pursuant to this title; and persons operating motor vehicles without licenses or whose license has been revoked or suspended.”

So if you’re from another state and are caught speeding in Virginia, you’re immune to these fines. That just doesn't sound right with me, and I believe the Constitution of the United States bars this type of law being passed.

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

If a citizen from Virginia has a privilege and immunity from some penalty within Virginia, then a citizen of North Carolina (while in the state of Virginia) has that same protection as well. The writers of the Constitution were most likely worried that a state like Virginia might pass laws that only applied to citizens of another state, like Maryland for example. Something like, “

All drivers on the roads of Virginia must pay a highway use fee of $100 per day (*residents of Virginia are exempt).

Imagine the havoc it would create if each state started writing laws that only applied to citizens of other states. Commerce would break down as states retaliated against each other. We would be left with kingdom 'states', rather than a "united" states (the Constitution's authors probably never considered that a state might write laws that ‘stick it’ to only their own people, but that’s what Virginia is going to do).

That's why Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution says that if a citizen of Maryland is exempt from this fine/fee/penalty solely by virtue of the fact that they are a from the state of Maryland, then the state of Virginia has to afford me the same immunity/privilege.

Not content to violate just one part of the Constitution, Virgina has also decided to take on that pesky XIV Amendment. This amendment guarantees, in a nutshell, that no state shall

"...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yet Virginia is planning to afford protection from this fine to the everyone but residents of Virginia. Imagine if the outcry if the phrase "Virginia resident" were replaced by any other description:

"The civil remedial fees established by this section shall be assessed on any (person of African decent, woman, Puerto Rican, Californian, resident of Richmond, etc) operating a motor vehicle on the highways of Virginia..."

In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on a similar issue once before (Hicklin v. Orbeck (No. 77-324)). In this case, an Alaskan law required preferential hiring of Alaskans based on their state of residence. The law was struck down in part because the law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2.

The mystery in all this is not that Virginia Legislators have no idea what the Constitution says. It's why they would not fine everyone. Why would they forgo all that extra money? What about fining other state's residents has them rattled? You can see from the initial versions of this bill that they intended to fine everyone, then suddenly it was Virginians only.

Could it be they foresaw a bigger problem, maybe a federal problem dealing with interstate commerce?

Update: The VA Code Section related to the fees is located here.

Another mass murder, another link to anti-depressants

After the shock of the Virginia Tech shootings wear off, I hope that this nation will take this opportunity to ask this question: How much longer are we going to deny the link between shooting rampages and anti-depressants? The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was recently on anti-depressants and may have been taking them at the time of the shooting. Surprised? I'm not. As soon as I heard about the shootings, I began to wait for this detail to leak out. Of course there would be a link because, as I noted in a previous article, almost all of them are. Ironically, both shooters graduated from the high school.

It's clearly not enough that the FDA put it's most serious warning on the boxes of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, warning that users were more likely to commit suicide and engage in aggressive behaviors than people who were taking a placebo.

For God's sake! Pull this crap off the market!!

Meth-a-demic Follow-up

After reading a story in today's Washington Post regarding "Mexican smugglers" importing crystal meth into the US, I was reminded of the fact that when the Sudafed restriction laws fail to to solve the "meth crisis" (as I predicted), politicians and law enforcement will have to find a good reason why their plan didn't work. Looks like they're starting to form a consensus on what that excuse will be.

The Meth-a-demic

One of the biggest problems with the meth story is the lack of hard evidence. Sure there are photos of drug labs and scary photos of addicts who have replaced their teeth with oozing sores. But where are the numbers? Frequently you get facts like this:

“While only one methamphetamine lab was seized in Virginia four years ago, 61 were seized in 2004;”

The reference for that was piece of data was “(CESAR Briefing, March 2005).” That CESAR briefing gave “DEA 2005” as a reference for that information. Pretty vague, eh?. But on their own website, the DEA shows that in 2004 they busted 75 labs. Hard to tell where the numbers are coming from. But the real issue is that no one seems to care. The facts of this problem is not nearly as important as the rhetoric.

Another thing that annoys me is the fact that many OTC cold relief products have been reformulated with phenylephrine, which, if you haven’t realized it yet, is a very poor replacement.

In a recent peer-reviewed letter published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, researches found that 7 of the 11 studies done years ago (which form the basis for the FDA’s approval for over-the-counter phenylephrine) showed that at the allowable 10 mg dose phenylephrine was not effective [Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology. 2006 Jul;118(1):279-80. Epub 2006 May 2]. An updated study (available here) comes up with the same conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence that oral phenylephrine is effective for nonprescription use as a decongestant. The Food and Drug Administration should require additional studies to show the safety and efficacy of phenylephrine.”

One of the researches, Leslie Hendeles was quoted as saying, “At the maximum 10 milligram dose, phenylephrine is no more effective than a placebo. It's like shooting blanks,"

One of the required precursors to making meth, along with psuedoephedrine is red phosphorus. A logical question (I would think) is, how inconvenienced would the average person be if we implemented restrictions on the sale of red phosphorus rather than Sudafed? Probably not much.

Does Consumer Reports have *Any* Credibility Left?

Following on the heals of their bogus car seat panic, Consumer Reports is now telling us that Mcdonalds has the best coffee. Eh...Mcdonalds? I'm sure it's OK, but could they really beat out such coffee masters as Burger King and Dunkin’ Donuts? Not to mention, Starbucks?

After the recent retraction of the car seat story, the February 1998 dog food debacle in which they smeared Iams dog food in error (did they ever print a corrected 'study'?) and their rigged tests against the Isuzu Trooper, I'll wait patiently to see if Consumer Reports figures out if something was wrong with this test as well before I have Ronald brew me a cup.

Virginia's Dirty Secret

Virginia has a vehicle emissions program that requires vehicle owners in Northern Virginia to get their cars/trucks inspected every 2 years. The idea is to prevent someone from driving around with a car/truck that is spewing high levels of toxic pollution into the air. You would think this was to keep the air clean. But you would have to be wrong. That's because anyone who owns a diesel vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 lbs or more (some of the greatest polluters out there) don't have to get an inspection. Go figure. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that so many diesel vehicles are owned by businesses and local governments (buses)? Hmmmmm....

The real estate market is bad...but that's the good news!

Gotta love Realtors. A month ago they were predicting that we had already found the "bottom" of the real estate market. Now they're telling us, that *right now* is the bottom. This new reassessment is due to the fact that in December 2006, the market for existing housing fell by 8.4%, the biggest decline since in 17 years (or as some of the stories claim, "since 1982" [eh..one of those is wrong I guess].

Note the textbook use of "weasel words" in the following examples:

But economists said they believe the low point for housing has been reached and they are forecasting a slow rebound in 2007.

Just who are these "economists"? Surely not all economists are saying this. In fact, the article cites *just one* economist (David Lereah), who conveniently works for The National Association of Realtors.

And this one:

Because of that optimism, analysts don't believe the slump in housing will drag the overall economy into a recession.

Who are these "analysts"? No mention is made. But apparently they caution us from reading too much into the bad news (the 80% higher than predicted jump in jobless claims), and yet because of the optimism of unknown economists, they don't think we're headed for a recession ("Because of that optimism, analysts don't believe the slump in housing will drag the overall economy into a recession").

Ah..now that's reassuring. Let's all go out and buy a half million dollar closet condo.

Meth problem solved?

Virginia police say that meth lab busts have declined 70% between October 2005 - October 2006. They're claiming this decline is due to the decision to remove Sudafed and pseudoephedrine containing products from drugstore shelves. Strange, since pseudoephedrine products weren't removed from the shelves until April 2006. That means a 70% drop in only 6 months. That sounds hard to believe. Somehow I doubt the meth problem will be this easy to solve.

FDA says aspirin is bad, (and oh, acetaminophen might kill you)

This week the FDA announced that it was proposing new changes to the labeling of over the counter (OTC) pain relievers. Included in the list of pain relievers are the following:

• Products with Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (Brand name: Tylenol)
• NSAIDs (Aspirin, Ibuprofen (Brand name: Advil) , Naproxen Sodium (Brand Name: Aleve)

The FDA says the change is needed because Acetaminophen can cause liver problems and NSAIDs can cause gastrointestinal bleeding. However, I think FDA is really trying to warn the public about the dangers of Acetaminophen while taking some of the spotlight off the Acetaminophen containing products by throwing out the NSAID warning at the same time.

You should know that Acetaminophen is a relatively risky OTC pain reliever. It is so risky, that Acetaminophen overdose is now the #1 cause of liver failure in the United States. Multiple liver transplants and deaths have been caused by taking too much Acetaminophen. And overdosing is not that hard when you consider how many other "cold & flu" type products contain Acetaminophen. Tylenol has long been touted as a "safe" drug, especially for children after aspirin and salicylate containing products were tenuously linked (PDF) to Reye's syndrome. However, in light of the high risk of liver damage, the use of Acetaminophen containing products should be discouraged.

Unfortunately, the FDA has opted to warn people about the relatively low NSAID risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (compared to liver failure) at the same time, thereby obscuring from the public where the real risk lies.