Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!” Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money. However, his own statistics show that the system ”does” work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” … I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible. Recent tests show conclusively that it ”is” possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem. An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt! As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. … ”Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at” mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Defending the USA’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Program
Michael Jones, University of Hawaii professor, has written another lengthy editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin condemning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) program. To quote the greatest supporter of the ABM program, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again!” Jones has listed many “facts and statistics” that purport to show the program doesn’t work, can’t work, has not been properly tested, and is a waste of money. However, his own statistics show that the system ”does” work, with many successful tests already completed. Sure, some failures have occurred. That is why they are called “tests.” … I am an engineer, and in the early ’60s, working on Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, I personally saw (and photographically documented) many successful intercepts of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM’s) by ABM’s. The “interceptor” missiles were guided to their target by computers that used vacuum tubes, and were so cumbersome that they had to be housed in air conditioned gymnasium-sized buildings. They had much less capability and were far slower than the laptop computer being used for this letter. Considerable technical progress in computers and “rocket science” has been made since then, so it’s now possible to “hit a bullet with a bullet”… a description that has often been used by the politically motivated opposition to make the task seem impossible. Recent tests show conclusively that it ”is” possible to “hit the bullet,” but it would be a far simpler task if the politicians would allow the use of an explosive warhead. The “hit-to-kill” political restriction makes an intercept more difficult. For example, imagine if our soldiers were required to use non-exploding hand grenades that had to hit the enemy on the head to damage him! But, that’s another problem. An improved Patriot system is being sent to the middle east to protect our friends, and they are happy to receive it. Even if it’s not “perfect,” it certainly will help. Just compare the ABM system to a policemen’s flak jacket. Sure, he can still be injured by a bullet, but he will be far safer than if he was only wearing an Aloha shirt! As I have stated before, most opponents of the ABM are politically motivated, and have used the “It won’t work” argument for many years. Now that it does work, they have been forced to change their tactics. Now they say that even though it works, it’s too expensive to “waste money” by deploying it. Are flak jackets too expensive? I don’t think so. … ”Bud Weisbrod is a Honolulu resident. His career included being a Photo-Optics Supervisor, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from 1961-1964 and a former Chief Photographic Engineer at Edwards Air Force Base, among other things. He can be reached via email at” mailto:weisbrod@myexcel.com
Challenging Family Court
My story of Hawaii Family Courts is typical but individual in degree and risk. Aloha, I am a single parent challenged daily by Hawaii’s First Circuit Family Courts; stripped of all standing, researched and devoted to recover what only God can give and take away, and in fear of retaliation for my children and myself. I am typical of many of the parents I have interviewed and helped over the years, a victim of an industry with no credible database, that is under national review in every district and application that it services. It started when I was left with my children 5 years ago, a son 6 and our daughter 8. I was threatened by their mother to be removed from these children’s lives through Domestic Violence Clearinghouse by the Family Courts. In January 1998, I petitioned that court for custody of the children left in my care. At the time I couldn’t get over the use of lies and the documented abuses of a court, as my family was torn apart by Judge Daryll Choy, jailed twice with no charges, and disallowed the day in court I could never receive. My putative rights as my children’s father, on my motions for custody, did not exist in this man’s eyes. I was na
Rudolph Giuliani's Unjust Jailing of Billionaire Michael Milken
“StuartHayashi Image”
Because of the comfort he gave New York during the 9/11 crisis, the
city’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, is now widely regarded as a hero. His bravery in this emergency is indeed commendable. Still, it’s best to have a complete portrait of the man, looking at his less agreeable decrees as well.
Before becoming mayor, Giuliani first rose to fame as the district
attorney who unfairly persecuted — sorry; ”’prosecuted”’ — investment banker Michael Milken.
Throughout the eighties, Milken helped “corporate raiders” take over failing corporations, using “junk bonds.” Once the “raiders” gained control, they’d fire incompetent managers and make the organization more efficient.
This practice saved many companies from bankruptcy, but it incited
panic among inept executives.
Thus, the corporate establishment and the era’s anti-capitalist activists alike feared Milken, making them want to pulverize — even jail — him. Since “corporate raiding” was still legal then, they had to find another excuse for imprisoning him, so they accused him of violating securities regulations.
But not only were these regulations unjust, but their application to
Milken made no sense.
After relentless harassment from the media and government, Milken
couldn’t take it anymore, so he pled guilty on four counts. He consequently spent two years behind bars (it would’ve been longer, but his sentence was reduced for “good behavior”) and he’s ”’banned”’ from the securities trade ”’for life.”’
But Milken didn’t deserve that, as exhaustively demonstrated in Daniel Fischel’s book “Payback” and briefly shown in Robert Sobel’s “Dangerous Dreamers.” Let’s go over each of the four counts.
First, Milken purchased stock on behalf of the Finsbury Fund, and was legally supposed to charge the company a commission. Instead, Sobel notes, Milken “charged Finsbury a fraction of a point more on purchases, although within the market range for the security. If Milken had accepted the identical amount as a commission, no crime would have been committed.” A man spent years in confinement for ”’this”’ technicality?
Secondly, Milken assisted David Solomon in reducing his income taxes, instructing Solomon to take certain business losses in order to decrease what he’d have to pay the IRS, and then promised Solomon that he’d make up the losses later. That’s illegal, too.
Yet it’s common for people to perform certain actions, like making
charitable donations, to lessen their taxes. Milken didn’t defraud anyone — Solomon’s losses were real. And Solomon’s reducing his taxes doesn’t damage anyone’s person or property; it’s the IRS that violates ”’his”’ rights and everyone else’s by extorting money without consent.
Finally, for the other two counts, Milken was charged for “aiding and
abetting” speculator Ivan Boesky when he failed to file two statements asking for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) permission to make certain stock purchases, at Milken’s request, each to help a Milken client — Victor Posner and Golden Nugget Casino, respectively.
When Posner bid for Fischbach Corporation, Milken asked Boesky to
procure its stock too, so that speculators and regulators would assume that it was Boesky and not Posner trying to take it over.
And when Golden Nugget sold off its MCA stock, Milken had Boesky
purchase MCA stock so that speculators would see it as still being in high demand and continue to buy it at high prices even as Golden Nugget dumped it, cutting the casino’s losses.
No fraud here. Boesky promised nothing; speculators just saw him
execute trades and then they made assumptions — their own responsibility.
These deals were made with the ”’assent”’ of all parties involved. No
one was forced to buy or relinquish anything; no contracts were broken. Boesky shouldn’t even have been required, in the first place, to ask for the government’s permission to commence peaceful transactions with consenting adults; that’s his ”’right.”’
Yet Giuliani charged Milken as an “”’accessory”'” to Boesky’s
“felonies” in the cases of Posner and Golden Nugget, which legally means that Boesky was the main perpetrator. But Boesky himself wasn’t charged on either count; only Milken was.
Milken was jailed for ”’helping”’ a “criminal” commit two “crimes,” while the “criminal” he helped ”’wasn’t”’ penalized for them. That’s illogical.
And, in all preceding securities cases, breaches of such regulations
only meant ”’civil”’ penalties; Milken was the first person ”’criminally”’ charged for them.
In short, Giuliani imprisoned Milken unfairly, and at all costs. Bill
Clinton, who snubbed Milken when he asked for a pardon, isn’t known for decency, … but Giuliani ”’is.”’ So the former mayor at least owes an apology to the Milken who revitalized — not imperiled — American commerce.
”’Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at mailto:radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at”’ https://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html
Related Articles by Stuart K. Hayashi:
“Voluntary Alternatives to Taxation”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b469cf29-8413-4aec-8116-e6c7ecc0e124
“The Invisible Gun”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d631b884-9bbb-4fe3-bbd9-748388b6b720
Rudolph Giuliani’s Unjust Jailing of Billionaire Michael Milken
“StuartHayashi Image”
Because of the comfort he gave New York during the 9/11 crisis, the
city’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, is now widely regarded as a hero. His bravery in this emergency is indeed commendable. Still, it’s best to have a complete portrait of the man, looking at his less agreeable decrees as well.
Before becoming mayor, Giuliani first rose to fame as the district
attorney who unfairly persecuted — sorry; ”’prosecuted”’ — investment banker Michael Milken.
Throughout the eighties, Milken helped “corporate raiders” take over failing corporations, using “junk bonds.” Once the “raiders” gained control, they’d fire incompetent managers and make the organization more efficient.
This practice saved many companies from bankruptcy, but it incited
panic among inept executives.
Thus, the corporate establishment and the era’s anti-capitalist activists alike feared Milken, making them want to pulverize — even jail — him. Since “corporate raiding” was still legal then, they had to find another excuse for imprisoning him, so they accused him of violating securities regulations.
But not only were these regulations unjust, but their application to
Milken made no sense.
After relentless harassment from the media and government, Milken
couldn’t take it anymore, so he pled guilty on four counts. He consequently spent two years behind bars (it would’ve been longer, but his sentence was reduced for “good behavior”) and he’s ”’banned”’ from the securities trade ”’for life.”’
But Milken didn’t deserve that, as exhaustively demonstrated in Daniel Fischel’s book “Payback” and briefly shown in Robert Sobel’s “Dangerous Dreamers.” Let’s go over each of the four counts.
First, Milken purchased stock on behalf of the Finsbury Fund, and was legally supposed to charge the company a commission. Instead, Sobel notes, Milken “charged Finsbury a fraction of a point more on purchases, although within the market range for the security. If Milken had accepted the identical amount as a commission, no crime would have been committed.” A man spent years in confinement for ”’this”’ technicality?
Secondly, Milken assisted David Solomon in reducing his income taxes, instructing Solomon to take certain business losses in order to decrease what he’d have to pay the IRS, and then promised Solomon that he’d make up the losses later. That’s illegal, too.
Yet it’s common for people to perform certain actions, like making
charitable donations, to lessen their taxes. Milken didn’t defraud anyone — Solomon’s losses were real. And Solomon’s reducing his taxes doesn’t damage anyone’s person or property; it’s the IRS that violates ”’his”’ rights and everyone else’s by extorting money without consent.
Finally, for the other two counts, Milken was charged for “aiding and
abetting” speculator Ivan Boesky when he failed to file two statements asking for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) permission to make certain stock purchases, at Milken’s request, each to help a Milken client — Victor Posner and Golden Nugget Casino, respectively.
When Posner bid for Fischbach Corporation, Milken asked Boesky to
procure its stock too, so that speculators and regulators would assume that it was Boesky and not Posner trying to take it over.
And when Golden Nugget sold off its MCA stock, Milken had Boesky
purchase MCA stock so that speculators would see it as still being in high demand and continue to buy it at high prices even as Golden Nugget dumped it, cutting the casino’s losses.
No fraud here. Boesky promised nothing; speculators just saw him
execute trades and then they made assumptions — their own responsibility.
These deals were made with the ”’assent”’ of all parties involved. No
one was forced to buy or relinquish anything; no contracts were broken. Boesky shouldn’t even have been required, in the first place, to ask for the government’s permission to commence peaceful transactions with consenting adults; that’s his ”’right.”’
Yet Giuliani charged Milken as an “”’accessory”'” to Boesky’s
“felonies” in the cases of Posner and Golden Nugget, which legally means that Boesky was the main perpetrator. But Boesky himself wasn’t charged on either count; only Milken was.
Milken was jailed for ”’helping”’ a “criminal” commit two “crimes,” while the “criminal” he helped ”’wasn’t”’ penalized for them. That’s illogical.
And, in all preceding securities cases, breaches of such regulations
only meant ”’civil”’ penalties; Milken was the first person ”’criminally”’ charged for them.
In short, Giuliani imprisoned Milken unfairly, and at all costs. Bill
Clinton, who snubbed Milken when he asked for a pardon, isn’t known for decency, … but Giuliani ”’is.”’ So the former mayor at least owes an apology to the Milken who revitalized — not imperiled — American commerce.
”’Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at mailto:radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at”’ https://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html
Related Articles by Stuart K. Hayashi:
“Voluntary Alternatives to Taxation”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b469cf29-8413-4aec-8116-e6c7ecc0e124
“The Invisible Gun”
https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d631b884-9bbb-4fe3-bbd9-748388b6b720
Rudolph Giuliani's Unjust Jailing of Billionaire Michael Milken
Because of the comfort he gave New York during the 9/11 crisis, the city’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, is now widely regarded as a hero. His bravery in this emergency is indeed commendable. Still, it’s best to have a complete portrait of the man, looking at his less agreeable decrees as well. Before becoming mayor, Giuliani first rose to fame as the district attorney who unfairly persecuted — sorry; ”prosecuted” — investment banker Michael Milken.
Throughout the eighties, Milken helped “corporate raiders” take over failing corporations, using “junk bonds.” Once the “raiders” gained control, they’d fire incompetent managers and make the organization more efficient. This practice saved many companies from bankruptcy, but it incited panic among inept executives. Thus, the corporate establishment and the era’s anti-capitalist activists alike feared Milken, making them want to pulverize — even jail — him. Since “corporate raiding” was still legal then, they had to find another excuse for imprisoning him, so they accused him of violating securities regulations. But not only were these regulations unjust, but their application to Milken made no sense.
After relentless harassment from the media and government, Milken couldn’t take it anymore, so he pled guilty on four counts. He consequently spent two years behind bars (it would’ve been longer, but his sentence was reduced for “good behavior”) and he’s ”banned” from the securities trade ”for life.” But Milken didn’t deserve that, as exhaustively demonstrated in Daniel Fischel’s book “Payback” and briefly shown in Robert Sobel’s “Dangerous Dreamers.” Let’s go over each of the four counts. First, Milken purchased stock on behalf of the Finsbury Fund, and was legally supposed to charge the company a commission.
Instead, Sobel notes, Milken “charged Finsbury a fraction of a point more on purchases, although within the market range for the security. If Milken had accepted the identical amount as a commission, no crime would have been committed.”
A man spent years in confinement for ”this” technicality? Secondly, Milken assisted David Solomon in reducing his income taxes, instructing Solomon to take certain business losses in order to decrease what he’d have to pay the IRS, and then promised Solomon that he’d make up the losses later. That’s illegal, too. Yet it’s common for people to perform certain actions, like making charitable donations, to lessen their taxes. Milken didn’t defraud anyone — Solomon’s losses were real. And Solomon’s reducing his taxes doesn’t damage anyone’s person or property; it’s the IRS that violates ”his” rights and everyone else’s by extorting money without consent. Finally, for the other two counts, Milken was charged for “aiding and abetting” speculator Ivan Boesky when he failed to file two statements asking for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) permission to make certain stock purchases, at Milken’s request, each to help a Milken client — Victor Posner and Golden Nugget Casino, respectively. When Posner bid for Fischbach Corporation, Milken asked Boesky to procure its stock too, so that speculators and regulators would assume that it was Boesky and not Posner trying to take it over. And when Golden Nugget sold off its MCA stock, Milken had Boesky purchase MCA stock so that speculators would see it as still being in high demand and continue to buy it at high prices even as Golden Nugget dumped it, cutting the casino’s losses. No fraud here. Boesky promised nothing; speculators just saw him execute trades and then they made assumptions — their own responsibility. These deals were made with the ”assent” of all parties involved.
No one was forced to buy or relinquish anything; no contracts were broken. Boesky shouldn’t even have been required, in the first place, to ask for the government’s permission to commence peaceful transactions with consenting adults; that’s his ”right.” Yet Giuliani charged Milken as an “”accessory”” to Boesky’s “felonies” in the cases of Posner and Golden Nugget, which legally means that Boesky was the main perpetrator. But Boesky himself wasn’t charged on either count; only Milken was. Milken was jailed for ”helping” a “criminal” commit two “crimes,” while the “criminal” he helped ”wasn’t” penalized for them. That’s illogical. And, in all preceding securities cases, breaches of such regulations only meant ”civil” penalties; Milken was the first person ”criminally” charged for them. In short, Giuliani imprisoned Milken unfairly, and at all costs. Bill Clinton, who snubbed Milken when he asked for a pardon, isn’t known for decency, … but Giuliani ”is.” So the former mayor at least owes an apology to the Milken who revitalized — not imperiled — American commerce. ”Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at mailto:radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at” https://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html Related Articles by Stuart K. Hayashi: “Voluntary Alternatives to Taxation” https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b469cf29-8413-4aec-8116-e6c7ecc0e124 “The Invisible Gun” https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d631b884-9bbb-4fe3-bbd9-748388b6b720
Rudolph Giuliani’s Unjust Jailing of Billionaire Michael Milken
StuartHayashi Image Because of the comfort he gave New York during the 9/11 crisis, the city’s former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, is now widely regarded as a hero. His bravery in this emergency is indeed commendable. Still, it’s best to have a complete portrait of the man, looking at his less agreeable decrees as well. Before becoming mayor, Giuliani first rose to fame as the district attorney who unfairly persecuted — sorry; ”prosecuted” — investment banker Michael Milken. Throughout the eighties, Milken helped “corporate raiders” take over failing corporations, using “junk bonds.” Once the “raiders” gained control, they’d fire incompetent managers and make the organization more efficient. This practice saved many companies from bankruptcy, but it incited panic among inept executives. Thus, the corporate establishment and the era’s anti-capitalist activists alike feared Milken, making them want to pulverize — even jail — him. Since “corporate raiding” was still legal then, they had to find another excuse for imprisoning him, so they accused him of violating securities regulations. But not only were these regulations unjust, but their application to Milken made no sense. After relentless harassment from the media and government, Milken couldn’t take it anymore, so he pled guilty on four counts. He consequently spent two years behind bars (it would’ve been longer, but his sentence was reduced for “good behavior”) and he’s ”banned” from the securities trade ”for life.” But Milken didn’t deserve that, as exhaustively demonstrated in Daniel Fischel’s book “Payback” and briefly shown in Robert Sobel’s “Dangerous Dreamers.” Let’s go over each of the four counts. First, Milken purchased stock on behalf of the Finsbury Fund, and was legally supposed to charge the company a commission. Instead, Sobel notes, Milken “charged Finsbury a fraction of a point more on purchases, although within the market range for the security. If Milken had accepted the identical amount as a commission, no crime would have been committed.” A man spent years in confinement for ”this” technicality? Secondly, Milken assisted David Solomon in reducing his income taxes, instructing Solomon to take certain business losses in order to decrease what he’d have to pay the IRS, and then promised Solomon that he’d make up the losses later. That’s illegal, too. Yet it’s common for people to perform certain actions, like making charitable donations, to lessen their taxes. Milken didn’t defraud anyone — Solomon’s losses were real. And Solomon’s reducing his taxes doesn’t damage anyone’s person or property; it’s the IRS that violates ”his” rights and everyone else’s by extorting money without consent. Finally, for the other two counts, Milken was charged for “aiding and abetting” speculator Ivan Boesky when he failed to file two statements asking for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) permission to make certain stock purchases, at Milken’s request, each to help a Milken client — Victor Posner and Golden Nugget Casino, respectively. When Posner bid for Fischbach Corporation, Milken asked Boesky to procure its stock too, so that speculators and regulators would assume that it was Boesky and not Posner trying to take it over. And when Golden Nugget sold off its MCA stock, Milken had Boesky purchase MCA stock so that speculators would see it as still being in high demand and continue to buy it at high prices even as Golden Nugget dumped it, cutting the casino’s losses. No fraud here. Boesky promised nothing; speculators just saw him execute trades and then they made assumptions — their own responsibility. These deals were made with the ”assent” of all parties involved. No one was forced to buy or relinquish anything; no contracts were broken. Boesky shouldn’t even have been required, in the first place, to ask for the government’s permission to commence peaceful transactions with consenting adults; that’s his ”right.” Yet Giuliani charged Milken as an “”accessory”” to Boesky’s “felonies” in the cases of Posner and Golden Nugget, which legally means that Boesky was the main perpetrator. But Boesky himself wasn’t charged on either count; only Milken was. Milken was jailed for ”helping” a “criminal” commit two “crimes,” while the “criminal” he helped ”wasn’t” penalized for them. That’s illogical. And, in all preceding securities cases, breaches of such regulations only meant ”civil” penalties; Milken was the first person ”criminally” charged for them. In short, Giuliani imprisoned Milken unfairly, and at all costs. Bill Clinton, who snubbed Milken when he asked for a pardon, isn’t known for decency, … but Giuliani ”is.” So the former mayor at least owes an apology to the Milken who revitalized — not imperiled — American commerce. ”Stuart K. Hayashi is the president of the Reason Club of Honolulu and an undergraduate in Entrepreneurial Studies at Hawaii Pacific University, though his opinions do not necessarily reflect that of either institution. He can be reached at mailto:radical_individualist@hotmail.com and an index of his past editorials for HawaiiReporter.com can be seen at” https://reason_club.tripod.com/stuart_editorials.html Related Articles by Stuart K. Hayashi: “Voluntary Alternatives to Taxation” https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b469cf29-8413-4aec-8116-e6c7ecc0e124 “The Invisible Gun” https://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d631b884-9bbb-4fe3-bbd9-748388b6b720
Shame on McCain
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) aspires to be the Energy Rationing President, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) apparently wants to help him attain that dubious distinction.
McCain, who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, held a hearing this week on legislation he and Lieberman are co-sponsoring to force major energy, manufacturing, and transportation companies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to year 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2016.
Although the McCain-Lieberman CO2 reduction targets are not as draconian as those stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol (7 percent below 1990 levels during the five-year averaging period, 2008-2012), it’s close enough for government work. Moreover, once federal agencies get a green light to regulate CO2, we can be sure climate alarmists like Kyoto Joe Lieberman will return to the charge, demanding ever more stringent controls.
Why is this a prescription for energy rationing? CO2 is the inescapable byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuels that supply 70 percent of U.S. electricity and 84 percent of all U.S. energy. There is no device that can be bolted onto a car engine, a steel mill, or a power plant that can scrub CO2 out of the exhaust stream. Thus, the only way to meet a mandatory CO2 reduction target or “cap” is to use less of the affordable, plentiful, increasingly safe and clean hydrocarbons. CO2 controls are just another name for energy rationing –
Misguided Lawsuits No RX for the Pharmaceutical Industry
Last week a group called the Congress of California Seniors sued pharmaceutical giants Pharmacia and Pfizer for allegedly promoting one of their drugs for a use not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. (The FDA approved the drug in question, Bextra, to control arthritis pain but not for acute pain caused by impacted molars, which the lawsuit alleges is the new promotional strategy.)
Regardless of whether the claim is true, the lawsuit needs serious rethinking.
Doctors routinely prescribe drugs for off-label uses without ill effect. One third of all prescriptions in cancer treatments were for off-label treatments, according to a 1991 study by the General Accounting Office. In the most famous example of off-label drug use, physicians recommended aspirin to their patients at risk for heart attacks long before the FDA recognized the efficacy of this treatment. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that a federal agency has the knowledge or incentive to know as much about the latest medical discoveries as the pharmaceutical firms’ top researchers or the physicians looking for the best treatment for a patient.
Moreover, there’s an important economic reason to rethink opposition to off-label prescriptions. The allegedly pro-senior, pro-consumer group may believe that it is battling high drug prices because the non-approved use creates an additional demand for a drug. However, that extra revenue from the non-approved use can become an important source in funding new research — no little concern considering that only a fraction of drugs under study go on to become approved and marketed. And the best way to reduce drug prices is to lift regulatory burdens and expand supply.
It’s common these days for a group to claim moral authority by proclaiming its benevolent intentions. Unfortunately, as the anti-off-label lawsuit shows, elevating good intentions over good analysis is a prescription for disaster.
*”’See: “U.S. Consumer Group Sues Pharmacia Over ‘Off-label’ Drug
Promotion” (Associated Press, Dec. 24, 2002)”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink4-52-1.html
*”’Assessing the FDA via the Anomaly of Off-Label Drug Prescribing by Alexander Tabarrok (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, Summer 2000)”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir51_tabarrok.htm
*”’Off-label Prescribing of Drugs Calls FDA Role into Question” by
Scott Esposito (PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, Nov. 25, 2000)”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/news/001125Esposito.html
”’THE LIGHTHOUSE is edited by Carl P. Close and is made possible by the generous contributions of supporters of The Independent Institute. The Independent Institute can be contacted by phone at 510-632-1366, e-mail at”’ mailto:info@independent.org ”’or snail mail to The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428. For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html ”’For information on books and other publications from The Independent Institute, see”’ https://www.independent.org/tii/pubs.html
Challenging Family Court
My story of Hawaii Family Courts is typical but individual in degree and risk.
Aloha, I am a single parent challenged daily by Hawaii’s First Circuit Family Courts; stripped of all standing, researched and devoted to recover what only God can give and take away, and in fear of retaliation for my children and myself. I am typical of many of the parents I have interviewed and helped over the years, a victim of an industry with no credible database, that is under national review in every district and application that it services.
It started when I was left with my children 5 years ago, a son 6 and our daughter 8. I was threatened by their mother to be removed from these children’s lives through Domestic Violence Clearinghouse by the Family Courts. In January 1998, I petitioned that court for custody of the children left in my care.
At the time I couldn’t get over the use of lies and the documented abuses of a court, as my family was torn apart by Judge Daryll Choy, jailed twice with no charges, and disallowed the day in court I could never receive. My putative rights as my children’s father, on my motions for custody, did not exist in this man’s eyes. I was na