This is definitely not an endorsement of this tiny vehicle, but I just love the looks of the Smart ForTwo car. I've seen several in Dallas, and had a chance to examine a couple of them up close. They so much smaller than a Cooper that it's startling. And the Smart Car Web site is almost as cute as the car itself.
That's the shocking headline of a story by Houston's KHOU TV station. The story concerns political contributions to the justices on the Texas Supreme Court, and how those contributions might give the appearance of influencing judicial decisions. Watch the video.
The Dallas Morning News published an editorial today regarding the credibility problem of our current Texas Supreme Court. The newspaper is definitely right in saying the Court has a credibility problem, but the paper is misinformed in one of its statements, and in my opinion is wrong in its suggested solution.
The misinformation is in the statement that "Texas trial lawyers who argue directly before the justices also have been huge contributors." The implication is that plaintiff lawyers are contributing to the justices. This may have been true in the past, but I don't think there are many plaintiff lawyers now who would even consider making a contribution to any of the nine sitting Republican justices.
The newspaper's conclusion that the best solution to the current problem would be appointed justices is, again in my opinion, simply wrong. This would be dangerously close to the federal judicial system of appointments for life. And while there are many fine federal judges, there are some who never should have been appointed, and who will never leave the bench.
The correct solution is fair and open elections, with full disclosure of campaign contributions, combined with an educated electorate who understand the influence that campaign contributions can have on judges' legal opinions. Full public financing of judicial elections would be even better.
Here is the text of the editorial:
The reputation of our state's judiciary has been tarnished for years. As then-state Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Phillips told the Legislature all the way back in 2001, when judges owe their jobs to an electoral system dominated by political parties and big campaign donors, their judicial objectivity comes into question.
Nothing underscores this point better than the May 2 Texas Supreme Court decision favoring Perry Homes over homeowners Jane and Robert Cull. The court's decision, overturning two lower courts' rulings to compensate the Culls for a defective home, probably will be debated for years.
But what isn't debatable is that the founder of Perry Homes, Bob Perry, is a major donor to the campaigns of the Supreme Court's justices. He, his family and their political action committees have donated more than $250,000 to the nine justices – all Republicans – including those who dissented in the Cull case.
The justices may have used flawless legal analysis in ruling against the Culls. That's not the point. In the public's eye, their decision is tainted by the fact that they owe their elected positions, at least in part, to Mr. Perry.
He isn't the only big donor with business before the court. Texas trial lawyers who argue directly before the justices also have been huge contributors.
And to add to the credibility problem, three Supreme Court justices are fending off allegations that they abused their campaign funds. And a report yesterday by the judicial watchdog group Texas Watch criticized the court for relying too heavily on anonymous opinions, which effectively reduces the panel's public accountability.
The method of electing Texas judges – from the Supreme Court all the way down – is badly in need of modernization. Campaign donations from special interests should have no place in an independent judiciary.
The state needs a system in which the governor appoints judicial nominees by merit, with Senate confirmation, and voters regularly decide whether or not to retain them. That would help remove partisan politics and make court decisions less suspect.
That's one of several options put forth by Mr. Phillips in 2001. His argument made sense then, and it's no less valid today.
I'm awful at geography, but even I can do pretty good on this geography puzzle. All you have to do is place the 50 U.S. states on a map. The game calculates your average error in miles, and tells you how long it takes you to finish.
As reported in today's Dallas Morning News, Texas may actually start getting serious about punishing uninsured motorists. Of course, I'll believe that when I see it happen.
For many years, it has been against the law to operate a motor vehicle in Texas without complying with the financial responsibility act — basically either showing proof of liability insurance or putting up a bond to be self-insured. But that law has never been vigorously prosecuted, and there has been no state-wide effort to identify uninsured motorists and get them off the road. Why? Because the auto insurance companies have always been opposed to mandatory insurance, and in Texas the insurance companies control the Legislature and the courts.
Auto insurance companies make high profits for the same reasons health insurance companies do — they insure only the cream of the crop, unless forced to do otherwise by law. So auto insurance companies are perfectly happy to insure only the people who are rich enough to easily afford insurance and who are responsible enough to buy it. As for the poor and/or irresponsible drivers, the carriers would much rather not be burdened by insuring them. Here are excerpts from the newspaper article:
Three years after the Legislature passed a law to crack down on uninsured motorists, the number of drivers caught without insurance coverage under the 2005 statute is exactly – zero.
Start-up of the new insurance verification program has been snagged by initial delays in hiring a private contractor to create a database, differences among state agencies responsible for implementing the law, worries that some data may be inaccurate and doubts about the program by the insurance industry.
The program, funded with an annual $1 fee paid by all Texas drivers when renewing their vehicle registration, aims to create a database for police officers, state troopers and vehicle inspection stations to instantly verify whether a motorist has the minimum coverage required under state law. The database would be set up with information provided by insurers.
An estimated one in five Texans drives without insurance, costing insured motorists an extra $1 billion a year for protection against uninsured drivers. State officials say they are aiming to launch a pilot program in June.
One group that lobbied for the law was MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] of Texas, which argued that the average drunken driver is less likely to have insurance than other drivers.
"The need for this law has not changed in the past three years. In fact, it has probably gotten worse," said Bill Lewis of MADD-Texas. "There are probably more uninsured people today than when the law was passed."
Between 3 million and 4 million of the state's 16 million drivers are uninsured, according to state officials and the insurance industry.
"We have never supported any sort of compulsory auto insurance, particularly one open to inaccuracies when using a database," said Jerry Johns, president of Southwestern Insurance Information Service, an industry group.
"We will abide by the law and will certainly cooperate with the Texas Department of Insurance and other agencies involved. But we are concerned that if mistakes are made in the new system, it is the industry that will be blamed, and that's not the way it should be."
Although Texas has had a financial responsibility law requiring drivers to buy insurance for several years, enforcement has been difficult even though proof of insurance must be furnished to get a license renewal or safety inspection.
Millions of motorists skirt the law by using counterfeit proof-of-insurance cards or by obtaining a month's coverage of insurance to get an ID card, only to cancel the policy once they get their licenses renewed or their vehicles inspected.
Under the state program, a driver pulled over for a traffic violation or involved in an accident will still be asked to produce proof of insurance. But the officer also will run the license plate of the vehicle through the insurance database to determine whether the driver has insurance.
The state also will contact drivers without insurance by mail, warning them of the consequences for not having an insurance policy.
The American Association of People With Disabilities
(AAPD) is just what it sounds like — an organization of and for people
with disabilities. There are some good resources and tips here. Here is
their description:
AAPD is the largest national nonprofit cross-disability member organization in the United States, dedicated to ensuring economic self-sufficiency and political empowerment for the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities. AAPD works in coalition with other disability organizations for the full implementation and enforcement of disability nondiscrimination laws, particularly the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Are you having a really bad day at the office? Do you feel like freaking out and trashing your cubicle? The good news is that you don't have to do that in reality — you can do it virtually, at CubicleFreakout.
Recent Comments