http://www.ktar.com/…

AKRON, Ohio - A medical examiner must change her autopsy findings to delete any reference that stun guns contributed to the deaths of three people involved in confrontations with law enforcement officers, a judge ruled.

Friday’s decision was a victory for Taser International Inc., which had challenged rulings by Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler, including a case in which five sheriff’s deputies are charged in the death a jail inmate who was restrained by the wrists and ankles and hit with pepper spray and a stun gun.

Kohler ruled that the 2006 death of Mark McCullaugh Jr., 28, was a homicide and that he died from asphyxiation due to the “combined effects of chemical, mechanical and electrical restraint.”

Visiting Judge Ted Schneiderman said in his ruling that there was no expert evidence to indicate that Taser devices impaired McCullaugh’s respiration. “More likely, the death was due to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia brought on by severe heart disease,” the judge wrote.

Schneiderman ordered Kohler to rule McCullaugh’s death undetermined and to delete any references to homicide.

The judge also said references to stun guns contributing to the deaths of two other men must be deleted from autopsy findings. Dennis Hyde, 30, died in 2005 after a confrontation with Akron police, and Richard Holcomb, 18, died the same year after being hit with a stun by a police officer in suburban Springfield Township.

It was unclear what affect Schneiderman’s ruling may have on the upcoming criminal trial of the five sheriff’s deputies. One of them, Deputy Stephen Krendick, is charged with murder. Other deputies face charges of reckless homicide or felonious assault. All have pleaded not guilty.

Krendick’s trial is scheduled to begin June 16. A spokesman for the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office, which is handling the case, said its lawyers are prepared to go forward.

Steve Tuttle, vice president of communications for Taser International, said the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company is pleased with Schneiderman’s ruling.

“Taser International believed from the beginning that these determinations of cause of death must be supported by facts, medical research and scientific evidence,” Tuttle said.

John Manley, a Summit County prosecutor who represented Kohler, said the judge’s order went too far. The county is considering an appeal, he said.

“Taser is quite a force to be reckoned with and does everything to protect their golden egg, which is the Model X26,” Manley said.

Wouldn’t a high voltage shock from a taser possibly aggravate “severe heart disease”? Exactly how is it that judge knows better then the medical examiner?

http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/…

The U.S. Federal Reserve got even more deeply involved in the credit crisis on Friday by offering more loans to the banks through two of its newly established “facilities.”The Fed has become the mother of all credit exiles, accepting Wall Street’s over-valued, under-performing, dead-beat loans. At least that is what it’s done in a metaphorical sense. What did it do practically?

First the Fed increased by US$25 billion the amount of money it will auction to banks (commercial and investment) through its Term Auction Facility (TAF). Here banker people, borrow more. Please.

Second, the Fed expanded the list of collateral it will accept for asset-swapping through its Term Securities Lending (Facility). Remember, that’s the one that lets banks and prime brokers swap mortgage-backed securities for Treasury bonds for up to 28-days.

The Fed is now expanding that list of asset-backed securities to include collateralized car loans, credit card receivables, and student loans. It’s doing so because the lack of demand for bonds backed by those assets has had a real political impact in an election year. Students can’t get loans for American universities because investors won’t buy bonds issued by the banks who made the loans to the students. No funding, no college.

We don’t know if you are as agitated reading about the Fed loan programs as we are writing about them. It’s pretty agitating. You have to translate what the Fed has done from Central Bank speak to what it really means.

What it really means is that that the Fed has lowered interest rates as far as it can to deal with the bank lending crisis. It still hasn’t encouraged banks to loan to each other, or investors to buy bonds backed by various kinds of consumer liabilities. But it HAS had some effects.

Remember last week we said the interest rate on U.S. Treasury bonds is below the rate of inflation? Well, American real estate speculator Sam Zell says this has lured some investors back into the market for residential mortgage-backed securities. “Is it in large volumes? No. Is it the natural first step in the evolution? Yes.”

The evolution of what? New credit markets? A credit market where the Fed trashes the yield on U.S. government debt in order to make the yield on mortgage-backed debt look less trashy? One asset might look less trashy in a side-by-side comparison. But for investors, isn’t this like choosing which leper you’d like to take home and introduce to your mother?

Our take is this: the Fed has probably stopped cutting rates for awhile because it’s apparent that cutting rates has not solved the problem in the credit markets. That problem is still the same: poor asset quality. But even on that score, not everyone agrees.

This is really, really pathetic. Sounds a bit like what happened to Japan doesn’t it?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Not content with a protected near monopoly of the domestic market, American sugar producers are demanding that Congress make their pot of subsidies and protection even sweeter.

Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.), is pushing language in the latest proposed farm bill that would raise domestic price supports for sugar and mandate that sugar imports be used for ethanol production.

His proposals would virtually lock in an 85 percent share of the U.S. market for domestic sugar beet and cane growers, even though a number of foreign countries can grow sugar more cheaply than most American growers. And by the way, did I mention that Rep. Peterson’s district is among the nation’s top producers of sugar beets?

The Bush administration, to its credit, opposes Peterson’s changes in the farm bill. The sugar industry, of course, loves the idea. A spokesman for the pro-protection American Sugar Alliance told this morning’s Wall Street Journal, “We have an administration that seems more interested in supporting foreign producers, than producers right here in America.”

Notice the sugar industry doesn’t mention American consumers. U.S. agricultural policies should not be about favoring “our” producers over “theirs,” but about advancing such national interests as freedom, prosperity, and a more peaceful world. As we’ve explained in detail at the Center for Trade Policy Studies, the U.S. sugar program favors American sugar producers primarily at the expense of the rest of America. American families pay higher prices at the store, while U.S. producers that use sugar as an input — bakeries, food processors, restaurants, candy makers, etc. — incur higher costs because of our sugar program.

As we read daily in the newspaper about soaring food prices, this Congress is the verge of passing a farm bill designed explicitly to raise domestic food prices.

::sigh::

They cause the high sugar prices in the first place. They cause the high prices of milk. The high prices of wheat and corn and soy beans. They deflate the money and cause prices in general to rise. The people of world and particularly the American public suffers so that the few sugar manufacturers my thrive.

And when the people start to revolt they will ignorantly run to the government to fix the problem not realizing they caused it in the first place.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/…

Republicans receive the largest slice of presidential campaign contributions made by military members and their spouses, but leading anti-war candidates are getting a substantial cut, too, according to an independent analysis of political contributions.

From January 2007 through March of this year, service members or civilian employees of the military donated at least $766,000 to presidential candidates, according to data made available April 20 and provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington.

The analysis included donations of at least $200 made by individuals who listed their employer as one of the four branches of the military - Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps - or the Coast Guard, National Guard, Army Air Force Exchange Service, armed forces or military.

These donors gave the largest amounts to Rep. Ron Paul, the long-shot Republican candidate from Texas who has acknowledged defeat in the nomination process but continues to campaign, and Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat from Illinois.

During the reporting period, Paul - a former Air Force surgeon who broke with his party to vote against the Iraq war - received the most military contributions, with $201,271.

That’s significantly more than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain from Arizona, who received $132,133 from military donors, according to CRP.

“I think that our fighting men and women want to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Paul’s campaign. “I think they’re sick and tired of being sent overseas on these police actions and getting caught in the middle of these civil wars, and want someone like Ron Paul speaking sense.

“They signed up to defend our country, not police the world,” Benton said, “and I think they’re hungry for leaders who do that.”

Obama, meanwhile, whose opposition to invading Iraq has been a centerpiece of his campaign, has received $178,456 in military contributions, compared to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s $85,000, the analysis shows.

“To see two anti-war candidates getting more money from the people fighting the war or providing support for the war effort was surprising to us,” said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics.

However, the donations cannot be considered representative of military employees’ political preferences as a whole because the analysis does not include donations of less than $200, the point at which campaign finance law requires campaigns to disclose the name of a donor and contribution amount. Thus, individuals who give less than $200 aren’t counted.

“The picture could be completely different if you were able to look at smaller donors,” Ritsch said. “You’re looking at a tiny slice of the military who have enough disposable income to donate to a candidate.”

Overall, military donors still favor Republicans to Democrats, 62 percent to 38 percent, according to CRP. But Ritsch said at the beginning of the war, three-quarters of military donors favored GOP candidates.

And you can bet this won’t get much MSM coverage.

http://arstechnica.com/…

The US last week released its 2007 wiretapping stats, and they show that such surveillance is up a full 20 percent over the year before. The number of non-secret wiretaps is higher than it has ever been in the last decade, and not a single application was denied in all of 2007. If you’re concerned about privacy, though, the report makes clear that you’re statistically unlikely to be targeted unless you use a cell phone to run drugs. Murder might also earn you a wiretap, but apart from that, the authorities don’t seem to use wiretaps in all but unusual cases.

2,208 wiretaps were requested last year, up from 1,839 the year before, and the vast majority of them were run by state authorities; only 457 wiretaps were executed by the feds. No applications for wiretap were denied, but this is hardly uncommon. Since 1997, some 15,000 wiretaps have been made, but only four applications were rejected in that entire time.

When we look at the prevalence of wiretaps, two trends stand out. One is that taps are almost exclusively used on “portable devices,” including digital pagers and portable phones. In fact, 94 percent of all taps authorized last year were for such devices. The second trend is that most wiretaps are used in narcotics cases. 81 percent of all taps were for drug-related crime, with murder and assault coming in a distant second (6 percent).

Wiretaps apparently have something in common with shopping at bulk retailers; when you buy more items at once, the price goes down. The cost per intercept has been dropping since 2003, when it peaked at $62,164. In 2007, that number had fallen to $48,477 per investigation. While that still sounds pricey, the report notes that drug intercepts have often been used to make big busts. One set of 2007 wiretaps in Morris County, New Jersey led to the arrest of 105 people; another, in New York, scooped up 51 people, 48 of whom were later convicted. Another 57-day wiretap in California led to the seizure of 40 pounds of methamphetamine, four kilograms of cocaine, and $700,000 in cash.Of course, those are just regular warrants. The Justice Department also released information this week on secret warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These numbers are also rising, and have been going up since 2001; the increase is a dramatic one. In 2001, the Court approved only 1,012 applications, but approved 2,370 last year.

I’m glad the government is getting a better rate at which to waste our money on rights infringement. Is it likely that these larger drug busts got guys who were actually harming people? Yes, but those people should be arrested for that harm and not providing a drug to another individual in a completely consensual act. This war on drugs is a war on the public. It’s a negative sum game. A drug addiction is a personal problem, a family problem, a community problem. It’s a medical problem. It should be treated as such. In the least I’d like to see some consistency. Alcohol and tobacco are the precursor to far more harm then marijuana or LSD.

And as for the privacy invasion. Wasn’t all this FISA enhancement requested for terrorism? Why are we catching NY governors paying for sex and people selling goods?

This game gets better and better.

A couple months ago I received a U.S Census Bureau package in the mail asking for all kinds of info on those who live in my home. I cracked it open and looked at what they wanted to know, decided I wasn’t interested in telling them, and then threw it in the trash. A few weeks later I received the booklet again. I can’t recall if it gave me some warning about not sending them the first one but I tossed that one too.

Friday I get home from work to find a bright yellow postcard in my mail saying:
==========================================
From:
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Census Bureau
New York Regional Office
395 Hadson Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10014

NOTICE

Starting he first of this month, a federal employee will be visiting your house or apartment to complete a nation-wide survey that is designed to provide communities a fresh look at how they are changing.

To Schedule an appointment, please call the following Field Representative: Edward Marcus (201) 927-4763

==========================================

As you may suspect I’m not going to call this guy. The only problem is that I live in a house in which I rent the first floor and on the second
floor my landlady and her children live. If Edward decides to show up during the day my landlady may be home and answer the door and the
questions. If my roommates or I am home we’ll tell him to leave.

Title 13, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, Section 221 of the US Code says:

Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects… to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census… shall be fined not more than $100.

A CNN article from 2000 says that prison time is possible. And it looks like the 2010 census is having all kinds of issues.

We’ll see what happens.

Video MP3
This is a big sticking point for many libertarians. Like contract enforcement it seems to me to be inconsistent with general libertarian philosophy or at the least given a pass and not well explained.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Today, Cuba officially lifted its ban on the sale of computers to the general public. Some other prohibitions have also been scrapped in recent weeks: Cubans can now buy cell phones, stay in hotels previously reserved for tourists, and buy appliances like microwaves and TV sets.

Is this a sign of openness from Cuba’s geriatric regime? Not so.

A Cuban dissident I met in Havana last year sent me today an article he wrote about the real motive behind relaxing these bans. It has been reported in the state-controlled media that people purchasing these goods are later being investigated by the authorities who want to know the real sources of their income. As it’s widely known, the average Cuban salary is less than $20 a month, while the cost of most of these goods ranges in the hundreds of dollars. Many Cubans get their extra money from relatives in the United States, but many others run independent (and illicit) small businesses.

My friend tells the story of the first person to purchase an electric bicycle, which cost the equivalent of $1,070. This man had a small butter factory that apparently was very profitable, since he was selling the butter at a lower price than the government. After buying his electric bicycle, the authorities investigated him and discovered his factory. They proceeded to confiscate everything they found in his home, including the bike.

Let’s not forget that, after all, there is still a Castro brother running the show on the island. As my Cuban friend says about the so-called “reforms,” the fact that something is no longer prohibited doesn’t mean that you can do it.

I hadn’t thought about this though I should have. I’ve read about this being done in other authoritarian governments. It’s OK… there will be a black market that will likely provide these products without tipping off the officials and now that they are no longer prohibited it will be less risky to have them.

http://wcbstv.com/…

NEWARK, N.J. (CBS) - The sputtering economy has caused an increase in prices of many staples including gasoline, rice, ice cream, even beer. Now some lawmakers in New Jersey are considering taking food taxes a step further and install a proverbial “sin” tax on fast food.

Yes, the idea of marking up your favorite fast food burger or pack of fries is actually being tossed around, and it’s not settling well with many residents.

“They’re taxing everything. Now you’re gonna tax fast food? That’s crazy,” said Newark resident Miriam Robertson.

Added Livingston resident Tina Abrahamian: “No one wants to be taxed. I mean, it’s a necessity to eat and people need to eat and with everything skyrocketing, that’s the last thing we want to tax.”

The thought of taxing a Big Mac or a Wendy’s burger came up at a New Jersey Hospital Association meeting where Gov. Jon S. Corzine was asked if it could be an option to help fund struggling hospitals. At the meeting, he reportedly called it a “constructive suggestion.”

A spokesperson for the governor, however, told CBS 2 on Wednesday:

“The governor is open to reasonable solutions to help solve our financing problems, but there are no plans for any fast food tax.”

State Sen. Richard Codey has been quoted as saying a tax on fast food “is a tax on the poor.” And plenty of residents agree.

“[It cost] $12.86 for [fries] and this little chicken wrap, and they want to tax that? You’re serious?” asked Newark resident Saladine Fuller. “If they raise it, I’ll stop buying it.”

Still, some say taxing fast food isn’t such a bad idea.

“I think this country has gone too much in the direction of fast and unhealthy food, and if people are taxed they may terminate that and turn toward more healthy foods,” said West Orange resident Maureen Felix.

For now, the fast food tax is just an idea. Detroit lawmakers once toyed with it, but it never passed into law.

Mental note… Maureen Felix of West Orange is an authoritarian.

This is so very retarded. Fast food is not cheap. It’s just easy. But so is the Qwiki Mart and Starbucks and DD. Will they tax that too? How about a progressive tax on the density of energy. That way we all are incentivized to eat cardboard and celery. They are simply looking for money and since fast food has been demonized its an easy target. If they need money why not they use some of it from their monopoly gambling ring or layoff some of those make work bureaucrats they have? Why not just stop fucking around and let the market decide where the money should flow? If a hospital is failing it should be left to fail. It’s a failed program and needs to be replaced.