February 20 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 20, 2007

  • Trucker-friendly Arizona legislature declines to ban naked lady mudflaps [NBC4.com; Houstonist]
  • Crumb of approbation dept.: I’m “[not] as unreasonable as most of the tort-reform crowd” [Petit]
  • Sponsors of large banquets in D.C. must pay to have a paramedic on hand even when the banquet crowd consists of doctors [ShopFloor]
  • Homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover homewrecking: umbrella policy doesn’t create duty to defend lawsuit claiming the insured broke up someone’s marriage (Pins v. State Farm (PDF), S. Dak., Mayerson via Elefant)
  • New York mag on RFK Jr.: Is there some law saying all press profiles of America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure® must be weirdly softball in nature and glide over his embarrassing book and rants, his Osama-pig farm lunacy, his anti-vaccine humbug, his trial-lawyer entanglements and even the wind farm flap?
  • Australia court rules Muslim prison inmate suffered discrimination and deserves money for being served canned halal meat rather than fresh [The Australian]
  • High medical costs and their causes: am I listening? [Coyote]
  • Economists may puzzle their heads over the ultimate incidence of business taxes, but in Wisconsin it’s whatever Gov. Jim Doyle says it is [Krumm via Taranto]
  • Feds may punish Red Sox pitcher Matsuzaka for doing a beer ad in Japan, where it’s perfectly legal for athletes to appear in such [To The People]
  • Guns in company parking lots: still one of the rare issues where the ABA manages to be righter than the NRA [AP/CBSNews.com; see Apr. 6, 2006]
  • Thanks, NYC taxpayers: Brooklyn jury awards $16 million against city in case where drugged-up motorist jumped sidewalk and ran over pedestrians, later blaming the accident on a city sanitation truck [seven years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 5 comments }

1 Peter Nordberg 02.19.07 at 11:07 pm

Petit’s right. You’re really not.

2 Amsterdamsky 02.20.07 at 1:27 am

On the naked (how do you know she is naked?) lady mudflaps: “a Democrat who supported the ban. The amendment was rejected 31-19 in the Arizona House ” 19 voted for it?

The funny thing is they are starting to appear in Europe although mainly on smaller private vans and trucks.

3 nevins 02.20.07 at 2:10 pm

For the muslim who was upset that he suffered from his dietary restriction: I thought the purpose of a dietary restriction was to create an inequitable diet. A catholic wishing to not eat meat (non-fish meat anyway) is free to observe this dietary restriction any friday in prison he wishes. His observance of a self imposed restriction in no way imposes requirements upon his hosts. If the muslim does not care for the manner in which his meat was prepared (assuming that it meets secular standards for wholesomness, dietary balance, and adequate caloric intake) then he may eschew it. His right to a particular style of preparation is no greater than mine (medium rare, crushed black pepper and blue cheese sause please.)

4 jumanji 02.20.07 at 2:18 pm

“Tempe Democrat Ed Ableser sponsored the amendment. He said he’d seen a splash guard that used a derogatory term for black children…”

Can someone help me out here? I’ve heard several derogotory terms for blacks, but cannot recall any particular term for black children.

5 markm 02.21.07 at 1:10 pm

jumanji: “pickaninnies”

Comments on this entry are closed.