Reason Magazine - Staff

Much Ado About Shopping

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:40:00 EDT

Speed for Sale

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:38:00 EDT

French President Nicolas Sarkozy came to power in May promising “market-based reforms.” Several months later, at least one French market has taken off: the trade in speeding penalties.

A clean French driving license starts with 12 points. Those points can be lost for various driving offenses until, at zero, drivers get a six-month suspension and are required to retake the driving test. Increasingly harsh enforcement of road laws has led to the growth of a black market in license points, which sell on ebay.fr for between $137 and $1,645 each. Those who don’t drive much, or who rarely speed, sell their points to those whose jobs or needs depend on their car; the seller just sends in her name and license number in place of the buyer’s when a ticket is issued.

Participants in the black market have standards, though. One seller told Le Parisien he doesn’t sell his points to just anyone: “I always ask to see a photo of the ticket. I would never sell my points to road hogs.”

The practice began in Spain, but it spread to France after a surge in crackdowns on speeding that started in 2003, while Sarkozy was minister of the interior. Jean Philippe Coin, a motoring lawyer in Paris, says the sheer weight of numbers leaves the government helpless: “There is no checking. There is no control.” He claims that, with the number of penalties imposed rising dramatically—80,000 licenses were confiscated last year, and 200,000 are expected to be revoked this year—the authorities are simply unable to keep up, so the black market takes over.

Fat Pride World Wide

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:52:00 EDT

According to fat pride activist Marilyn Waan, the American medical establishment has lost its head over the nationwide "obesity epidemic," and its prejudice is claiming victims. In one case, Waan says, a doctor told a fat woman complaining of shooting lights in her vision that the problem must be her weight. Her next doctor discovered a brain tumor.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with healthcare consortium Kaiser Permanente have found a great new way to fight childhood obesity: the Amazing Food Detective. The computer game, released last week, features ten "case files" of unhealthy children—click on each prisoner-style mug shot and you proceed to help a fat child make a healthy choice. The solution to chubby 12-year-old Emily's dilemma is to install a security camera to catch and stop her eating at home (After all, "Those large portions were quite suspicious!"); little Cole has to learn that he can only eat raw carrots and bananas because, "Healthy snacks are the way to go!" And the game comes complete with a time-out after 20 minutes: "You should take a break and do something active, like 100 pushups!" Gee whiz-that sounds fun!

And medical professionals are on the same bandwagon. "Our doctors have the same superstitions that everyone else has," Waan says. "They act on them in ways that are not scientific." It's not difficult to find serious grievances from fat patients. On one recently started blog, First, Do No Harm, a woman with Cushing's Syndrome, a muscle-wasting disease that turns muscle to fat, says she was told that she just needed to go on a diet.

In response, fat people are mobilizing. The "fat pride" or "fat acceptance" movement might provoke the scorn of skinnies, but it is growing in number and makes a compelling case. Much of the organizing takes place online, where fat people shares stories of abuse, gripe about prejudicial scientific studies and debate the finer points of weight discrimination. Some groups, like one started by Waan often delve directly into activism, with members urging one another to write complaints about discriminatory food advertisements or boycott insensitive organizations. Other groups are simply about offering mutual support. SeaFATtle, a group started by activist Mary McGhee, began simply as a way for fat women to swim together without fear of catcalls.

Admittedly, agitating through a fat women's swimming club might not be the best way to attract serious attention. But the claims fat pride puts forward aren't so unreasonable: The movement holds that the nation's "public health crisis" isn't really about health at all. It's about bad science and intolerance.

Listen to any public health official and you'd think obesity was a scientific slam dunk, but studies on the exact causes and effects of weight gain are highly ambiguous. One study of 25,000 men by The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, for example, found that a fit fatso is actually healthier than a sedentary skinny: over an eight year period even those technically classified as "obese" (a BMI of over 30) were less likely to die from heart attacks, strokes and cancer than inactive people of normal weight. And many of the studies released as "proof" of America's impending death by gristle fail to take into account confounding variables, like yo-yo dieting, a sedentary lifestyle and fat distribution on the body.

But even if the science were sound, public officials and anti-fat crusaders still confuse bad health with moral depravity. Paul Campos, a law professor at Colorado University and author of The Obesity Myth, claims that this "moral panic" sticks because it finds an "ideological resonance." On the right it appeals to an ascetic attitude; on the left it taps into anxieties about capitalist over-consumption and manipulative force-feeding by corporations.

Unfortunately, the "obesity crisis" has real victims. At 500 pounds, Gary Sticklaufer was judged too fat to make a good adoptive father to his own cousin—despite having adopted and raised several other children without problems. His cousin was forcibly taken from his care. Meanwhile, fat women are regularly told by their doctors that to become pregnant would be irresponsible, despite a lack of medical evidence demonstrating a higher risk for overweight women. And in the UK it's now commonplace to raise concerns over fat children with a view to placing them in foster care. In short, cutting a slim figure is now a moral imperative for responsible parenting, and those who refuse the "cure" to this aesthetic "disease" are summarily punished.

The anti-obesity campaign is waging war against the very people it purports to help and, in doing so, undermines the very medical authorities it relies on to perpetuate the crisis. Fat people are tired of being patronized by politicians, mistreated by doctors and barraged by crises and "cures." Many, like Big Fat Blog writer Paul Macaleer have simply concluded that, "A lot of people don't like fat people." And hard as it may be to accept, many fat people don't want to be "helped" by quack dieticians, misguided doctors, and opportunist politicians. Most, in fact, just want to be left alone.

Juliet Samuel was reason's 2007 Burton Gray memorial intern.

Much Ado About Shopping

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:40:00 EDT

Last year, a group of conservatives in Saudi Arabia filed a lawsuit against a book they declared to be "an outrage to the norms of Saudi society." The book was too controversial to be published in Arabia itself, but pirated copies were smuggled over the border from Lebanon or sold for hundreds of dollars online. The book's author received death threats and a petition circulated to strip her of her state scholarship to study in Chicago.

It's probably not a situation you'd associate with Bridget Jones, but the book in question is self-proclaimed "chick lit"—albeit with a very political bent. Rajaa Alsanea's first novel, Girls of Riyadh, was only released this month in English, but its 2005 debut in the Middle East sparked both a storm of controversy and a flurry of new literature in Arabia. For months after its publication, conservative Muslims condemned the novel as contravening Shariah law, calling for a government crackdown on its distribution. But the book's popularity continued to spread, even while some critics tried to dismiss its success as a product of Alsanea's feminine wiles: "Rajaa has the looks, and so even when the product, i.e. the novel, is bad it sells and is selling like hot cakes," one disgruntled man told Arab News.

Alsanea's looks don't explain the flurry of debate, news and editorializing it has provoked (reportedly over 250 articles): The Iranian organization Homan claimed that "al-Sanie's frank and sometimes shocking insight into the closed world of Saudi women is making waves," while London's Independent newspaper called it "revealing, hilarious and chilling in turn." It has even become the subject of litmus-test questions in job interviews, and Alsanea herself received a supportive call from the Saudi royal family.

Much ado about a book on the love lives, sex and shopping habits of four rich Saudi girls. A modern epistolary novel, it's written as a series of emails sent to a Yahoo! group list serve by a mysterious, lipstick-wearing Saudi woman. In another world, it would be a trivial lip gloss narrative of life as a desirable young woman in Riyadh. But such a story can't avoid being political—and it turns out that chick lit is a convenient vantage point from which to critique Saudi society. Alsanea explores Saudi values in all their mundane invasiveness; this is a world where possessing The Nutty Professor on DVD is a political act, inviting social disgrace. And beyond the picayune restrictions lies blatant hypocrisy: the Saudi elites enforce dressing conventions at home and happily change into chic Western attire on the plane out of Riyadh.

Details form the basis of Alsanea's careful criticism: In an atmosphere where every action is politicized, and where convention always trumps personal preference, human relations are reduced to envy and power play-which makes chick lit the ideal genre in which to discuss such problems. A friend's wedding is not just a celebration, but a political battleground. While one character, Sadeem, garners praise for her help in planning the party (a suitable wifely quality), the more liberal Michelle draws "sharp looks" for refusing to cover up when the men enter. In short, this feminine world is a one straight out of Mean Girls-backbiting gossip, jealousy and personal politics-only the stakes in Riyadh are higher. It's not a question of high school popularity, but marriage and lifelong prosperity. Yet the basic tools-handbags and husbands-are the same.

The prose stays mostly light, even gratingly so at times. Hushed-up nose jobs in Lebanon, makeup tips, modest robes tailored to show off curves and designer-label hijabs are all part of the bitchy game that decides a girl's future. And even once the thumbprint is on the marriage contract (women aren't allowed to sign), the woes aren't over: How long, for example, is it appropriate to make one's husband wait for sex? One night after the wedding? Seven? Which unspoken code of behavior might be governing his actions, and will he punish you if you're wrong? Navigating this maze of requirements could mean the different between divorce—and thereafter possible confinement to the house—and a tolerable lifestyle.

It's hardly surprising, then, that courtship often manifests as a materialist status race. Alsanea expects a lot of her guys: money, height, prestige, culture, Barry Manilow-singing teddy bears, diamonds on Valentines Day, affectionate notes stuck on the fridge, and so on. And from the weak-minded puppets of familial authority, to abusive cheaters and pathologically suspicious control-freaks, the guys always disappoint. Flirting, officially forbidden, struggles through a variety of tortured avenues-instant messaging, "numbering" girls through tinted windows (that is, publicly displaying one's cell number in the hopes of getting a call), and the occasional covert café meet-up.

Despite her criticisms, Alsanea is cautious, which is probably why her book has received much support as well as censure. None of the book's main characters ever truly defy their families; most instead find livable compromises. And Alsanea is a moderate when it comes to method; she says that change is unachievable without a degree of respect for tradition: "There are a lot of people who want change in Saudi Arabia but they're not succeeding," she told Newsweek, "because they're not going through the right channels, or they're not doing it gradually. They're just screaming, ‘We went this change and we want it now.'"

In that sense, Girls of Riyadh can seem disappointingly un-revolutionary. But it's a useful exposé of a social malaise—a community stranglehold so tight that it poisons individual relations and imbues personal decisions with intense social meaning. Which, to any Clueless fans, ("Why should I listen to you, anyway? You're a virgin who can't drive") makes chick lit a fitting place to start the discussion.

Juliet Samuel is reason's 2007 Burton Gray memorial intern.

My T-Shirt Went to Peterborough and All I Got Was an Â£80 Fine

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:18:00 EDT

The BBC’s “WHO, WHAT, WHY?” magazine section brings us the story of Mr. Pratt, of Peterborough, England, fined for his "offensive" t-shirt:

He thought it was a bit of a laugh, but Peterborough City Council failed to see the funny side of David Pratt's T-shirt. He has been threatened with a £80 penalty notice after wearing a top with the slogan: "Don't piss me off! I am running out of places to hide the bodies.” After an official complaint was made to the council, street wardens told Mr Pratt his T-shirt could cause offence or incite violence. He faces an on-the-spot fine from the police if he wears it again.

And he’s not the only one. The article goes on to list a bunch of objects that were censored by police, mostly after complaints by nosy members of the public: A toddler’s t-shirt with the word “sperm” on it; a pub sign featuring the word “faggot;” and an fcuk (French Connection U.K.) t-shirt picturing a copulating couple:

Using threatening, abusive, or insulting language is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, even if it's printed on a T-shirt. This applies in England and Wales, in Scotland such an incident would be classed as breach of the peace, says the Law Society of Scotland.
It is not necessary for someone to have made an official complaint for the police to act, they just have to think it might offend a hypothetical third party, says criminal solicitor Louise Christian.

Every Little Bit Helps... Right?

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:09:00 EDT

Conscientious greens fix their sights on plastic water bottles:

In the last few months, bottled water — generally considered a benign, even beneficial, product — has been increasingly portrayed as an environmental villain by city leaders, activist groups and the media. The argument centers not on water, but oil. It takes 1.5 million barrels a year just to make the plastic water bottles Americans use, according to the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, plus countless barrels to transport it from as far as Fiji and refrigerate it. ...
Dave Byers, 65, from Silver Spring, Md., discussed the issue with his wife, Pat, on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art on a 90-degree Saturday. “I think it should be banned, actually,” he said of bottled water.

The US currently uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. First we’re going to ban plastic bags, slicing away a giant 0.16% of that consumption. Now, bring on the plastic bottle ban, slashing a full 0.02% from the oil guzzling. Take that, global warming!

A Glass By Any Other Name...

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:34:00 EDT

Rising demand in India and China has sparked fears that the world could experience a drastic champagne shortage in the near future. Some say hoarding vineyard owners are to blame (the damn kulaks!)—they currently keep back about 100 million bottles for their retirement funds. But evidence points to a more likely culprit: the French government. In order to plant more champagne grapes, vineyards have to obtain authorization, which can take 10 years.

Global sales have risen from 287 million bottles in 2002 to 321 million in 2006. They are likely to reach 330 million this year, with exports to Russia growing by 39 percent, to China by 50 percent and to India by 125 percent. But only 32,600 hectares of vineyards are authorised to produce the black grapes for champagne.
Experts say that the maximum number of bottles to be wrung out of the land is 350 million – and many even doubt whether this can be attained. They say that the region’s grapes are already being pushed to the limit as owners await official approval to plant more vines in 2017.

Of course, one solution is to just buy the same product with a different name. Since 1990, an E.U. law has forbidden any wine producer not from the Champagne region in France from using the name for their goods (and it tries hard to insist its trading partners abide by the rule). After all, if consumers can’t be trusted to tell French champagne from trashy foreign stuff, they obviously need the government to help them. Perhaps what we’re really facing is a semantics shortage.

Ignoring the Victim

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:39:00 EDT

More on unintended consequences in the NYT: it turns out that state mandatory arrest laws—whereby a police officer turning up to the scene of domestic violence must arrest someone—discourage victims from reporting crimes. States with mandatory arrest laws on average have intimate partner murder rates 50% higher than states without them:

The mandatory arrest laws were intended to impose a cost on abusers. But because of psychological, emotional and financial ties that often keep victims loyal to their abusers, the cost of arrest is easily transferred from abusers to victims. Victims want protection, but they do not always want to see their partners put behind bars.
In some cases, victims may favor an arrest, but fear that their abusers will be quickly released. And many victims may avoid calling the police for fear that they, too, will be arrested for physically defending themselves. The possibility of such “dual arrests” is most worrisome for victims who have children at home.

The problem with a law like this is that it regards all individual victims of domestic violence as a collective underclass that needs to be forcibly “saved” in any way the state deems fit. Undoubtedly resources and information should be available to victims, but blanket rules like this treat them as voiceless prey rather than human beings with their own priorities and knowledge of the situation. Any law that fails to take the victim’s wishes into account when dealing with a risk that affects them is bound to run into problems.

Via IWF blog Inkwell.

The Milk Club

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:30:00 EDT

The NYT wrote yesterday of a rising trend of illegal substance use, outlawed by the FDA for twenty years, but used by half a million people in the U.S. The product is raw milk—straight from the udder, just as the cow intended. Currently, most milk in the U.S. is pasteurized, which involves heating it to temperatures at which nasty bacteria (E. coli, salmonella, etc) break down, then cooling it down again and bottling it up. According to raw milk drinkers, the process gets rid of its “rich” taste and beneficial bacteria. But it’s often the only legal way to buy and sell milk:

While its sale for human consumption is illegal in 15 states, New York is one of 26 where it can be bought with restrictions. The chief one is that raw milk can only be sold on the premises of one of 19 dairy farms approved by the state. Clandestine milk clubs, like the one Mr. Milgrom-Elcott joined, are one way of circumventing the law, and there are others.

And the market is growing:

In 2000, the Organic Pastures Dairy Company in the San Joaquin Valley near Fresno became California’s first raw milk dairy with certified organic pasture land. This year its co-founder, Mark McAfee, expects it to gross $6 million — up from $4.9 last year.

It's legal within California, but the only way to ship it across states lines without inciting the FDA’s wrath is to label it as pet food. Admittedly, despite its “natural” appeal, raw milk might not be perfectly healthy (“In 1938, for example, milk caused 25 percent of all outbreaks of food- and water-related sickness”), but it’s hardly the FDA's place to snatch bottles of milk from the hands of full-grown adults.

FBI Takes "A Small Step Toward Sanity"

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:26:00 EDT

The FBI’s personnel shortage has led to a relaxation in its drug rules. Previous rules stipulated that prospective employees must have smoked dope no more than 15 times (15 being the magic number beyond which signifies a drug problem), and done other drugs no more than 5 times in the past in order to be eligible. In classic FBI fashion, these rules were being enforced to the letter, which caused problems when responsible adults failed polygraph tests on the grounds of being unable to remember if they got high 15 or 16 times in college.

But it was the CIA pinching their applicants that was the final straw:

"One of the things we came to realize was that our drug policy was largely out of step with the rest of the intelligence community and much of the law enforcement community," said Jeffrey J. Berkin, deputy assistant director of the FBI's security division, which implemented the new guidelines. "We're going to focus less on a hard number and more on a whole-person approach... The new policy just allows us a little more flexibility than the old policy."

The new rules merely require applicants to have avoided cannabis in the last three years and everything else in the last ten, which is a marginally more sensible policy than the previous one:

Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates looser restrictions on marijuana use, called the policy change "a small step towards sanity" by the FBI.
"What it really does reflect is a reality that lots and lots of people in this society have used marijuana—some of them have used it a fair amount -- and have gone on to become capable and effective citizens," Mirken said. "Are we really going to stop all those folks from serving our country?"

It's Called Doublespeak, Bitch

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:45:00 EDT

The New York City Council, which brought us such futilities as a moratorium on the word “nigger” (no matter who says it or in what context), continues its battle against free speech. In an effort to promote civility and general niceness, the words “bitch” and “ho” will reportedly soon join the "n-word" on a list of Words That Shall Not Be Named. The legislation (as well as the sensitive NYT) delicately refers to the offending noun as “The B Word,” and seems rather unnecessarily focused on rap music:

The measure, which 19 of the 51 council members have signed onto, was prompted in part by the frequent use of the word in hip-hop music. Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”
While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.

Cast your mind back to December 2006 when Katherine Mangu-Ward listed all the things the New York City Council tried to ban that year.

More Money Than Sense

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:46:00 EDT

In the civilized world’s latest sordid military venture, the Australian military has revealed plans to forcibly sterilize and displace thousands of innocent kangaroos. The army originally planned to just shoot the beasts, whose grazing has eroded military bases and endangered other animals, until public uproar prompted a rethink. The new thinking: the best use of taxpayer resources would be to simply move the animals.

The kangaroos would be herded into a padded pen and sedated, then shot with a paintball gun to mark them as ready for transport. They would be released in a fenced area covered with shadecloth, the report by the Wildcare protection group for the Defence Department said.
At A$3,600 a head, the cost of moving each animal is more than a standard economy class return air ticket from Sydney to London on Qantas, the national carrier which features a kangaroo on its tail.

Those Troublesome "Rights" Things

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:22:00 EDT

A recent high-profile case in Australia has undermined public confidence in its terror laws. Mohammed Haneef, an Indian doctor, was arrested and detained by police for 12 days under immigration laws despite an initial court order to let him go:

"This is a cynical exercise of power, a slap in the face to the judiciary and a dangerous precedent," was how Stephen Estcourt, the President of the Australian Bar Association, put it to BBC News, making little attempt to conceal his disgust.

Perversely, the case could lead to a strengthening of police powers. The cops found themselves most inconvenienced by the need to cart Haneef to court every few days for permission to keep him locked up, so they're looking to avoid the hassle in future:

This legal to-ing and fro-ing, claims Clive Williams, a counter-terrorism expert at Macquarie University, has actually undermined public confidence in the anti-terror laws.
"Every time they went to court, there was all this publicity, and that put enormous pressure on the police. In Britain it's much easier, when suspects just disappear into Paddington Green [police station in London]. The Australian system is a real pig's ear."

Williams wants the police to have more powers—namely the same 28-day power of detention that British bobbies have. That way, it will be easier for the government to avoid dealing with the damnable free press.

The Latest Peril for Kids: Lack of TV

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:11:00 EDT

Efforts to protect innocent children in the U.K. from dangerous ads for high-sugar/fat foods have led to a drastic drop in the amount of funding available for high-quality kids’ TV. Funding for kids’ programs has fallen by £30 million ($61 million) since a ban made it illegal to advertise "unhealthy" food to children:

ITV responded [to the ban] by scrapping new commissions and long-running hits, including My Parents Are Aliens. Drama repeats have replaced children’s programmes on ITV1 at teatime as the channel competes for ratings with [the more trashy] Channel 4.

Children now have to suffer through endless re-runs of Australian soaps and sappy dramas--thus avoiding the perils of junk food ads, but only at the cost of their "cognitive, linguistic, emotional and social development." So the government doesn't mind dimwit kids, as long as they're not fat.

The answer, of course, is legislation. Presenters of children’s TV programs, and other such experts, want regulation to make sure broadcasters keep a minimum amount of kids’ TV around. And some subsidies thrown in for fun.

If You Try to Sit, I'll Ban your Seat; If You Get Too Cold, I'll Ban the Heat

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:04:00 EDT

This month, in the U.K., a national smoking ban came into effect. Smokers all over the country vacated comfortable, warm armchairs in pubs and restaurants and retired to picnic tables, beer gardens, and terraces.

But while paternalists celebrated a triumph for public health, environmentalists mourned a tragedy for the Earth. As it turns out, when smoking is not allowed in heated, enclosed areas, businesses invest in heating the great outdoors for their puffing patrons. Gas-guzzling patio heater use is predicted to double in the UK, increasing CO2 emissions (perhaps by 20,000 tons a year just for London) and breeding mosquitoes.

Patio heaters can use as much gas in six months as the average U.K. stove does in a year. They’re therefore fairly expensive to run. But the smoking ban has made outdoor heating more profitable than ever before, particularly since only some venues can afford them or have any outdoor space. The heaters become a draw for smokers and their friends.

Both London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Norman Baker, a U.K. Liberal Democrat Party MP, have spoken out against patio heaters. Baker claims that "patio heaters are an absurd invention. It is ludicrous that people are trying to heat the open air, as well as being irresponsible in the light of the climate change challenge we face.” He says that instead of relying on such ridiculous modern technology, people should just put on more clothes if they’re cold.

And if they refuse to wrap up, the only solution is another ban--this time on patio heaters.

Plastic Bag Panic Grips the Nation

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:08:00 EDT

Boston, Portland, Santa Cruz, Oakland, Annapolis, Baltimore, New Haven—all are currently considering some form of plastic-bag ban, most of them total bans, on the grounds of environmental harm. The bans would cajole all stores to give up the convenience of 2-cent, water-resistant, cheaply recyclable plastic in favor of 5-cent, soggy, handle-less, expensively recyclable paper.

The initiative follows from San Francisco’s ban on plastic for all supermarkets and big-chain pharmacies (the ban currently exempts all small, independent retailers and thus passes on costs mostly to the poorest consumers). Apparently, plastic bags are an environmental nuisance because people insist on throwing them into the sea, where they kill fish and other marine life. And they won’t rot away for a millennium.

The anti-plastic movement has also inspired a fashion craze: ugly hemp bags (greener than plastic AND paper!). Most recently the fad saw hordes of “light greens” lining up around the block at Whole Foods to buy $15 designer bags emblazoned with the statement, “I’m NOT a plastic bag”:

The greatest irony of the morning was as a result of the ongoing torrential rain. Upon leaving the store, after hours in the downpour, proud owners placed their prized new bags into Whole Foods plastic bags to keep them dry.

Enter the Progressive Bag Alliance, an organization of three plastic bag manufacturers founded to promote responsible plastic bag use (that is, in favor of no plastic bag use). The Alliance claims that the anti-plastic movement has ignored some important facts about the beloved paper they will require stores to supply. So they've started selling their own rival to the hemp craze on eBay: "I AM a plastic bag and I'm 100% recyclable":

Myth: Paper grocery bags are a better environmental choice than plastic bags.
Fact: Plastic bags use 40% less energy to produce and generate 70% less emissions & 80% less solid waste than paper. (U.S. EPA website, www.epa.gov/region1/communities/shopbags.html)
Myth: Plastic grocery bags take 1,000 years to decompose in landfills.
Fact: Today’s landfills are designed to prevent decomposition of anything. Chances are your orange peel, milk carton and even last year’s newspaper won’t breakdown. Research by William Rathje, who runs the Garbage Project, has shown that when excavated from a landfill, newspapers from the 1960s can be intact and readable.

What Every Sensible Driver Needs: Speeding Insurance

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:13:00 EDT

Following on from the latest French craze of trading speeding penalties, the Danes have invented a whole new business designed to take the pressure off drivers who like to go fast (or are just careless): speeding insurance.

Drivers pay 2.5 Danish crowns (46 cents) per day. In return they get annual coverage of up to $1855 for four speeding and four parking tickets. And again, it’s a case of drivers uniting against the state:

The idea, [insurance company] Fartklubben founder Poul Winther told Danish daily Politiken, is not to give Danes license to put the pedal to the metal, but rather to protect motorists from over-zealous traffic cops.
"We're a solidarity club where each member is jointly liable for one another," he said. "We believe that photo speed traps and parking companies have become pure money machines."

The government could respond by lowering incentives to use such insurance, i.e. reducing penalties for speeding or getting control of its traffic cops. More likely, they'll go for Option 2: make speeding insurance illegal.

Don't Pick on the Drivers

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:36:00 EDT

If there’s one thing that gets people really angry, it’s governments picking on drivers. But that hasn’t stopped Virginia from introducing astronomical fines for speeding—some as high as $2500.

The injustice has spurred the masses to action, and congressmen all over the state are getting earfuls from furious constituents threatening to vote them out unless they repeal the fines. Drivers are particularly angry since the rise in fines is a simple money-raising matter.

“Criminal and civil penalties shouldn’t be created for raising money,” Mr. Marshall said, adding that constituents had stopped him on the street and even in the post office and called his office to voice frustration with the new fines. “You don’t want to turn our police into gun-toting tax collectors. They’re supposed to be officers of the peace, nothing else.” ...
Clay Morad, a driver in Arlington who signed the petition [against the fines], said: “There are other ways to get these road projects done. I’d be more than willing to pay an extra dollar per year in taxes to avoid having to worry about getting a $2,500 fine for going above the speed limit.”

The petition is probably one of the best recent examples of mass action against the state, which says it only introduced the fines because raising taxes was too politically difficult. Maybe they should take a hint.

A couple of weeks ago, Radley Balko looked at the dubious delegate behind the fines.

Feeling the Angst? A Year in Jail Should Help.

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:21:00 EDT

Several years ago a young Turkish rock band released a song railing against the unfairness of the country’s national standardized test for university entrance. “Life should not be a prison because of an exam,” they sang, “I have gotten lost; you have ruined my future; I am going to tell you one thing: Shove that exam...”

This week they are standing trial for “insulting Turkishness,” with the possibility of an 18 month jail sentence if convicted. That seems unlikely, however:

There's been little public discussion about the wisdom of prosecuting the punk band. Turkish prosecutors routinely file defamation complaints, creating a glut of cases, some of which never go to trial.

So the whole case is a tiresome and wasteful use of government resources—if Turkey keeps it up, its prospects for EU membership look better than ever. (via Shoutmouth)

If It Moves, Register It!

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:14:00 EDT

There is growing concern in India over increasingly high abortion rates for female fetuses. Supposedly, having a boy assures parents of an income source in their dotage and spares them the financial burden of a dowry. The result: Many families who can afford it get illegal sex tests done and then have a fetus of the “wrong” sex quietly aborted. Abortions are only allowed in “special circumstances” (e.g. rape, incest etc.) in India, but that doesn’t stop one in every 25 females being aborted, according to one study.

The government has come up with a foolproof solution: Have every woman register her pregnancy with the government so they’ll know about any illegal abortions. Unfortunately, it’s yet to explain how it will enforce the plan, nor what incentives women could possibly have for registering (via Feministing):

Some activists said the government's plan to create a pregnancy register in a country of 1.1 billion people--where more than 50 percent of women deliver children at home without medical assistance--was unrealistic.
"We cannot give elementary health services in a satisfactory way to most of our citizens, and to talk about registering pregnancies is ridiculous," said Alok Mukhopadhyay, head of the Voluntary Health Association of India.

What is it with the recent fad in baby-registering?

Kerry Howley blogged the deficit in German baby production last year.

Easter Island Fights Prosperity

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:00 EDT

“My people are changing due to development,” explains Pedro Edmunds, the democratically elected mayor of Chile’s Easter Island. “The people are getting more and more individual-thinking—and it’s not good.”

Edmunds has presided over the Island, known locally as Rapa Nui, for 15 years, and his proclamations about ‘his people’ have the air of a tin-pot dictator growing increasingly detached. The Island, totaling just 63 square miles, lies 2,200 miles west of Chile in the middle of Pacific Ocean, but modern technology has dispensed with its former isolation, and Edmunds is concerned. “There’s something we need to keep, to protect—that is, the magic of this island… the people being lovable and friendly,” he told me, leaning back under a painting of a mighty Rapa Nui tribesman. “I grew up on an island where selfishness didn’t exist.”

This would-be kinglet boasts that he can trace his own ancestry back to one of the centuries-old stone heads, or moai, on the island, and he’s determined that any changes to come will happen only under the auspices of “a master plan.” Asked if he thinks such a plan can possibly please everyone, he laughs: “My dear, we can never satisfy people.”

Yet change, unplanned and unregulated, has come to Easter Island. Tourism has skyrocketed over the last decade, and an island of 3,800 inhabitants now hosts 50,000 visitors a year. Souvenir shops, tour companies, and guesthouses have popped up, and where there were two taxis ten years ago, there are now 150. The Island’s only town, Hanga Roa, has been transformed.

Edmunds is not alone in his nostalgia for economic isolation. Francisco Hochstetter, Director of the local Archeological Museum, feels that tourism and an influx of Chilean immigrants have left Rapa Nui’s culture less “authentic” than it was decades back. “They are confusing [the culture],” he says of Rapa Nui’s younger inhabitants.

Outsiders too are troubled by development on Rapa Nui. Last year, when local businessman Petero Riraroko announced a plan to build a casino on the Island, The New York Times called the plan the “latest in a long series of calamities”—thus equating the casino with the slave trade and various epidemics that cut the Island’s population down to only 111 people in 1877. Longwinded travelogues, like one published in The Condé Nast Traveler, exoticize the Island and its inhabitants as an “archaeological trove, object lesson in eco-disaster, remoteness incarnate.” The Boston Globe worries that Rapa Nui’s language is being lost as the Island modernizes.

But all this hand-wringing mistakes culture for some kind of communal public good to be molded and preserved for later use. The people of Rapa Nui seem to have chosen a different future: Every day, contra to Edmunds’ apparent desires, they select engagement and profit over tradition. Young people I spoke to on the Island grow restless with its isolation, welcome tourist cash and relish their growing communication with different societies.

As outsiders fret about their cultural heritage, Easter Islanders are opening guest houses and tourism centers. Hanga Roa now offers visitors horse-riding, scuba diving, jeep and bike rentals, souvenirs and a range of restaurants and guesthouses. And with the expansion of The Explora luxury hotel chain onto the Island, and substantial refurbishments in the Hanga Roa Hotel, businesses are looking to attract guests with more spending power than the cheapskate backpacking crowd. Hucke Gerardo Radolfo, who mans a fruit stall in the local market, puts it simply: “Tourists are good for the Island because they bring cash.”

More than New York Times editorializing stands between Rapa Nui’s people and economic success. Riraroko, the businessman who tried to bring a casino to the island, was thwarted by Chilean gambling regulation. Yet even before the plan was rejected, a counter-casino movement was being roused by globalization skeptics, who didn’t want to hear about its potential benefits for islanders. Riraroko says the project would have created 500 jobs and $2 million in tax revenue for Chile, which already allocates that amount to the Island annually. “So the Island lost $2 million,” he concludes, with a shrug.

Paradoxically, the island needs this kind of money to protect its culture and invest in its future. Rapa Nui’s tourism industry relies entirely on the allure of the hundreds of maoi that dot the Island, relics of an ancient tribal culture. The moai are currently owned by Chile, and administrated by the Chilean National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), but CONAF’s local Acting Provincial Chief, Ignacio Espina, claims that he simply does not have enough government money or manpower to look after the sites. The very heritage sites some say are threatened by development need upkeep, and upkeep costs money.

As Rapa Nui develops, Mayor Edmunds is likely to grow even more dissatisfied with the island’s forward tilt. But if Rapa Nui’s entrepreneurs are permitted to trade and engage, they’re sure to reject his “master plan”—and they may even find the cash to save a bit of the culture Edmunds is nostalgic for.

Juliet Samuel is the 2007 Burton Gray memorial intern for reason.

Discuss this article online.

New Markets in Speed

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:39:00 EDT

Sarko might not yet have transformed the French economy, but in one area at least, he has created a market where there was none before: driver’s license points.

As in many European countries, French drivers start with a total of 12 license points, which they lose for various driving offenses. Getting to zero means an automatic six-month driving ban. During Sarko’s reign as Minister of the Interior, he introduced 1,000 more speed cameras across France in a frenzied law and order “crackdown." There are particularly harsh punishments even for mild speeding (under 20kph over the limit)-- two points a pop.

But the crackdown has rather misfired: Drivers now see the penalties as universally unfair, and have started a market in license points. Those still with relatively clean records (close to 12 points) sell their points online for 300-1500 euros each to drivers in danger of a suspension. The seller then sends in her license number and name in place of the guilty party, and takes the rap. And the sheer number of cases makes it impossible to check who’s who:

Officials acknowledge that the state is swamped with the administration of automatic fines. The Interior Ministry said that it carries out spot checks. “For example, suspicion will be raised if an 84-year-old grandmother is snapped at 200 kph (160mph) at five on a Sunday morning near a nightclub,” he told le Parisien newspaper.
Jean-Baptise Iosca, a lawyer who specialises in motoring cases, said that the borrowing and buying of license points now touched every social class. “I have clients coming to see me after losing not only all their own points but also 12 from their grandmother and all their grandfather’s,” he said.

The solution? Another crackdown. Ex-PM de Villepin began a 20 million Euro investigation to stamp out fraudulent point-claiming, but it has yet to release any findings or suggest any action.

(Thanks to Sahil Mahtani for the tip.)

Gated Community, Gated Speech

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:26:00 EDT

Does living in a gated community abridge your First Amendment rights? According to the Cambridge Park Homeowners Association in Denver, the answer is yes—especially when it comes to the American flag. The Association is seeking to fine one resident for hanging her flag upside-down:

The association board notified Beth Hammer in an April 24 letter that the flag display is against federal flag code and is in violation of the association's "patriotic and political expression policy."
The letter gave her a week to right the flag or face fines that appear to range from $25 to $500.
"Living in a community association offers many advantages to the homeowner, but at the same time, imposes some restrictions," said the letter signed by association manager Melissa Keithly.

Having consulted the federal flag code, Hammer raised up her flag upside-down to indicate the official call of “distress” as a protest against the Iraq war. But this gated community won’t stand for such “unpatriotic” displays. An embarrassing climb-down on the part of the community board seems likely, but not without the expense and inconvenience of Hammer hiring herself a lawyer.

Take an AIDS test--Win a Pickup Truck!!!

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:07:00 EDT

Could mining firms be at the forefront in the fight to contain AIDS? A Reuters story claims that up to one in every three mining workers in South Africa is infected with the virus, and it’s getting so bad that companies are taking notice:

Firms are enticing miners to take HIV/AIDS tests by offering prizes, sending mobile treatment units to the bush where sex workers operate and blanketing the region with condoms.
For instance, Gold Fields gives each miner who takes an HIV/AIDS test a lottery ticket, offering monthly prizes of cell phones, televisions and cash, plus a final sweepstake where one worker wins a new pick-up truck.
…
BHP Billiton -- the world's largest mining company -- said for every dollar it invests in HIV training, education and medical programs the return is four-fold in terms of benefits such as re-training, absenteeism and productivity.
…
"When we started our HIV program we didn't wait for any government to say yes or no, if there is a risk for an organization we take appropriate action."

For years, activists have been calling on governments and the UN to spread awareness and treatment. It looks like business could instead be the source of more effective and efficient efforts against the epidemic.

Steve Chapman pointed out the idiocy of government needle policy and AIDS, while Ronald Bailey has looked at the progress made (and yet to come) in developing AIDS treatments.

Snooze and You Lose

jsamuel@reason.com (Juliet Samuel) — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:03:00 EDT

John Kass in the Chicago Tribune brings us the story of Sam Hardison, the window cleaner charged with "sleeping dangerously" on the Chicago subway:

"I looked the officer right in the eye and said, 'You've got to be kidding. I have to go to court on this?' And he said, 'Yes, you do,'" Hardison, a West Sider, told us the other day about his June 5 ticket on the Red Line....

"And the other officer said, 'If you don't be quiet, we will take you to jail right now. We'll arrest you,'" Hardison said. "I let them write their citations. I felt that it was not right, but what can I do?"

Apparently City Hall is hard up and looking to extract cash from innocent bystanders. Fines are a good way to do it because, as Kass says, most people who receive a fine just grumble and pay it. Not Hardison, who instead went to a hearing to dispute the charge.

The City dropped the case today, but Hardison complains that he lost a day's wages to attend the hearing. And his friends have another theory as to why he, of all the other comatose subway riders, was picked up:

"Absolutely, absolutely, if you look at him, you might think he was homeless, a black guy with a pretty scraggily beard," Dahl said. "If it was me, a short Jewish guy, sleeping on the train, they are not going to write me a ticket."

Which would suggest that either City Hall is demanding money from homeless people or it's spending money to kick them off the subway.