The United States Supreme Court reduced the amount of punitive damages Exxon Mobile will have to pay for its destruction of the Alaska coastline from $5 billion to $500 million.   This gift of funds comes on the heels of a reported $40 billion profit by the oil giant for the year 2007.  This is the largest annual profit for a corporation in history.

Originally a jury awarded the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill $5 billion in punitive damages.  Later an Appellate Court to $2.5 billion reduced that.  The Supreme Court showing they are more generous than any appellate jurisdiction reduced it to just $500 million.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in 1989 and the original jury verdict was made in 1994.  The giant oil corporation, by balking at paying the jury's award, was able to save $4.5 billion in penalties, plus the cost of money over 14 years.    If Exxon had put the original award of $5 billion into a certificate of deposit at 7%, it would have earned $500 million in interest in less than two years.

That's Exxon's punishment for its reckless misconduct in spilling 10.8 million gallons into Prince William Sound.  It remains one of the greatest environmental disasters in our history. 

But the real story is the Court's decimation of the important role of punitive damages to punish outlaws and hold them publicly accountable.

Corporations and the corporate controlled media like to perpetuate the mythology that punitive damages awards are excessive.  Punitive damages are only used against a defendant when a jury has determined an egregious wrong was committed.   The jury in the Exxon Valdez found that the company knew that the Captain of the vessel was an alcoholic and that he had been drinking on the ship.  They also found that compensatory damages to commercial fisherman would never be sufficient for their loss.

In addition, the court found Exxon was slow to act to clean-up the disaster and executives of the company had little remorse for the actions of the company that led to the disaster.

The 33,000 plaintiffs in the case would have received $150,000 after the jury award, $75,000 after the reduction by the Appellate Court and $15,000 after the today's ruling.  Fifteen thousand dollars is the equivalent of $7,000 placed in a bank in 1994 at five percent interest.

The Court's ruling is a travesty for protecting the environment.  Scientists have concluded it will take over 30 years for the coastline to recover.  There is no reason, given the new guidelines for punitive damages, that giant corporations should fear be deterred from reckless or intentional misconduct, as long as they have correctly calculated their economic risks. 

Environmental destruction, contaminated foods, toxic products, and dangerous toys for children will not be detrrred as a result of this decision. 

There's other lesson from the Exxon Valdez case.  Corporations now are assured that if they stretch litigation out and get to a very friendly Supreme Court they can maximize their profit and limit their liability.  The only real danger they face is from a qualified attorney in front of a jury who can justly determine the damages.  

That's why corporations are supporting John McCain for president.  With four right-wingers just waiting for one more vote, the election of McCain guarantees a decade of corporate protection at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Across the board the right-wing minority on the Supreme Court relishes its power to eviscerate the rights of consumers whenever it can scare up one more vote.   Check the recent history on prescription drugs and medical devices.  

We need the Supremes to sing a different tune.  That will only be possible if we elect a candidate for change in November.  He's not the old white guy riding in a golf cart with President Bush.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

The statue of Justice atop the U.S. Supreme Court wears a blindfold. 

No one would drive a car in that condition. 

However, when it comes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for sideview mirrors, the U.S. government agency in charge of auto safety is not only blind, but also oblivious to the simplest and easiest method readily available to reduce highway carnage.  And Detroit, as usual, is equally incompetent, acquiescing to a system that it knows is unsafe.

Most freeway collisions are caused by a lane change into an occupied lane or rear ending a car while looking back to determine if an adjacent lane is open. 

Preventing many of these collisions, and in many cases resulting rollovers, is simple.  Set sideview mirrors to the blind spot and only use the interior mirror for a view to the rear.  That is the practice followed by racecar drivers, savvy traffic officers and professional truckers, crash reconstructionists and anyone who studies highway accidents, deaths and injuries. 

On the other hand the Federal Safety Standard for outside mirrors assumes that the sideview mirror should operate as a rearview mirror and be set to see traffic behind the vehicle.  Not only is that a tragic mistake, it is truly dumb.

The standard reads like it was written by one of those "easy set-up" manuals every Santa Claus must endure on Christmas Eve.

 S5.2 Outside rearview mirror--driver's side. Field of view. Each passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. The mirror shall provide the driver a view of a level road surface extending to the horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to the driver's side of the vehicle at the widest point, extending 2.4 m out from the tangent plane 10.7 m behind the driver's eyes, with the seat in the rearmost position. The line of sight may be partially obscured by rear body or fender contours. The location of the driver's eye reference points shall be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 (§571.104) or a nominal location appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver. [Emphasis added.]

The standard presumes side mirrors should be used to provide a rearward view back along the side of the vehicle which can be "partially obscured" by the car's body.

Designing sideview mirrors to see traffic directly behind a vehicle, eliminates the most critical viewing need: clearing the blind spot, where potential death lurks in a lane change at 75 mph.  It is far more important to see traffic in the blind spot at the side of a vehicle than to see what is behind.

Make your cars freeway safe.

The next time you are stopped for a traffic light set your side mirrors to show you cars in your blind spots.  These are vehicles that you will not be able to see in your interior rearview mirror.

Once on a freeway with your adjusted mirrors, follow this procedure when making a lane change and put yourself in that top category of professional drivers, just like Scott Dixon, Mario Andretti, Ed Carpenter, A. J. Foyt, Victor Meira and Graham Rahal, who use this same procedure to avoid lane change crashes:  

1.  Turn signal.

2.  Check rearview mirror for advancing traffic.

3.  A momentary shift of your eyes to the sideview mirror instantly will tell you if there is a car in your blind spot.

4.  Make sure traffic is safely ahead so you can avoid an unexpected emergency.

5.  In tight traffic, shift your foot above the brake pedal, just in case you need to brake for an emergency. 

6.  Now reconfirm your blind spot is free for your lane change.

This procedure gives you a substantial safety advantage because it minimizes your "look back" time.  

Many people look back as long as 2 to 3 seconds and ignore traffic developments ahead of them.  

Next time you are a passenger check it out.  Silently count the seconds a driver devotes to looking back over their shoulder and remember at 70 mph you are traveling 105 feet a second.  In two seconds you have covered two-thirds of a football field.  Warning: this can be a frightening experience.

The Federal Safety Standard for Sideview Mirrors should be changed, as well as the way we teach new drivers, especially teenagers, to adjust and use their mirrors to avoid lane change collisions and rollovers.

The current "safety" regulation induces collisions that easily could be avoided.  In addition to rear end collisions, SUV rollovers commnly occur as a result of last minute attempts by drivers to swerve when making a lane change to avoid a crash.   The abrupt swerve of a poorly designed, top-heavy vehicle is a design trap waiting to ensnare the innocent.   And while SUVs are losing the luster as the vehicle of choice because of the high cost of gas, they will continue to be with us for years simply because on the huge numbers of vehicles purchased in the past.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must revise the current unsafe standard.  No driver should be taught to set mirrors to avoid a direct view at blind spots.  As for the government's apparent disabilities, we can only call attention to them and hope they remedy the problem.  All they have to do is take off the blinders to see danger lurking in the blind spot.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

When 15 year old Elizabeth Smart was abducted in 2002, her case became a national story that occupied the headlines for months.

To help find abducted children, the United States government has created Amber Alert, and in 2006, 261 Amber Alerts for missing children were issued.

Today when a predator uses the internet to arrange a sexual encounter with a 13 year old girl, he may find a camera crew from NBC waiting when he arrives. 

In Pennsylvania, a program called Operation Safe Surf fills the television with Public Service Announcements that urge parents not to let their children meet up with strangers whom they meet on the Internet.

Preventing kidnappings and abductions receives tremendous attention and funding, but the more than 5,000 children under the age of 14 who die every year from traumatic injuries are largely ignored.  Five thousands childhood deaths are 5000 too many, but that number actually represents a major improvement. In 1987, unintentional injuries claimed the lives of 7986 children age 14 and younger. By 2004, that number was down to 5359, but that still is 15 funerals a day.

The reduction is child deaths is clear evidence that we can make a difference, and it makes me wonder how many more young lives we could protect if devoted greater resources to child safety issues.

Children need safety careful supervision. Children are not little adults, as the research of 9-13 olds by Ronald Dahl, M.D., University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Professor David Schwebel at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. 

The judgment of children and their trust that adults will protect them makes it difficult for them to recognize the dangers around them, whether they're crossing a street, riding a bike, or jumping into a swimming pool.  Children are easily distracted when not supervised and the ability to control impulses is not reasonably developed until age 16.

Because children have difficulty recognizing dangers, adults are responsible for their safety.

Adults universally contribute to deaths and injuries by failing to supervise children, by failing to teach them the danger in activities, and by prohibiting inherently dangerous activities such as riding an ATV or a motorcycle. 

When Wyatt Barto died in February of 2008, his death brought no national outcry toward the sport that put him in an early grave. Wyatt was a seasoned professional motocross racer, and death is an occupational hazard for motocrossers, even if they are only 10 years old. Wyatt Barto died on an off-road motorcycle 6 years before he could even get a driver's license. 

Every year, more than 800 children drown, usually in home pools when the unsupervised child falls, unnoticed, into the water. It's unbelievable that a child in a public water park can die the same way, but it happened recently. This death figures to bring a lawsuit, but a lawsuit can't bring back a child who never should have died. 

And for every child who dies, thousands more suffer preventable injuries, including permanent traumatic brain injuries.

Bicycles cause more childhood injuries than any consumer product except the automobile, and helmets can protect the heads of riders of all ages. Bicycle helmets are inexpensive and they do prevent brain injuries, but national estimates are that helmet use among children is no more than 15 to 25 percent. 

Bike helmets should be mandatory everywhere in the U.S, not in just 21 states. That's an easy law to pass. Seat belt and child restraint laws have saved many children from injuries and death, and comprehensive bicycle helmet laws would save many more.

Childhood is a dangerous time. Trauma is the leading cause of death in children under 14. The rare kidnapping takes much less of a toll than the injuries and deaths that happen every day. It's time to put more resources on preventing deaths and injuries.  Two hundred and sixty-one Amber Alerts is a tragedy.  Five thousand preventable child deaths a year is outrageous.

Onward.

Richard Alexander

There is no doubt the "good hands" people have been using them to pick Californian pockets.

Allstate Insurance Company was ordered to reduce their homeowner's rates by $255 million statewide by the California Department of Insurance.  Now the question remains whether it will issue the refunds owed their customers.

More than 850,000 customers will see their insurance rates reduced by about $250 as a result of the order.  The order represents a 28.5% reduction in the cost of homeowner's insurance premiums.  Incredulously, Allstate initially sought a 9.3% increase in premiums.

This is the second time in less than a year that Allstate was found to be overcharging its customers.  In March, the Department of Insurance ordered the company to reduce its auto rates by 15.9%, saving Allstate auto customers $124 per car.

The real story is that Allstate has taken its sweet time in reducing these excessive rates.   Allstate initially sued the Department of Insurance for reducing their rates, but later dropped its appeal.

The acrimony between Allstate and the California Department of Insurance has been going on for three years.  Lt. Governor, and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, rightfully called for the company to issue refunds to consumers for the last three years.  That's how long Allstate has been overcharging customers while it fought the Department.

"The company has pocketed far more of the policyholders' money than was warranted," Garmendi said. "But, frankly, they must in my view provide a rebate for the three years in which they charged an illegal amount."

Now it will be up to a Republican, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, to see those past illicit gains are not kept by the rogue company and that refunds are issued in a timely manner to the victims of Allstates' excesses.

But the real heroes of this story are the folks at Consumer Watchdog, a group led by Harvey Rosenfield, Doug Heller, Jamie Court and Pam Pressley.    Rosenfield, especially, deserves credit for crafting Proposition 103.

Proposition 103 provided for an elected Insurance Commissioner in the State of California.  More importantly, it gave the Commissioner the power to lower rates when they were excessive.

So far, Proposition 103 has saved California Consumers over $62 Billion.  In addition, Consumer Watchdog and their folks will take the lead in holding the current Commissioner accountable for making sure that Allstate refunds its illegal overcharges.

This should not be difficult.  The current Republican Commissioner has been outspoken in his desire to seek refunds from the company and he has seen, first hand, the arrogance and intransigence Allstate has demonstrated since he took office.

Further, Consumer Watchdog is already leading the charge to get these refunds for victims of Allstate.  Initially, the group had put the issue of refunds on hold until the California Department of Insurance determined the excessive rate issue.   Now they are free to pursue claims against the company because of the provisions of Proposition 103.

Allstate is sure to fight back.  They take a no-hold barred approach to their fight.  Earlier this year Allstate made good on its pledge to pull out of the property insurance business in California altogether.  A move that was designed to scare Californians into meeting Allstate's demand for excessive rates.

But the numbers don't lie.  In 2006 Allstate took in over $5 billion.  The total shareholder return from 1994-2006 was a whopping 590%.   It is noteworthy that Allstate can give-up the California market and still make billions of dollars.

"Allstate boasted of record profits to Wall Street, then came to California claiming it's not making enough money in order to charge its policyholders higher premiums. Proposition 103's prohibition on excessive rates protected California consumers with home and auto insurance policies from Allstate's price gouging and saved them over half a billion dollars this year," said Pamela Pressley, litigation director at Consumer Watchdog.

But Allstate, incredulously,  still claims increases are necessary.   And there are troubling signs at the Department of Insurance that the current Commissioner is tacking right in an effort to please his Republican breathren in order to position himself for Governor. 

Poizner, who came to the office as a moderate and promised to run the department in a nonpartisan manner, recently has looked increasingly like the old Republican model --  including taking a position as Co-chair of the John McCain Campaign Committee and putting part of  his vast personal fortune into rightwing Republican registration efforts.

But the most disturbing signs of trouble come in the recent reorganization of his executive staff, as two major consumer advocates have left the department.   Moreover, there are troubling signs that he has left the day to day operations in the hands of a longtime Republican idealogue, Jim Richardson, who is the former chief of staff to archconservative and former Republican minority leader Jim Brulte, while Poizner campaigns for Governor.

But one can only assess a politician's record by results and, so far, Poizner's actions in recovering excessive claims from thieves like Allstate have been good, but it is not over by a longshot.

So we need to be vigilant in helping Consumer Watchdog in its quest to get the current Commissioner to fulfill the promises of his campaign.  If he does so, he just might become Governor.

In the meantime, next time you see the your friends with the "good hands"--keep yours in your pocket, lest they pick them clean again.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Trust-busting president Teddy Roosevelt railed against the fat cats of his time. So did Louisiana Governor and U.S. Senator Huey Long, as flawed as he was. We need people like that in office today, because the fat cats are still fat and getting fatter - often at the expense of the handicapped, the mentally retarded, children and others who are dispossessed.

Our campaign system is skewed toward the wealthy. Corporate money flows into the election coffers of politicians, like wine into a wino. They're drunk on it. And while they insist it doesn't affect their decisions, it does buy a donor access. And that can often lead to incredible government subsidies for their interests.

A public official always will meet with someone who kept his or her political career alive. It's unfair to the rest of us.

When was the last time you heard of a working class mother holding a gala fundraiser for a candidate?  Right. Never. Corporations that get huge tax breaks from their Capitol Hill contacts could care less about her.

They count on infusions of money, the life blood of politics. And they return the favor 10-fold or more with subsidies for corporations. That is not a fair society. That is a recipe for upheaval.

It's government for sale. Step right up and write a check. Californians made a damaging, self-defeating mistake in 2006 when they voted down Proposition 86.   

On May 18, 2008, Brian Riedl wrote in a scathing San Jose Mercury News opinion piece that the latest farm bill would force Americans to pay billions of dollars in subsidies to millionaire agribusinesses. As he said, farm subsidies have long been America's largest corporate welfare program.

These subsidies aren't for the dying breed of small mom-and-pop farmers, the hardworking people who get up at dawn to milk the cows, plow the fields and then go home weary only to rise again.

Richard Holober, Executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, writes that since 2004, Chevron gave $3 million in political contributions in California. "For a company that made a record $14 billion in profits last year,'' he wrote, "it was money well spent." Despite public indignation, big oil crushed a proposed state tax on windfall oil profits."

The timeworn adage is that "money is the mother's milk of politics." And so it is. But whose money? And to what end?

Politicians need money to get their messages out. But from whom?  Campaign finance reform is long overdue. Let the money be from us, not from corporations. Let our elected representatives be beholden to the people, and the people only. 

We made a big mistake in the U.S. treating corporations as citizens, with the rights of people.  The Founders of this country never intended that.  Corporations do not have inalienable rights.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

If you're feeling down, or if you're a woman with difficult menstrual cycles, or if you can't concentrate, Paxil will help you feel better and focus more clearly. That's the marketing message for the highly prescribed and hugely profitable SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) from GlaxoSmithKline.

What the marketing hype tries to hide is that Paxil poses dangers for people of all ages, including children in the womb. Studies have linked Paxil to a 100% higher incidence of birth defects in children whose mothers used Paxil in the first trimester of their pregnancies than in children whose mothers did not use the drug.  One of the common birth defects is a condition called persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN). Babies with PPHN have difficulty breathing, and many of them require significant medical care.

Other problems for children born to women who have taken Paxil in their first trimester include heart malformations and cranial defects which result in an abnormally shaped skull.

Despite the marketing claims, evidence that Paxil actually does what the manufacturer promises is extremely sketchy, while evidence that Paxil causes harmful and potentially deadly side effects is strong. And, people trying to quit the drug often find themselves painfully addicted.

Recently, Paxil was the subject of one of the most damning reports imaginable. In Paxil Study 329, researchers reached this amazing conclusion:

"There was no significant efficacy difference between paroxetine (Paxil) and placebo on the two primary outcomes or six secondary outcomes in the original protocol. At least 19 additional outcomes were tested. Study 329 was positive on 4 of 27 known outcomes (15%). There was a significantly higher rate of SAEs with paroxetine than with placebo. Consequently, study 329 was negative for efficacy and positive for harm.

Paxil's effects have been so bad for so many people that an online support group has developed.  The site even offers a free E-book called Paxil Withdrawal Guide.

In a 1999 case Paxil was implicated in causing a manic-depressive to become psychotic and to murder his wife.  

With all the harm that Paxil does, it's logical to ask why it's still on the market, and the easy answer is money. Paxil makes a lot of it for GSK, and the profit margin is absolutely staggering.

In 2005, a study found that the cost of the generic active ingredient for 100 tablets of Paxil was $7.60, while the price to the consumer was $220.27.

Businesses will make plenty of donations to powerful people to protect a profit margin like that.

A more insightful answer to Paxil's continued existence is that the FDA, which is supposed to protect consumers against dangerous drugs, is more interested in protecting the profits of drug makers. One reason for that obvious betrayal of the public trust is that drug manufacturers provide at least half of the FDA's funding.

So, despite the lawsuits, the damaged babies, and the citizens groups, GSK is free to market Paxil aggressively as an elixir for just about anything that ails you. You can even go to GSK's Paxil website and self-diagnose yourself for Social Anxiety Disorder (and, of course, a trip to your doctor for a Paxil prescription).

GSK, and other drug manufacturers, make such massive profits that they're able to consider a $6.4 million lawsuit against them just another cost of doing business, like labor and raw materials. With their billions in profits, they can pay $6.4 million out of Petty Cash.

Drug companies must like lawsuits, or they wouldn't willfully endanger the consumers who support them. So don't be afraid to stand up for your rights if Paxil has harmed you or your baby.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Losing your house in a fire is devastating, but having your Insurance Company renege on their promise to cover your loss is beyond the pale.   But that is exactly what is happening all over California as increasing firestorms destroy happy lives.

From Lake Tahoe to San Diego, from Santa Cruz to Malibu the insurance industry is ducking and weaving in an attempt to deny homeowners the full replacement value of their home.

It is these Insurers who set the replacement value of your home in the first place. 

The scam starts by insurance companies offering low premiums to homeowners as a marketing tool to get their business.  To do so, the agents and/or companies undervalue the cost of the dwelling.  Then, when the catastrophe hits, the company refuses to pay the full replacement value of the home, much to the surprise of the victimized homeowner.

A recent survey by United Policyholders found that 75% of homes were undervalued by an average of $240,000 in the recent fires in San Diego and San Bernardino Counties.  And only 46% of the victims had received offers eight months after the fire.

This is not a new problem.  Insurance companies have been trying to get away with this fraud for years.  

When Katrina hit New Orleans most, if not all, of the victims found they were underinsured.  Moreover, the insurance companies began to utilize the small print in their adhesive contracts to avoid paying claims.

An "adhesive" contract is one in which the terms are dictated by one side and are not the subject of mutual negotiation.  In other words, the companies "stick" you with their terms.

Fortunately the law is on the side of the victims. 

Gigantic State Farm was held liable for $2.5 million for its bad faith in handling the losses of its insured.  State Farm claimed that its contract provided protection against wind, but not water and it did not have to pay the homeowners claim.

A federal judge ruled that State Farm was liable for the damages and a jury awarded punitive damages to the victims for the bad faith actions of State Farm.

But was this insurance company contrite?  Did it do the right thing for other victims?

No.  Here is State Farm's response:

Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said before the jury announced its decision that a punitive damage award would be "distressing" for insurers. "It adds even more cost and more uncertainty to the other problems that already exist in the Mississippi homeowners insurance market," he said.

Note to Mr. Hartwig:  There is no uncertainty if you pay the rightful claims owed to people who acted in good faith.  Nonetheless State Farm continues to argue that the result of this case will make it harder for them to "settle" future claims.

State Farm customers should not be settling for anything less than what they are rightfully owed.

The actions of the Insurance Industry have been so heinous that it forced one former U.S. Senator to see the light.  Trent Lott a one-time political beneficiary of these companies lost his own house and vowed to fight the Industry to his dying day.  It is unfortunate that it took a personal calamity to change the Senator's views, but he joins the thousands of victims who must continue to fight their insurance company, even as much of their life remains in ruins.

There are several ways to get help.  The California Department of Insurance will help investigate disputes with the companies.    http://www.insurance.ca.gov/

Consumer Advocates such as United Policyholders http://unitedpolicyholders.org will advocate for consumers and have a wealth of information regarding how to deal with your insurance company. 

In addition, all consumers should research how different companies handle these catastrophes before buying insurance.  There are actually some companies who pay their claims in a timely manner.  You should probably avoid the mass advertisers who claim to be a "good neighbor" or will put you in "good hands."   

But the best way to fight these corporations is to have a strong advocate, your own personal lawyer to deal with these companies for you.   Victims should not have to fight for their own money.  The insurance industry is in a position of power and many victims walk away with less than their due, simply because the process seems hard.  And given the complete destruction of their lives many victims are often not mentally or physically able to take on their insurance company.

So, if you are ever the victim of a fire, fight back.  Don't get burned after the fire.  Hire qualified legal counsel and insure your rights are protected. 

As we know well, your insurance company is only a "good neighbor" if you never make a claim.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

It is unconscionable for the Mercury News to devote its editorial page to the mythology that citizens who sue wrongdoers who have ruined their lives should give up their rights to aid the economy.  

The Mercury is guilty of publishing the propaganda of Lawrence McQuillan, the darling of right-wing crazies, without a shred of fact or reality checking.  

Even in the opinion section of the newspaper, lying should be discouraged and certainly not perpetuated without an appropriate warning.  But, that's to be expected after the Mercury lost its corporate memory when it fired nearly all of its experienced writers and reformulated itself to compete with the National Enquirer in supermarket checkout lanes.

The Mercury op-ed throws around alleged statistics and studies that have absolutely no relevance to reality. 

Th3 Mercury's bogus views of our tort system fly in the face of the truth.   A report recently released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics deflates the myths that so-called "tort reformers" use to condemn our civil justice system. 

But you wouldn't know that from reading the Mercury News.

The Mercury is right there with the Republican scream machine using tort reform to justify the criminal acts of corporate and government leaders.  What an embarrassing patsy.

If the Mercury truly wants to help the economy it can focus his attention on the corporate criminals that make daily headlines stealing with impunity from the American people. 

Tort reform is a "get-away-free" card for the most heinous criminals on our planet.  If a criminal steals a loaf of bread three times in the wrong way, he can get life.  Corporate criminals, abuse the public, steal millions and walk away with golden parachutes.

 And where is our government? 

Does anybody really believe the Food and Drug Administration will protect them?  We have salmonella from our tomatoes or peppers, mad cow disease from our cattle, and nobody knows what coming from China to poison our children.

But don't offend China.  As of December 2007, China's Treasury securities holdings were $406 billion, accounting for 17.2% of total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury securities and making China the second largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries after Japan, according to China's Holdings of U.S. Securities: Implications for the U.S. Economy. CSR Report to Congress, February 28, 2008.

But what is especially galling about the Mercury's op-ed page is that it attempts to correlate tort reform with loss of jobs in California: "entrepreneurs opt for states with balanced tort systems that discourage excessive litigation . . . ."

That's not the law.  It doesn't work that way.

Anyone who puts his or her products into the stream of commerce is subject to being sued for a defective product in the state where it is sold.  Ford cannot mandate that you can only sue in Detroit for deaths or injuries caused by its outrageously defective Explorer in Colorado. 

Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs before corporate plans to deny citizens the right to sue ever existed.  The loss of business in California is not because of our litigious nature, it is because corporations would rather pay starvation wages by exporting production to China, Indonesia and Mexico, where environmental controls don't exist, unions do not advocate for safe working conditions, fair pay and an 8 hour day and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration does not exist.  

The Mercury even goes so far as to claim that Volkswagen, Hitler's favorite car company, did not market its three-wheeled green car that goes over 46 miles per gallon because of potential lawsuits. 

Obviously the Mercury has been living under a bushel basket.  

Since 1969 U.S. Federal Motor Safety Standards have mandated that gas tanks not leak in crashes, passenger compartments doe not crush in expected crashes and that roofs of passenger vehicles survive a rollover.  Many foreign cars cannot meet those standards. That is why, for example, you don't see new Peugeots on our roads.

By the way, a Prius gets 46 miles per gallon and it has air bags. 

We have seen the likes of the corporate criminals who say "greed is good."  They sell tobacco to drag our youth into the pit of cancer, paint their toys with lead, put asbestos in cribs, and formaldehyde in trailer homes. 

They would prefer that families devastated by these crimes have no recourse.  The tort system is the only chance for justice for many people. 

When O.J. Simpson killed is wife, it was the tort system that provided justice.  When a child suffered brain damage due to his mother being exposed to toxins, it was the tort system that provided justice.  When corporate criminals knowingly hurt other people, it is the tort system that provides condemns the wrongdoing and makes the bad buys pay.

Finally, the biggest and most positive changes in the health care industry are the result of the tort system.   The escalating cost of healthcare is not because of litigation, it is because of the enormous greed by insurance companies, HMOS, pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. 

The next time the Mercury News gives up its opinion page to a one sided diatribe it should not refuse to print opposing views.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Recently, you probably have received emails from a former Nigerian Counsel offering to split $100 million with you, if only you provided him with all of your personal information and kept the communication confidential.  An obvious scam.

A much more effective and more lucrative scam is to have a licensed Insurance Agent sell a real Insurance Annuity Contract to a person of advanced age, robbing them of their life savings--while the agent pockets a hefty commission and the insurance company reaps the financial huge benefits by never having to pay-off.

These contracts are designed to prey on vulnerable seniors who believe their Insurance Company would do them no harm.  The scam simply robs seniors and their heirs of their life savings.

Recently, you may have missed the $10 million Allianz Insurance Company was forced to pay in fines to the California Department of Insurance for bilking seniors.  An investigation by the Department of Insurance found that the Company had routinely sold annuity policies to seniors 85 years and older, effectively bilking them of their life savings.  

Allianz has been forced to pay fines in other states as well.  But the victims of this crime rarely report it and rarely recover their own losses.  Embarrassed they did not understand the terms of the contract after being pressured into signing it, many victims never come forward.

Allianz is not the only company doing this, just the most visible to date.  The problem is so prevalent the legislature set up a special fund for District Attorney's to use to prosecute these crimes.   The Life and Annuity Consumer Protection fund was created to incentivize District Attorneys to investigate and prosecute this "nonviolent" crime.  The program is paid for by tacking on an extra dollar to every annuity contract sold in the state, which then goes to a special fund.

In addition to the fines, Allianz as part of a settlement, must conduct a review of all those who were 65 years and older when they bought their contract.  Allianz must contact all those who are 76 years and older to make sure they understand their contract.  Allianz must amend their contract to make them more understandable.  Allianz must clearly point out the terms of bonuses being offered to their sale force and when they are paid.  Allianz must allow seniors impacted by their fraudulent techniques to request cancellation of their contracts.

These are not options, but mandates that Allianz must fulfill as a result of their conduct.

Allianz got off easy.  

Their profits more than compensate for their outrageous, deceptive and corrupt behavior. Companies like this should not be fined, but shut down.  Confiscate their book of business and distribute it to honest carriers.

Seniors and their families need to be the first line of defense.  The best way to protect consumers is through education and following some simple rules when buying an annuity contract.

Annuity contracts are never simple.  They are challenging documents that must be read and understood.   Seniors should never tie up money that they may need.  Food, housing, medicines should never be sacrificed for a promise to pay tomorrow.

Here is some important advice.

First, never sign anything you don't understand.  

Second, insist that a trusted friend or family member be with you during any presentation or signing. 

Third, never sign anything in front of an agent, make them leave the documents with you and allow yourself time to read and think about the product.  If it is a good deal today, it will be a good deal tomorrow. 

Obtain full disclosures of all surrender penalties and make sure everything is done in writing.

Finally, and most importantly, never believe that an Insurance Agent or Company is on your side.  They are paid for selling products.  If there is no sale, there is no commission.

For the most part, annuity contracts are bad deals for those of advanced age.  The numbers simply don't work out, and too often the victim and their heirs pay a hefty price.

If you find yourself a victim of this practice, report it immediately.  See an attorney, who is paid to fight for you and doesn't get paid unless you collect.

In the final analysis, it is your money.  Insurance companies doing what Allianz has done are one step removed from the ex-Nigerian Counsel who has been sending you email. 

Onward,

The late Congressman Tom Lantos in November 2007 lambasted Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang for outing a Chinese journalist who was arrested as a result of information provided to the communist government by Yahoo.  Lantos called Yang a "moral pigmy" for caving in to a request of the Chinese government for disclosure of evidence used to prosecute a journalist and send him to prison.

Now, the House of Representatives by a vote of 293-129 has capitulated on a major civil liberty by indemnifying telecommunications companies for committing the same act in this country.   If these changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act pass the Senate it will insulate telecommunications companies from lawsuits for the Bush Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines.

Some will argue there is a big difference between the totalitarian government of the Chinese and the current Bush Administration.

The current Bush administration is decidedly authoritarian and acts very much like the Chinese government in many ways.

The Chinese torture political prisoners; the Bush Administration tortures political prisoners.

The Chinese are not bound by Constitutional principles; the Bush Administration does not see itself bound by Constitutional principles.  

The Chinese run an oppressive political machine that squelches free speech; the Bush-Rove operation has attempted to do likewise.  

The Chinese spy on their citizens; the Bush Administration spies on its citizens and supports the wholesale investigation of telephone records, without a warrant or respecting existing statutory safeguards. 

Both governments use the ruse of national security to justify their actions.  If you have been thinking about boycotting the Chinese Olympics advertisers, which is a very good idea, we need equivalent action in the U.S. against the U.S. government.

To allow communications companies to give up confidential telephone records to the government on request is an outrageous erosion of civil liberties.  It is the same as Yahoo executives declaring they must follow the law in China.  The despicable acts our government have asked of the telecom companies are headed towards becoming sanctified by law.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This administration, using 9/11 as a bloody shirt, have continually worked to erode the Constitution and basic liberties.  What Bush and a previous Republican majority in Congress have done is so outrageous that even a fundamentally conservative court struck down the statute they enacted to suspend the constitutional right of habeas corpus. 

In Boumediene v. Bush, decided June 2008 the Supreme Court held that individuals on American soil at Guantanamo Bay could not be denied access to the courts protected by via a writ of habeas corpus.   The 5-4 decision has been heavily criticized by John McCain.  Mr. McCain believes that people held in American prisons at Guantanamo should not have the right to have our courts decide if their imprisonment for years is legal.

Since when is it OK for a free nation to arrest any person, for any conduct, and then pass a law to prohibit them from asking a court to decide if their imprisonment is legal?  This is the United States of America, not the 20^th century Soviet Union.  

Professor Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, wrote an amicus brief for the prisoners.  He got it right in an op-ed to the New York Times: "Boumediene v. Bush is not a license to allow hardened terrorists to go free. It is a rejection of the alarmist view that our fragile geopolitical position requires abandoning our commitment to preventing Star Chamber proceedings that result in arbitrary incarceration."

Our four arch-conserative justices were just one vote away from holding that allowing the writ of habeas corpus would constitute reckless judicial intervention in military matters.  I call them the TSARs [Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts] because thats what we would have for a Supreme Court if McCain gets elected and gives them one more vote.

But for the intercession of a Democratic Congress in 2006, the foundations of a totalitarian state were underway, which is why this most recent vote to endorse surveillance of the telecoms is a total outrage.  Spying on citizens, locking up people and denying them the writ of habeas corpus and condoning torture are not the hallmarks of a free society or a public morality worth emulating.   I have written about the Bush Administrations wholesale abuse of the Constitution before.

The bill approved on June 20, 2008 allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States.  The courts' role is that of a rubber stamp and it is useless;  the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected.  293 "representatives" [a classic oxymoron] approved a wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Tom Lantos must be rolling over in his grave.  His own beloved country is advocating a national policy to legalize the very immoral acts that he condemned Yahoo for committing in communist China.

Those who forget history are condemned to relive it. 

Tom Lantos was all too aware of the slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism, having survived the Nazi regime.  To say that it cannot happen in this country is to ignore history. It can happen anywhere. To say that it is not happening in this country is to ignore reality. 

If we are to preserve "liberty and justice for all" we must be resoundingly say "no" to giving up rights here, and then there, and then everywhere.   Freedom is nonnegotiable.  That must apply to the Bush administration, to telecom companies, and to corporate executives.  If freedom is to flourish good men and women cannot be idle.  This 293-129 vote is a bad idea.

As Dante said, "the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."

My views of the Surveillance Bill were best expressed by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a leading voice of reason on the House Judiciary Committee.  On the floor of the House she said: " Mr. Speaker, this bill goes far beyond  what is necessary and what was agreed to by the Director of National Intelligence. All of us agree that foreign-to-foreign communications need to be available for surveillance. However, this bill would grant the Attorney General the ability to wiretap anybody, anyplace, anytime, without court review, without any checks and balances. This unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the fourth amendment that protects the privacy not of terrorists, but of Americans. I strongly oppose this warrantless surveillance measure."

Well said Representative Lofgren. Thank you.

The Senate must kill this bill.  

Filibuster if they must, but they must kill it for the sake of "liberty and justice for all."

It is a lesson Congressman Tom Lantos knew well.

Onward, 

Richard Alexander