A little something I put together for potential fundraising.
yield: 1 gallon (2 1/4c dry mix)
1 1/3 c dextrose
2/3 c dark cocoa (Dutch process preferred, e.g. Special Dark or better)
2 T stevia/erythritol blend (to make blend: 1/2 t pure stevia extract per cup erythritol)
2 t xanthan gum
2000 IU Vitamin E succinate
1 gallon skim milk
2/3 c hot water
method: mix powders in blender to break up clumps. Add hot water. Mix to form paste. Add milk to target full blender (n.b. expands by about 1.5x with air) and mix until fully blended. Pour contents of blender back into gallon of milk and shake.
usage: 1oz drink per 7.5lbs of ideal body weight as soon as possible after lifting.
I have the blog moved over to the new WordPress infrastructure but haven’t had a chance to build proper re-direct maps yet. Please use the search in the meantime.
[note: this is a letter I sent to NH Senators. Please feel free to re-use]
Please vote tomorrow to pass the most important piece of Civil Rights legislation in the Legislature this year, HB 146, “relative to the right of a jury to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.”
In the 1850’s, prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict runaway slaves under an unjust law. They judged not the guilt or innocence of these men under the law, but rather the law itself. Undoubtedly, every New Hampshire legislator would today vote against a Fugitive Slave Act, but what I’m asking you to do tomorrow is to vote to ensure that such bad laws will always be defeated.
The jury as the last means of defense against unjust laws is a well-established tradition, predating the United States in English Common Law, and strongly upheld through modern times.
The US Supreme Court has consistently found this power to be essential, throughout the Country’s history:
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy" - John Jay, Chief Justice 1789 "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." -Samuel Chase, Justice 1796 "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." - Oliver Wendel Holmes, Justice, 1902 "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan Stone, Chief Justice, 1941
I have some personal experience with the tragedy of the status quo in the New Hampshire courts. Two years ago I was called to jury duty in Sullivan County Superior Court in Newport. After packing citizens in an overheated room like sardines, we were forced to watch an industrial video about the courts for quite a long time. It was riddled with half-truths, inaccuracies and falsehoods about the nature of the courts, the New Hampshire and US Constitutions, and the powers of juries (I noted at least forty). The worst of these was an indication that the Judge in the case be the final arbiter about the law. We were then told that if we had any problems with anything in the video we were to come to the Judge as each case was called. So, I did.
Successively, he called people selected as jurors and asked if there was any reason they could not serve. As a matter of conscience I approached the bench each time. I explained to him that the video made a travesty of our system of justice and that it was especially wrong about the powers of juries. He demanded to know where I got the gumption to question the Court, so I cited the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions. I was dismissed in each case and returned home, ‘merely’ having wasted a day.
“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge,” the Court wrote in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F. 2d 1113 – Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1972. I recommend a reading of the entire decision for a good modern interpretation of the powers of juries.
Wouldn’t it be grand if the governments were immune from passing bad, unjust, and immoral legislation? Yet, each time a bad bill is repealed, we have the judgment of the Legislature that it previously erred. Between the time a bad bill is passed and the time it is repealed, we have the juries to protect our civil rights. Letting them know that they have this essential power isn’t too much to ask.
Thank you for your consideration.
I’ve frequently heard the claim that one reason for high physicians’ salaries is that the AMA hasn’t allowed new medical schools to be built in the United States. By keeping supply low, the theory goes, the demand is high and accordingly so are the prices. I may have even repeated this once or twice without checking.
Well, the theory may be plausible, but data contradicts it. At least current data – new medical schools are currently being built. See the chart below:
There are even more slated to open in the coming years.
That said, there’s a surprising gap from the late 70’s to the early 2000’s. Perhaps this was true in the past, and people just haven’t gotten over their old anecdotes.
With the Baby Boomer physicians retiring in the coming decade (about half of all of them) just as the Baby Boomers are needing more medical care, there is a serious shortage of physicians on the horizon. Whether these new medical schools can fill the gap will remain to be seen. Even if they can make up the difference, there will be a serious reduction in the average experience level of the medical profession, which in itself will reduce the average salary. Unless there aren’t enough physicians to go around.
The data really isn’t clear that teachers’ unions have a causal benefit for students. In the 16 US States without teachers’ unions, when controlling for demographics, the data is mixed. Some of the positive systems that teachers’ unions tend to bring to the schools (peer review, etc.) have not been controlled for.
Taxpayer bills seem to inevitably be higher. This is a negative for the taxpayer if there’s not a clear demonstrable benefit. What is clear is that the model is incompatible with a free society (even FDR said as much), and there are no circuit-breakers to stop an out-of-control union in the public sector as there are in the private sector (the monopoly problem). State laws that remove incentives for unions to bargain only further tip the scales.
Reforming the corrupt system is the better option. Unions can work well in the private sector. In cities where inner-city youth have been given the option to take vouchers to private schools, all have flourished. An ecosystem of competing schools would not be incompatible with teachers’ unions, as the ones that negotiate bad contracts would simply be unable to provide an education for the voucher amount (or voucher+voluntary contribution). In many respects, blaming the teachers’ union for the problems of a State-enforced monopoly is scapegoating.
Look, Sir, lard!