MINIMUM WAGE

The President in his State of the Union address suggested the minimum wage be raised to $9. The minimum wage is presently $7.25. The President asked that the new minimum wage be made in increments so the $9 figure would not be reached until 2015.

 

The next day the Republicans objected. Speaker Boehner said .....No way! It would raise salaries right down the line. Businesses would be forced to close.

 

What bull shit!

 

The facts and studies indicate a contrary result. Most economists agree Boehner is wrong. Dead wrong! Studies show only a minimal impact on a business where the minimum wage was raised. Not enough to put any emplyer out of business.

 

The need for an increase is obvious.The United States is now a country of the very rich and the working poor. The middle class is  basically gone. An adult working 40 hours a week at the present minimum wage of $7.25 earns approximately $15,000 per year. If the rate went ot $9 per hour, the salary would increase to approximately $18,000 per year.

 

Lets take that one worker and put him into a family of four. Father, mother, and two children. Husband and wife both work. Presently their combined gross salaries are $30,000. With the increase, it would go to $36,000. Both figures are below the poverty level. In other words, not enough for a family of four to live on.

 

I see the impact of a low hourly here in Key West. Most working persons in Key West are paid from $8.50 an hour to $12 per hour. Their gross earnings are in the $15,000 to $18,000 range. That is why four persons are required to join together to rent a two bedroom apartment to live in. Or a three bedroom house. They cannot afford to live alone. The rent and utilities need to be divided. Otherwise, they would sleep under the bridge with the other homeless.

 

I find it strange that those who must approve the increase to $9 earn much more. Our Congressmen are paid $174,000 a year. Plus free medical. The best medical policy available. The working poor have no medical insurance. They cannot afford it.

 

Lets examine some numbers.

 

In 1955, the minimum wage was $.75 per hour. In 2013, it is $7.25. An increase of $6.50 over 58 years. The minimum wage has increased $.12 an hour over each of the 58 years.

 

For shame!

 

Back in 1955 when the minimum wage was $.75, most corporate CEOs earned between $40,000 and $70,000 a year. Few, if any, made over $100,000. Today corporate CEOs have earning packages in the $10 million to $40 million dollar range. And they and their Congressmen would deny the working person a minimum wage of $9 per hour!

 

The rightousness and morality in all of this escapes me.

NOTHING IS FOREVER

Laws become outdated and need to be changed. The  circumstances which gave rise to the law initially are no longer valid.

 

An example is China's one child rule.

 

In 1980, the Chinese government became concerned with over population. The country was growing. There was not enough of anything to keep up with the increased population. Simple things like food and shelter. Something had to be done. The Chinese government passed the one child rule.

 

The rule was simple. Only one child per family. The rule was strongly enforced in urban areas where space was at a premium. If a woman became pregnant with a second child, the law required she be aborted. No choice on the couple or woman's part. It was described as forced abortion.

 

The law permitted two children per couple in rural areas. Space amongst other things was more prevalent and farm areas raised their own crops for consumption.

 

The one child per family rule has been quite successful. It is estimated that four hundred million births have been averted since 1980.

In recent years, the every action has an equal and opposite reaction axiom has come into play. The Chinese government now needs an increased population. The only way such can be accomplished is by more births. The proposed new rule would permit two children per couple.

 

Why is the change being considered?

 

One reason is that the working population is decreasing rapidly. There is a definite shortage of workers. Ten million workers per year are dropping out of the work force due to age or other reasons. The ten million worker drop has been steady since 2007.

 

China needs an increased working population in order to survive. Economically and otherwise.

 

There is the problem of care for the aged. Chinese custom requires that children care for their parents in their old age. The children become the caretakers of the old. Unless something is done, there will not be a sufficient number of children to care for their parents. Stated another way, too many parents for one couple. Remember, if left at one child, the husband and wife will be caring for each other's parents at the same time. Four dependents relying on 2 people. It may not be workable.

 

Male babies have always been favored over female ones in China. If a woman determined she was carrying a female child, she could have an abortion. Get pregnant another time and it may be a male. The male over female favoritism has resulted in 118 boys being born to every 100 girls.

 

This translates into not enough females for marriage. Nor for sex. Both are becoming decided problems.

 

Chinese men who have been unsuccessful in securing a wife will often times go to a brothel for resolution of the problem. There are many brothels on the China side along the Vietnamese border. A Chinese man can get his sex at a brothel. He can also get a so called wife.

 

Pimps offer the prostitutes for sale. The brothels are considered sex markets. The man purchases a Vietnamese prostitute for a sizable sum of money. The transaction is split between the prostitute and her pimp on a 60-40 basis. The prostitute gets the 60 per cent.

 

The prostitutes do not marry the men. Though they live with them as wives. Many of the so called wives leave this arrangement after a while and return to the pimp. Then she is offered for sale again and gets her 60 per cent again. This can happen several times.

 

Some of the prostitutes have 2-3 such husbands at one time. They are referred to as rotary wives.

 

It all boils down to the following. The Chinese government needs workers for it burgeoning economy, the elderly need caretakers, and Chinese men need wives and sex. There is a moral component. The Chinese government frowns on prostitution.

 

The Chinese government is in the process of deciding whether the two child rule is feasible.

 

Decision time is probably this year. It is a toss up as to whether the new rule will be adopted. 

BRAZILIAN PROSTITUTES

Prostitution in Brazil is an odd bag. It is neither legal nor illegal. Therefore, prostitution is considered legal for all intents and purposes.

There are 1 million prostitutes in Brazil. Two hundred fifty thousand are children. This article is limited to adult prostitutes.

The 2014 World Football Cup is being held in Brazil. The world series of soccer.

One of the sites where World Football Cup activities will be conducted is Belo Horizonte.

Classes are being conducted in Belo Horizonte to prepare Brazilian workers for the influx of foreigners. Taxi drivers, bell hops, quick food workers, hotel workers and the like are attending these classes. The course runs six to eight months. English, Spanish, and correct Portuguese is being taught. Portuguese is Brazil's official language. Correct Portuguese is being taught because a large number of attendees are immigrants.

Prostitutes are also permitted to attend. In fact, they are encouraged.

The ladies are organized. They have a union/association. It is quite effective. The President recently said regarding the classes that they contribute to the dignity of the work performed. She was also of the opinion that the members would be better able to negotiate a fair price with foreigners after completing the course.

Prostitution is oddly viewed in Brazil. The government is generally helpful and at the same time disinterested.

Prostitution has official status. The Brazilian Ministry of Labor Official List of Occupations contains "sex worker."

Prostitutes can earn a federal pension. They are permitted to contribute to the official government pension fund. This makes the ladies eligible for federal pensions when they retire.

Brazil maintains a Labor and Ministry Primer for the Sexual Professional. A short how to do book. Tips and advice as to how to be a prostitute. Instructions such to be appealing, affectionate, use perfume, and offer the customer specialties.

The negative aspect of the government's support has to do with medical regulations. The health of the ladies is given no consideration. Such things as regular medical checkups are not required.

Although this article does not touch on the 250,000 child prostitutes, it should be recognized that Brazil has the largest number after Thailand. Not something to be proud of.

Why did I write regarding this subject? No particular reason. I did think the way Brazil handles its ladies of the night was interesting and informative. Especially when contrasted to the United States where prostitution is illegal and no benefits are available to the ladies.

TERM LIMITS

I am writing this week's column on December 28, 2012 two hours before the White House meeting between the President and Congressional leaders. The issue they will be considering: How to avoid the fiscal cliff.

I expect nothing good to come out of the meeting. A proper resolution is no longer in the cards. A partial one is as good as none at all.

Our leaders continue to fail us. I say a plague on both their houses. These Washingtonians are out of touch with the American public. Or maybe they are not out of touch. They just do not care.

They speak for themselves or each other. Not for you and me.

Some of the elected beauties have political careers set in concrete. They have Congressional careers running thirty to fifty plus years. For the populace, life long jobs with an employer are a thing of the past.

Salaries are interesting also. Presently, most Senators and Congressmen receive $174,000 per year. With guaranteed increases that they voted for themselves some twenty years ago. And no union. How many earn that much and have the guarantee of salary increments? Few in our society.

The simple solution bandied about is term limits. A legislator is elected for a specific number of years or terms. Maybe two terms at best. Then good bye. They go home to farm or run their businesses as the Constitutional framers intended.

In the latter 1900s, some States were becoming concerned with the number of years Senators and Congressman were remaining in Washington. These states established term limits for their federally elected representatives.

You don't screw with Congress! The Senators and Congressmen went to Court. Their case ended up in the United States Supreme Court.

In 1995, a conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that term limits were not available for implementation without a Constitutional amendment. The bad guys won! In present times, a Constitutional amendment takes years.

The people screwed again. This time by the highest Court of the land.

The framers of the Constitution and those living back then envisioned a citizen legislature. Men would travel to Washington a few weeks a year, do the people's work, and then return home to their farms and businesses. It was that way once. No more. Now they go to Washington and do whatever is necessary to stay as long as they can. What about the farm back home? What about the business back home? They do not exist.

The framers of the Constitution initially intended that term limits be a part of the Constitution  However, there was a space problem. The framers wanted the Constitution to be as short as possible. Since the framers were farmers and business persons themselves, they could not envision how any one could or would want to serve twenty or more years.

Another consideration was the life span as it existed at the time. Life expectancy was 35 years.

Term limits were left out of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is considered to be the Father of the Constitution. He drafted the document. Jefferson saw the problem with professional legislators. He said at the time: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the.....version of the first."

James Fenimore Cooper of Leatherstocking Tales fame saw the evil of long term government representatives also: "Contact with affairs of state is one of the corrupting influences to which men are exposed."

We have a problem! One with no simple solution. We better find a solution before these career Washington politicians screw up our lives even more.

PRESIDENTIAL HANDSHAKES

Thomas Jefferson danced to a different tune with regard to many socially acceptable activities of his time. Examples included liking the ladies and drinking a bit. He was a man  amongst men. Common men as well as aristocratic.

 

Equality was his passion. He penned the Declaration of Independence. He was one of our most revered Presidents.

 

Jefferson was the third President of the United States.The first two were George Washington and John Adams. Initial ruling colonists, they were not sure how to conduct themselves when greeting guests at official functions. Washington and Adams ended up conducting themselves in a regal fashion. They would bow stiffly from the waist. The other person would bow in a similar fashion in return.

 

Jefferson was uncomfortable with the bowing. At an official function on July 4, 1801, he shocked guests by not bowing. Instead and to the surprise of those present, he shook the hands of his guests. Every guest was treated in the same way, regardless of position. Foreign diplomats uncomfortable though they were, were required to greet Jefferson with the handshake rather than bowing.

 

From that Fourth of July to present date, all U.S. Presidents have used the handshake. Not only at official events, but at all activities including campaigning.

 

Which brings us to Abraham Lincoln. He shook hands before making history.

 

It was January 1, 1863. Per custom, the White House was open to visitors. It was a New Year tradition. The President would meet and greet each visitor by shaking hands. That January 1, Lincoln shook thousands of hands.

 

Afterwards, Lincoln and his Secretary of State William Seward were alone in a room. Lincoln had an official duty to perform. Sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

His right hand was swollen. He complained to Seward how much it hurt. Lincoln questioned whether he would be able to sign the document. He feared his signature would look weak.

 

Some time later, Lincoln made the following statement: "The signature looks a little tremulous, as my hand was tired, but my resolution was firm."

 

Since Jefferson, every President has shaken hands rather than bowing. How strange it would appear today if we were to see a Presidnet bow.

 

THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION

I just finished listening to the NRA's first comments regarding the Newtown tragedy. NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre spoke on behalf of his organization at a televised press conference.

 

A more arrogant and off base presentation I have never heard. And I have listened to many as a trial lawyer of almost fifty years.

 

La Pierre suggests that easy accessibility to firearms is not the problem. Nor are our laws. Rather he blamed everyone els and everything else for the shootings. The NRA was not responsible in any fashion. His solution to preclude any further Newtowns was to have guns in schools. Armed guards and/or armed teachers. His position that what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

I believe La Pierre's comments did much to injure the cause of the NRA. He set them back a number of years. It will be difficult for those elected officials who dance to the NRA's tune to continue to do so. Let me phrase it differently. It should be. We never know with today's politicians.

 

This is a wake up time for America. The time for words is past. Action is required .Dictated. Demanded. Significant laws to restrict gun activity. Anything less is to invite another Newtown.

 

The United States Supreme Court bears responsibility for Newtown, also. The Court came down with two decisions in 2008 and 2010 which aggravated/expanded the problem. The end result of the decisions was that a person is allowed to carry a gun inside and outside the home for purposes of protection. In my opinion, the Second Amendment does not say this.

 

The Second Amendment word for word reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Why did James Madison write the Second Amendment as he did back in the 1780s? The answer is simple. The United States at the time had no standing army. If an army was required to defend the new Nation, citizens would be called. From the farms and the cities. And they were to bring their guns with them because the government had no guns to give them.

 

What does the reading of the Second Amendment have to do with the right to keep a gun in the home or carry one on the street for purposes of defense? Nothing.

 

I have to smile. We have heard for years that the Suprme Court should be made up of strict constructionists. Persons who would  interpret the Constitution as written. Not those liberal type judges who stretch the law and in effect make law. The Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 was controlled by a strict constructionist majority. However, they did philosophically what they were opposed to. The Court liberally construed the Second Amendment. Stretched it in my opinion.

 

I ask this question of all die hard NRA/Second Amendment supporters. What is more important, the purported right to bear arms or a child's right to grow up? That is the issue as framed by Newtown.

 

America is at a cross roads regarding guns. I am hopefull immediate appropriate steps will be taken to alleviate the problem. Otherwise, Newtown will not be the last time our children will be a shooting gallery.

 

 

 

BIG BROTHER

We all recognize government can be Big Brother. One we do not need nor want. It is accepted that Big Brother has no place in people's lives. Not only should the government stay out, also other people. My business is my business. Not someone elses.

Recall George Orwell's classic 1984. People were constantly watched by cameras integrated into their television screens.

It took a while, but what was described in Orwell's book is here. There is now the capacity for a person's TV set to watch that person. Phrased another way, some one can watch a person while that person is watching TV.

And hear conversations, also.

All via camera and microphone.

.

It is others watching while I watch TV in my bedroom and living room. Watching while I have sex with a wife or girl friend. It is watching as I argue with some one in the living room. There is no discrimination. Everything is filmed and recorded.

A joke this is not.

Verizon filed a patent in 2011 for a set top box. The box would operate when the TV did. Total visual and audio would be captured and available instantly to outsiders. Comcast and Google already have similar patents, either for the box approach or directly embedded in the television set itself. Samsung's 2012 plasmas and LED HDTVs already have camera and microphone built into the unit itself.

Intrusive! No question about it.

The purpose is marketing. The various organizations mentioned wish to tailor advertisers to what TV viewers are doing. Doing is the operative word.

If a couple is arguing, an advertisement for a marriage counselor might be in order. If cuddling or love making, advertisements for romantic getaway vacations or flowers.

Beware!

TOYS 'R US AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Sweden is a bit different. Dances to its own tune occasionally. Its approach to sex is one example.

There is another.

Gender neutrality. Sweden's position is that male and female are to be treated alike. No preferential treatment one over the other. Described by the Swedes themselves as equality. Equality in the work place and society. A Swedish obsession.

One example of the obsessive ends Swedes go to achieve gender neutrality is how teachers refer to students. Not as him or her, he or she. Rather as friends.

In 2008, a sixth grade class in Sweden was studying gender discrimination. The Toys 'R Us catalogue drew their attention. The six graders decided the catalogue was discriminating and not gender equal. For example, boys generally were shown wearing blue and girls pink. Girls wore princess dresses. The boys never. Guns for boys, not for girls. Dolls for girls, not for boys. Girls pushing baby carriages, boys playing with miniature soldiers. Girls with tiny kitchens cooking, boys with sporting equipment. Girls alone playing with Barbie dolls. No boys doing the same.

The sixth graders felt everything in the catalogue should be for both sexes.No stereotyping. I have to ask at this point: A princess dress for a boy?

Sweden has a State Agency to hear gender discrimination complaints. The sixth graders filed a formal complaint. Justice is slow moving in Sweden. The State Agency decision came out this year. The State Agency agreed with the sixth graders. The decision included phrases such as outdated gender roles, narrow mindedness, and degrading to both genders.

Toy 'R Us took heed. Out went the old catalogue. In came a new. Just in time for Christmas.

The new catalogue is under scrutiny .It did not go so far as to put a boy in a princess dress. However, it did dress the girls in blue and boys in pink in some instances. It has boys playing with beauty instruments. Hair blowers and the like. Doing a doll's hair.The boys are also shown doing housework like ironing and vacuuming. The girls were portrayed holding all types and sizes of guns and playing battle games. The girls were on the sport pages advertising gloves, bats, basketballs, footballs, and the like.

Will the new Toys 'R Us pass muster? Time will tell. I suspect it will, even though no boy was portrayed wearing a princess dress.

Is this right? I don't know. I never really thought about gender equality in this fashion. Sweden may be at the forefront,  the wave of the future. Thirty years from now as male and female roles and responsibilities in society will have changed, persons of that era may look back at Sweden 2012 and ask.....What was the big deal? Why all the fuss?

ABUSE OF POWER

This story really happened. Two weeks ago.

 

The place is Piedmont, Oklahoma.

 

Quietly repeat Piedmont in your mind. Slowly. With emphasis on the first part. It is significant with regard to this true to life happening.

 

Jennifer Warden owns a lovely home on a cul de sac in Piedmont. A quiet neighborhood.The home sits on 2.5 acres. Jennifer has lived there for eight years. Her 21 year old daughter Ashley Warden and her three year old grandson Dillon Warden reside with her.

 

Three year old Dillon was outdoors on the property.His grandmother and mother nearby. Dillon was somewhere near the end of the driveway. Suddenly, he pulled his pants down and peed. I suspect Dillon was recently toilet trained. Every one should have been proud that he did not wet his pants.

 

Not so. Dillon almost got his mother Ashley arrested.

 

There was a police officer sitting in a police car nearby. Officer Ken Qualls. He observed Dillon urinating.

 

He gave Dillon's mother Ashley a ticket. Based on her son's behavior. The ticket was for public urination in public view. The police officer was the sole witness. Other than grandmother and mother, only he had seen it.

 

The fine for public urination in Piedmont is $2,500. Better to split a gut!

 

Grandmother and daughter Warden were outraged. They went to the police station the next day and complained. To no avail. Their words fell on deaf ears. They even took the position that giving a public urination ticket because a three year old pissed on his own property was an abuse of power.

 

The media became aware. A news worthy story. Soon Piedmont and much of Oklahoma were upset.

 

The message got through. Piedmont's Chief of Police appeared soon after at the Warden home. He personally apologized. The ticket was withdrawn.

 

The Wardens had a concern, Would Officer Qualls now subject them to a vendetta? The Chief assured them he would not.

 

Abuse of power occurs infrequently. But occur it does. Generally, it is a relatively new police officer whose position goes to his head. Or a military person whose uniform gives him a sense of superiority. Then there is the office manger who speaks in sexual terms to a female subordinate or brushes against her when he passes by. More recently, the FBI agent in Tampa who started the investigation which lead to Petraeus' fall from grace.

 

Abuse of power is part and parcel of our lives. Though rare, it must be dealt with. Simply and swiftly. As the Wardens did.

 

IS A FERTILIZED EGG A PERSON?????

When does life begin? At the moment of conception when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm?

 

There is a clamor for answers to the questions. Not so much  from society as a whole. Rather from a small minority who seek to impose their religious beliefs  on the majority. The battle waged by this small group is ongoing. Their beliefs are rooted so deeply that resolution appears impossible. Anti-abortionists are now into their second and third generation of supporters.

 

The issue of when life begins was raised recently from a legal perspective in the case of Person hood Oklahoma v. Barber. Last week on October 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal on the issue from a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled against an anti-abortion group. The anti-abortion group had had placed on next week's election ballot in Oklahoma an amendment to the State Constitution. The amendment would define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception. Which as a practical matter is the moment the female egg is fertilized.

 

I am interested in the issue strictly from a legal perspective.

 

A walk back in legal history is required to understand what is going on.

 

When I graduated from law school in 1960, a fetus was not considered life. There was no life unless the fetus was born live. Which meant that the baby had to be delivered and breath. Breathing was the most important part of the concept. It meant the baby was alive. Then and only then did rights accrue to the baby as a person, as a human being.

 

Abortion in 1960 was a criminal offense. It had nothing to do with the abortion issue as we understand it today. The law was only concerned with back room deliveries with a bent metal hanger.

 

Years later abortion became the fanatical issue it is today. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the issue some fifty odd years ago in Roe v. Wade. A woman was free to decide if she wanted to abort a pregnancy. If so, it was legal and proper for the woman to have the abortion and the medical profession to provide the assistance.

 

Via Roe v. Wade, abortion was considered a woman's right. The right to choose, to control her own body.

 

A small but vocal group could not accept Roe v. Wade. The battle to overturn the decision or minimize its application has been ongoing for more than five decades.

 

In the 2012 Presidential election, abortion is in the forefront of issues being discussed. A supreme effort primarily by the Republican right has been initiated. The approach is to deny to women many of the personal freedoms they won 50-60 years ago. Things like the right to contraception, as well as the right to abortion. The battle has a male/female component. It is primarily  men attempting to dictate to women what they can and cannot do, especially as regards their bodies. It makes me wonder what century we are living in.

 

The newest gimmick by the anti-abortionists is to seek to redefine when life begins. It is called parenthood. Attempts are ongoing to change federal and state laws so as to define a person/human life as beginning at the time of conception. If successful, it would mean that the fertilized egg has all  rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

 

If the redefinition took hold, it would be a crime for a woman or anyone to assist her not only with abortion, but also contraceptive use and in-vitro fertilization. There are probably further ramifications I cannot think of at the moment.

 

Anti-abortionists in Oklahoma thought they saw the road home regarding the issue. They had the question put on this November's ballot as a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. Groups disagreeing with the anti abortionists went to court to have the proposed amendment declared unconstitutional and thrown off the ballot.

The group was successful. The Oklahoma Supreme Court said the amendment was unconstitutional and struck it from the ballot.

 

The anti-abortionist were not dissuaded. They appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

 

The United States Supreme Court decides cases two ways. The Court actually hears oral argument and decides a case. Another way is for the Court to refuse to hear a case. In such instance, the decision of the court below from which the matter is being appealed is considered the last word. It is the law regarding the issue raised.

 

By refusing to hear the case and making that refusal known on October 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court said in effect that it agreed with the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Inherent in the actions of both Courts, was the fact that there are years of precedent supporting abortion. From Roe v. Wade to today. The Oklahoma Court said Roe v. Wade was still good law. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Court by refusing to entertain the appeal.

 

Quite frankly, I was surprised by the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. The Court is basically conservative by a 5-4 majority. Is the conservative Supreme Court moving away from its previous hard line conservative positions? I do not know. The decision in the Parenthood case might lead one to think so. In any event, it is clear  that the United States Supreme Court has no intention of hearing a parenthood case. At least at this time.

PET CAT EUTHANIZED BY MISTAKE

This scenario recently occurred.

Coleen Conlon lives in Gardner, Massachusetts. She had a pet cat. Lady. Eight years old.

Lady had fleas. Coleen had her son take Lady to the vet for a flea bath. Lady had previously been cared for by the veterinarian. The veterinarian was the Broadway Animal Hospital. The Hospital was owned and operated by Dr. Michael Sheridan. A respected veterinarian in the area with thirty years experience.

Dr. Sheridan's Hospital provided forms to be signed by anyone requiring pet services. There was a form for flea services. There was a form for euthanasia. There was a form for every type service.

The son was mistakenly given the wrong form. He did not read it. He signed and returned it. Much like most of us humans do when we are being admitted to a hospital.

The form the son signed was for euthanasia. Not a flea bath.

When the son returned, he was informed Lady had been euthanized. The form mistake was discovered.

Coleen, her son and the rest of the family are distraught. Dr. Sheridan is sympathetic, but says the son should have read the form before signing.

The facts have the making of a law suit.

The question is what is the monetary value of a pet cat negligently killed. The answer depends on the State where the pet resided and the negligent act took place. In this instance, Massachusetts.

Let's begin at the beginning.

The law initially and for centuries was that a pet was property. Not human. As property, it could only be valued based on far market value less depreciation. Simply stated, Lady in this instance would be worth whatever the cost of buying a new cat, depreciated by the number of years Lady had already lived.

What is the dollar value of a pet cat under the fair market rule. Most cats are adopted. Taken in. I am unfamiliar with the price range of an ordinary cat. However, I cannot believe it would be much in dollars. $20-40 perhaps? Now subtract from that amount the fact that Lady had already lived half her anticipated life time. Subtract 50 per cent from the estimated fair market figure of $20-40.

That number represents the value of Lady in this day and age under the fair market approach.

Most States follow the fair market value rule. Pets are worth next to nothing in those States. The feelings of the pet owner are not taken into consideration.

Pets have increasingly become a member of the family, so to speak. Pets are loved as one's own offspring.

A new approach to pet valuation has developed and is developing. Though presently the law in only a few States. The developing legal concept is known as companion law. Companion law does not limit recovery for a dead pet to fair market value. It takes into consideration the same things that the law considers when a human is negligently killed. Emotional distress and uniqueness of the relationship.  Even the pet's pain and suffering.

Where does Florida stand? Where does Massachusetts stand?

The cases are split in Florida. Some courts recognize the progressive companion theory. Others, the fair market value of the pet.

Lady and her owner Coleen lived in Massachusetts. Massachusetts offers no help at all. I even question if a claim can be made under the fair market value theory.

Massachusetts has a statute that defines who and how recovery can be had in a death case. The statute applies to "...persons closely related."  Massachusetts courts have consistently held that a pet is neither a person nor is it legally able to be closely related. Ergo, Coleen would get nothing.

Only one State has dealt with the problem legislatively. Massachusetts makes its decision based on a statute. However, the statute is written for humans, even though applied in pet situations.

Tennessee has met the issue head on. Tennessee's law directly deals with companion pets. Legislatively and signed into law by the Governor. The statute permits lawsuits. With limitations. Top recovery is limited to $4,000. Better than nothing. The statute is limited to dogs and cats.

The law generally has many problems/issues with which to deal. Pet recovery is not near the top. However in a creeping fashion, the States are beginning to deal with the problem. The law is moving in the direction of companion statutes. At some point in the next 25 years, most States will be on the side of valuing the pet and permitting recovery. In 50 years, the issue will no longer be a problem. Companion recovery will be the law in every State. The law of the land.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The adage different strokes for different folks applies to countries, also.
Greece, Italy, and China are perfect examples.

U.S. citizens must pay taxes. Every one. Even the rich. Unless of course
they legally have secreted funds in a Swiss bank account or off shore in
the Cayman Islands. There is legal tax avoidance. If the avoidance however
is illegal, such persons will be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. Tax avoidance is not tolerated in the United States.

Greece tolerates tax avoidance. That is one reason why Greece is in trouble
economically. It is considered perfectly proper to avoid taxes in Greece.
Greece's tax delinquency is in the billions of euros.

Occasionally Greeks will be pursued for back taxes. Rarely, however.
Especially in the two years immediately preceding an election.

For the  the few arrested, there is no fear. Greek tax courts take 7-10
years to bring a tax avoidance case to trial.

Greek ship owners are a separate breed when it comes to paying taxes. They
are treated well by the government. Receive favored treatment. Much like
the fabled 2 per cent in the United States. That is why Greek ship owners
have tons of money while Greece itself is broke.

Italy has Silvio Berlusconi. A perfect example of the ineffectiveness of
the Italian court system. An example also that a people will tolerate
anything from a favored elected official.

Berlusconi was once Italy's Prime Minister. Was is the operative word. When
no longer the number one politician in Italy, he was arrested for four
years of tax fraud. His trial concluded last week. Berlusconi was found
guilty. He was sentenced to four years in jail. The sentence was
automatically reduced to one year because of an amnesty law. The amnesty
law recognizes that Italian jails are overcrowded. The law reduces
dramatically a criminal sentence.

Such does not bother  me.