And in other political news...

Dec 3 16:26 UTC 2000

While we've all been preoccupied with the events surrounding the ongoing 
Presidential election, the Michigan legislature has taken advantage of 
the inattention and their lame-duck status to push forth all kinds of 
interesting stuff:

--A pay raise for themselves of as much as 30 percent.

--The ol' concealed weapons permit bill.  Both House and Senate have 
passed it, but it's currently held up because the the two chambers can't 
agree on whether to allow those convicted of drunk driving to carry.  
"Law-abiding citizens", indeed.  I'm certainly in favor of drunks being 
allowed to carry around weapons.

--Emboldened by the failure of proposal 2, they've passed a bill to 
forbid local governments from passing "living-wage" laws.    

Hmm.  Funny how I didn't hear about any of these plans during the 
election campaign.  I wonder what other goodies they have planned for 
us.

response 2 of 106:

Dec 7 01:31 UTC 2000

A ban on "living wage" ordinances is all to the good.  It will
prevent idiots in places like Detroit from jacking city expenses
further beyond what their already-overburdened taxpayers can handle,
preventing even more population declines.

What most cities like Detroit need is a full privatization of all
city services other than police (and *maybe* fire).  Let them pay
people whatever it takes to get employees.  Making municipal jobs
into sinecures is good for nobody but the cronies.

response 4 of 106:

Dec 7 17:44 UTC 2000

More activity from Lansing:

Both House and Senate have passed bills (I don't know if the bills are 
identical or need "working out") that would effectively end insurance 
coverage of abortions.  Right now, employers have the right to "opt out" 
of providing abortion coverage in their health plans.  Under the new 
law, employers would have to pay extra (opt in) if they want abortions 
to be covered under their health plan, and they could not pass the cost 
onto their employees (my guess, and probably that of the bill's 
sponsers, is that most employers would not buy the extra coverage).

response 6 of 106:

Dec 7 17:51 UTC 2000

Why not?

response 8 of 106:

Dec 7 18:10 UTC 2000

It's no secret that companies tend to buy the least amount of health 
coverage they can get away with, especially when they can't pass the 
cost along to their employees.  Lack of abortion coverage is not 
something that most employees would complain about.

response 10 of 106:

Dec 7 18:25 UTC 2000

And flem posted the following in the Announcements item:

>Apparently on Thursday 11/30, the Michigan Senate unanimously passed 
>Senate Bill 1116, which amends the Michigan Penal code having to do 
>with prostitution and adult entertainment.  It includes the following 
>text, from new section 465a(3):
>  "A person shall not knowingly appear in an adult entertainment 
>establishment in a nude or semi-nude condition unless the person is 21 
>years of age or older and at least 6 feet from any patron or customer." 
 
>The bill goes to the House now, I gather, but I don't imagine its 
>reception there will differ from the Senate much.  

flem also noted that it would mean the end of lap dances.  I imagine it 
would also end the practice of stuffing money into the girls' g-strings.

The law also forbids "adult" businesses from being open between midnight 
and 10am, and on Sundays and holidays.  Further, it requires dancers to 
be employees of the establishment (I suppose that now they are generally 
"independent contractors").  I suppose that restriction, along with the 
lap dance and g-string-stuffing ban, is intended to make nude dancing 
less lucrative for both the business and the dancers.

response 12 of 106:

Dec 7 23:10 UTC 2000

The problem it is intended to solve is that of the moral discomfort 
certain vociferous parties experience when confronted with the notion 
that not only do images of sex sell, but that sexual stimulation sells as 
well.

response 14 of 106:

Dec 8 03:41 UTC 2000

Seems doubtful it does any of those.  Clearly a bill designed by
puritans.

response 16 of 106:

Dec 8 05:00 UTC 2000

I think most employers would opt to pay a little more so that valued
employees have elective abortion coverage.  Abortions are cheaper than
maternity care and the subsequent child care leave.  But mostly they'd do
it because women appreciate that benefit, the same reason they offer most
perks.

I'm waiting for the law which states Viagra can't be covered without a
surcharge. 

response 18 of 106:

Dec 8 16:15 UTC 2000

Presumably we should also outlaw shaking hands, then.  Not to mention kissing,
riding the bus, and using the bathroom.  

response 20 of 106:

Dec 9 22:30 UTC 2000

Bite your tongue.  Or don't; you might have germs.  :)

response 22 of 106:

Dec 15 13:50 UTC 2000

The state House and Senate got together this week and agreed on a final 
version of the concealed weapons bill.  In addition, they tacked on a 
million dollars for the State Police.  This makes it an appropriations 
bill, and therefore immune from a referendum challenge that could stop 
the bill before it takes effect.  It can still be overturned at a 
later date via ballot issue (which takes about twice as many signatures 
as a referendum).

response 24 of 106:

Dec 15 15:57 UTC 2000

Not just Michigan legislators.