Dilbert by Scott Adams
October 20, 2011 archive
Oct 20 2011
Dilbert by Scott Adams
Oct 20 2011
At a meeting on Monday — at the San Diego Zoo, no less — the California Veterinary Medical Board voted unanimously to officially place the practice of scraping a pet’s teeth under their scope of practice.
This means that, barring some reprieve, hundreds of groomers are going to have to stop offering the service — though any pet owner who wants can still walk into a pet supply store and plop down $5 or so for a scaler, a six-inch dental pick designed for dogs or cats, and use it themselves. Each says the fight is about money — specifically the profits the other side is trying to protect.
Now both sides are vowing to bring their fight to the Legislature next year. If previous pet-related fights are any indication, this one could keep Capitol phones, fax machines and email accounts humming, as the spay-neuter battle did a few years back.
It’s the latest in a class of battles that has long been fought in state politics — the “scope of practice” rules that determine who is allowed to do what under state law.
The Veterinary Board includes five veterinarians, though one of these positions is vacant, and three public members, all of whom supported the regulation.
The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) has long sought to get scalers added to the list of gear that only a licensed veterinarian can use for pay. The 7-0 vote on Monday just clarifies the matter, said CVMA president Jay Kerr. He said the paid use of a scaler by someone working outside of a vet’s office was “already illegal,” but the vote was part of a wider strategy to actually ban the practice.
They’re also pushing SB 697 by Sen. Bill Emmerson, R-Hemet, which was introduced in April but has been turned into a two-year bill. The bill would clarify some scope-of-practice issues around veterinary medicine. It would also make it a misdemeanor to ignore citations from the board. The bill mentions possible fines, and Kerr said his group was hoping to make sure these are high enough to have a deterrent effect.
I wonder if the dog groomers will bring this matter to the attention of the Federal Trade Commission and claim restraint of trade issues. The Kiosk human teeth bleaching folks did this in North Carolina and the feds have so far overruled the Dental Board.
Maybe they will try state legislation as well as a federal adminsitrative action approach.
But, stay tuned, because the issue will not be going away.
Oct 20 2011
The California Aqueduct
Today, GOP Presidential candidate and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is in California speaking and undoubtedly fundraising.
Fresh off the Republican debate earlier this week in Nevada, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann makes a foray into blue-state country for a talk at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco.
The Minnesota congresswoman’s subject? “The Revival of American Competitiveness.”
“Bachmann will present her views on pro-business economic policies that will allow private-sector businesses to compete in the global market while addressing the need for job-skill retraining, innovation, comprehensive tax reform and reduction of regulations that threaten jobs,” the Commonwealth Club’s website says.
On to today’s headlines:
California birthrate lowest since Great Depression, state data show
California’s birthrate tumbled last year to its lowest point since the Great Depression, new state figures show, yet another indication that the difficult economy is reshaping everyday life.
California families are looking at their personal finances, their job security, their prospects for the future – and increasingly deciding now is not the time to have a baby.
Marriages are down, foreclosures are up, job openings are scarce and kids are expensive. The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is about $225,000, federal data show.
“A lot of the people I see say, ‘One (child) is enough: It’s all I can afford,’ ” said Anna Peak, owner of Babies & Beyond, a children’s-goods store in the Land Park section of Sacramento.
Other, more permanent changes also are taking place. The children of immigrants are having fewer kids than their parents did. The population as a whole is getting older. Couples are waiting longer to start families.
Because of those patterns, the state will see strikingly low birthrates for the rest of the decade, said John Malson, acting chief of the state Department of Finance’s demographic research unit.
California is experiencing what once was a familiar hiatus between elections – a traditional 20-month span between the November general election and the next primary election in June of the following even-numbered year.
The last statewide election was November 2010 and the next primary is June 2012. The last time there was such a gap was from November 1996 to June 1998.
But it’s not a period of tranquility – redistricting has seen to that. For termed-out lawmakers the options are difficult, but incumbents aren’t having an easy ride either.
And it hasn’t been easy on consultants — especially Republican consultants – who rely on political campaigns to pay their bills, noted one strategist.
“I think this is an unprecedented time for a lot of consultants, especially Republican consultants,” said Tim Hart of Sacramento-based Premier Strategies, a campaign strategy firm whose clientele include GOP candidates. “It is a difficult time. We’ve gone through something of a metamorphosis because of Whitman spending $174 million and still not winning. That impacted a lot of donors in California, making it more difficult to raise money,” said Hart in a telephone interview from Guatemala.
Hart was in Guatemala with former California Republican Party Chair Ron Nehring to handle the Nov. 6 campaign for a presidential candidate.
I’ve talked to a lot of guys – consultants, designers, website guys – and everybody is hurting. They all talk frequently about what is next and that it’s been tough on everybody.”
The decennial redrawing of political districts in California – this time handled by an independent, voter-approved commission – has turned the election map into musical chairs in the Legislature and in Congress, pitting incumbents against each other and forcing others to move to new districts.
“How do you run for Senate or Assembly if you don’t know yet who’s running for Congress? How do you look at other seats until you know where the Congressional seats are?” said political strategist Matt Ross, a former staffer for the Senate GOP caucus.
“The big question is what they will be doing during the 20 months,” he said. “With the redistricting and the top-two primary, it’s going to change how you fight, it’s a different dynamic. I’ve never seen an election like this.”
Let’s get this straight: The California doctors lobby believes that marijuana has questionable value as medicine. Pot users risk damage to body and brain. But the drug should be legalized?
In case you missed it, the California Medical Assn. last Friday officially recommended the legalization and regulation of weed.
t comes as the California marijuana industry is gearing up for another legalization effort next year at the ballot box.
“There simply isn’t the scientific evidence to understand the benefits and risks of medical cannabis,” a CMA news release quoted Dr. Paul Phinney of Sacramento, the organization’s board chairman.
“We need to regulate cannabis so that we know what we’re recommending to our patients. Currently, medical and recreational cannabis have no mandatory labeling standards of concentration or purity. First we’ve got to legalize it so that we can properly study and regulate it.”
Whatever happened to studying a drug first to determine its benefits and risks, then deciding whether it’s safe enough to legalize? I couldn’t get a satisfactory answer. But the CMA thesis is that marijuana research is inhibited because the federal government classifies pot in the same illegal category as heroin and LSD.
The CMA Board of Trustees adopted the “legalize pot” position on behalf of the association’s 35,000 physician members. Its action was based on a 14-page “white paper.”
“It really should be called the Cannabis Medical Assn.,” says Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, vice president of the California Police Chiefs Assn. “It’s probably one of the most irresponsible, disgraceful position papers I’ve ever read.”
What raised my eyebrows was a repeat of the old canard about how locking up stoners eats up too much tax money.
The CMA report lamented “the diversion of limited economic resources to penal system costs and away from the other more socially desirable uses such as funding healthcare, education, transportation, etc.”
That’s a stretcher, at least in California.
Our prisons aren’t exactly bulging with people who were sent there for growing or selling grass, let alone ingesting it. Fewer than 1% of the inmates have been sentenced for marijuana or hashish crimes of any sort, according to state prison data.
They total 1,325 out of 164,156. If you do the math — each prisoner costing nearly $50,000 a year — it isn’t chump change: around $66million. But it’s hardly noticeable in a $10-billion prison budget.
“With all the strains on our resources, going after small levels of marijuana possession is not a priority,” says Scott Thorpe, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn. “To go to prison for a drug offense, it’s going to be very, very, very rare that it’s for a first offense. Any drug.”
The CMA report notes that in the last decade there have been a dozen U.S. clinical trials and more than 20 studies worldwide investigating the therapeutic benefits of pot smoking. “Current data have shown that the medical indications for cannabis are very limited,” the report says.
“Cannabis may be effective for the treatment of pain, nausea, anorexia and other conditions, but the literature on this subject is inadequate … and cannabis side effects may not be tolerated.”
OK, still, if someone feels the healing need for marijuana, it can legally be acquired in California.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer told lawmakers Wednesday that he continued to support a law that grants large tax breaks to alternative-energy companies — even though the bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra was its first and largest recipient.
Solyndra was granted a $34.5 million subsidy under SB 71, a 2010 law championed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that exempts alternative energy companies from paying taxes on purchases of new manufacturing equipment.
Lockyer’s statements marked a departure from the stance he took last month. After The Bay Citizen revealed Solyndra’s tax break, which the state granted without scrutinizing the company’s finances, Lockyer called for a moratorium on issuing additional subsidies under the law, saying, “[W]e owe it to taxpayers to see if there is more we can do to make sure we don’t give their money to companies headed for a fall.”
But on Wednesday, he told a joint hearing of two state Senate committees that SB 71 is a “wise and needed law” that incentivizes green-energy manufacturing and serves as “a model for how tax expenditure statutes ought to be written.”
Enjoy your morning!