Justinian Lane

Inter Alia on the Internet – Ultra Mega Mega Edition

I’ve been busy over the past few days, so there’s a ton of stuff to catch up on.  And yes, the title is a South Park reference.

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 11:29 AM, Sep 10, 2008 in Roundup
Permalink | Email to Friend


You said : "I have no position on whether vaccines cause autism. I would merely prefer these cases to be decided either by a jury, or via summary judgment."

I would rather have it be decided by science and careful research.

Posted by: throckmorton | September 10, 2008 1:08 PM

Throck, presumably letting these cases proceed will force both sides to muster the best scientific evidence. If there is no credible scientific evidence of the link, then the plaintiffs will lose on a summary judgment.

My understanding of autism is very limited, but here's what I know to be true. Let me know if I'm wrong:

Austim used to be very rare.
Austism is not so rare anymore.
The rise of austism tracks with the rise of vaccines.

Are those facts wrong? Even if they're 100% true, that doesn't prove a thing, of course.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | September 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Throck, presumably letting these cases proceed will force both sides to muster the best scientific evidence. If there is no credible scientific evidence of the link, then the plaintiffs will lose on a summary judgment.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | September 10, 2008 1:22 PM


If there is no scientific evidence that "A" caused "B", then you can not say "A" caused "B". People confuse this with research that says "A" is somehow associated with "B". Meaning most children with autism have had vaccinations, not that they are causal.

When something can not be scientifically proven, all you have are opinions. To scientifically prove something, you show that your results are repeatable and independent of other variables. When you cant do this, all you have are "Scientific opinions" which are not worth much except to a jury and the financial considerations of the plaintiffs and defense.

Posted by: throckmorton | September 10, 2008 1:42 PM

Justinian: Let us know if you took CivPro yet. The settling of a scientific controversy is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of any court. Jurors will have no understanding of immunology, nor or brain pathology. They will vote for the side they "like most."

It is established that the diseases prevented by the vaccines cause autism and mental retardation. Millions of children were institutionalized after suffering the diseases now prevented by the vaccines.

The rate of autism surge is caused by the land pirate. This vile vermin sues a school on behalf of rich, entitled, scapegoating parents. These rich bastards cannot believe their genetics caused this defective child. So they attack. The school caves in. They increase services. Big mistake to cave in to the land pirate. Now, all the families with kids with speech delays (20% of boys at age 3), move in to abuse these services. If the psychologist diagnoses speech delay, no services. So the pressure is on to diagnose autism.

I find it funny that you assume the surge in autism is anything other than lawyer intimidation.

The most famous child with speech delay was Albert Einstein. He did OK without services and lawyer intimidation of schools.

I find your neutrality on this question completely irresponsible, and self-dealing in leaving the door open for litigation.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | September 10, 2008 5:20 PM

"[W]hat small-town mayor raised taxes by 25% and built [the hockey rink] with taxpayer money?"

The sales tax was raised one-half of one percent, from 2% to 2.5% to pay off the bonds that financed the rink.

In that light, don't you think it a little disingenuous to call her a "tax and spend liberal" because of her "25% tax increase."

Let's not forget that *every* staduim in the country has been in some way subsidized by public funds. I, for one, like both playing sports and watching them professionally, and am satisfied with helping our city have a professional team.

But congrats on joining the 'Slime Palin's Mayorial Record' bandwagon.

It seems pretty popular in the blogosphere.

Posted by: Lawyer | September 11, 2008 4:32 PM

I love how Palin's record is off-limits. As if we have no right to investigate the actions and record of a person who could become President. John McCain is qualified to be President. Palin is nowhere near qualified and it's disgraceful that McCain so blatantly pandered to the nutjobs in his party by picking someone who has views that even McCain's wife find extreme.

I suppose I'd be sliming her if I point out she wanted rape victims to pay for the rape test kits? This wouldn't be so shameful if she hadn't shifted the cost of a recreational facility to the taxpayers. Sorry, I think protecting rape victims comes before rec centers.

Or if I point out she supported the "bridge to nowhere."

Or suggested that running a town of 9,000 is nothing like being President?

Or contrasted being governor of Alaska, a state awash with oil money, with running a country with a weak economy?

Sorry, Sarah Palin is NOT qualified to be VP or President.

And don't you dare say I'm sexist. I voted for Jennifer Granholm for Michigan Governor, I'm voting for a woman as Supreme Court justice, and I would have voted for HRC if she got the nomination.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | September 11, 2008 5:29 PM

"I love how Palin's record is off-limits."


Nobody said that Palin's record is "off-limits". What I would like to be off-limits is *distorting* a candidate's record.

Here, for example, Gov. Palin helped push through an increase in the Wasilla sales tax from 2.0% to 2.5% in order to cover the bonds that had financed the hockey rink.

Knowing this, you opted not to simply report the figure, but to characterize it as a "25% tax increase." While literally true, you clearly wrote this in an effort to paint the increase as larger than it is. (If the increase had been from 0.5% to 1.0% would you have said that she "doubled taxes"?)

And you wrote this knowing that most point-and-click viewers aren't going to know that is was a half-cent sales tax increase. In essence, you preyed on the lack of information among your viewers, in order to push your own ideological agenda.

Now THAT should be off limits.

Posted by: Lawyer | September 16, 2008 11:20 AM

Let me get this straight: I misled by telling the truth? Orwell would be proud, Lawyer. Do you have a handy chart I can refer to so I'll know when to report something in percentages vs. numbers?

I don't care if it was a one tenth of a one hundredth of a percent increase: It's unconscionable to shift the cost of rape victim kits onto rape victims when you're making taxpayers pay for a rec facility for your kids.

Lawyer, you might like sports and want taxpayers to pay for them, but I have a different view. I think taxpayers should pay for adequate law enforcement to protect citizens from violent crimes, like rape. I'd like taxpayers to adequately fund the FDA and the FTC to protect us from defective products and unscrupulous sellers. Once we get serious problems like that taken care of, maybe then it's appropriate for our elected officials to shift the cost of their kids' activities onto the taxpayers.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | September 18, 2008 4:41 PM

"Let me get this straight: I misled by telling the truth?"

Yes, you did. You knew that most people wouldn't know the actual increase was from 2.0% to 2.5%, so you phrased it as a "25% tax increase" to make it sound larger than it was. That's misleading.

One time, I bought, through the mail, a "solar-powered washing machine." A few days later I received a clothes-line. I'm sure the manufacturer's defense would be that "I misled by telling the truth?" in a similar attempt at exculpation.

Posted by: Lawyer | September 18, 2008 6:27 PM

Dear Friend:

Are you ready yet for the November 4th Elections? How about your friends, family, and neighbors?

More Americans are expected to vote this year than ever before in history, so don’t be left out! Be sure to ask everyone you know the following questions:

Are you registered to vote? If you moved recently, have you updated your voter registration?
Did you apply for an Absentee Ballot? Do you know your state may not require any reason?
Can you find your local Polling Place? Do you know it may have changed from last time?
The answers to these questions -- and all your voting needs -- can be found at

Posted by: timothy moriarty | September 20, 2008 3:28 AM