Perri Nelson's Website 

A victory for common sense

Sometimes, when I read news about court rulings handed down by federal judges I have to shake my head in despair. Some judges simply have no common sense, and others prefer to push their personal agendas for social change through their rulings without regard to law.

Every now and then though, federal courts get things right. Such was the case recently with a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

NEW ORLEANS -- Hurricane Katrina victims whose homes and businesses were destroyed when floodwaters breached levees in the 2005 storm cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York, said in June that a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion.

"This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written," Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result, the panel found those who filed the suit "are not entitled to recover under their policies," she said.

In effect what the judges in this case said was "If your insurance policy explicitly says it does not cover flood damage then your insurance company does not have to pay claims for flood damage." Isn't it a shame when it takes an appeals court to state the obvious?

The plight of the Katrina victims is truly sad. After all, who wants to lose their home in a flood? Even so, trying to force an insurance company to pay a claim for something that they aren't insuring you against is still wrong. There's a reason why insurance companies don't cover flood damage by default.

If you want flood insurance, you can get it, but you'll have to pay a higher premium. If you aren't willing to pay the higher premium, don't expect the insurance company to honor a claim that your policy explicitly excludes.

Microsoft to start selling adware...

When you invest your money in a software package, what do you expect? Surely one of the things you expect is quality. Probably another is to not have to be annoyed by advertisements. Normally advertisements are associated with shareware or adware.

One of the new features of Windows Vista is supposed to be it's adware blocker. I wonder if it will start blocking Microsoft software now?

Would you like ads with that word-processing document?

That's the question Microsoft Corp. will try to answer by testing an alternative version of its low-end Works productivity software -- which will make money through ads placed at various points inside the program.

It's the latest attempt by Microsoft to supplement its traditional revenue with money from ads and software subscriptions. The company's Microsoft Office programs are facing increasing competition from free alternatives, including the OpenOffice.org suite and Google's Docs & Spreadsheets program.

In the long run, the trend could have noticeable implications for Microsoft's business. But for now, the ad-supported Works version is just a test.

Hopefully it's a test that will die a horrible death. Somehow I don't think so.

Thursday

Better late than never.

This linkfest is for the 2nd of August, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

Thursday Thirteen Number 15

Thirteen (or more) Questions to Ponder

1. Doesn't the fact that our Congressmen on both sides of the aisle love to talk about ethics reform, but never in fact actually do anything about it say something about their lack of ethics?
   
   Doesn't the fact that our Congressmen talk about "earmark transparency" and then do all that they can to hide their "earmarks" say something about their resolve?
   
   Doesn't it say something when the people flood their Senators' offices with communications asking them to vote one way or another and the Senators call for the suppression of free speech on talk radio?
   
2. The first amendment to the Constitution begins with the words "Congress shall make no law…". The tenth amendment to the Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." How then are the first amendment restrictions on Congress restrictive on the States or the people?
   
   Where in the U.S. Constitution do the words "wall of separation" appear?
   
   Why does it violate the first amendment of the Constitution to allow voluntary prayer in public schools, yet not violate the first amendment of the Constitution to hold mandatory classes in how to be a Muslim in public Schools?
   
3. Why is it that the same people that think it's a good idea to boycott a business like Wal-Mart object with cries of "censorship" when conservatives (whose right to "not be offended" has been violated) call for a boycott on the Dixie Chicks?
   
4. Does the U.S. Constitution apply to citizens of other countries while they are outside the United States?
   
5. The Bill of Rights does not explicitly enumerate a right to "privacy" does it? That doesn't mean that such a right doesn't exist, but isn't the common citation of the fourth amendment for this "right" wrong? If there does exist a right to "privacy", shouldn't we cite the ninth amendment?
   
   Where did the ludicrous "right to not be offended" come from?
   
6. Where is the Constitutional authorization for Congress to implement the Social Security program? How about Medicare? How about Welfare? Doesn't the Constitution leave the responsibility for governing and providing for the people to the States?
   
7. National Health Care is currently a hot topic for debate. Where is the Constitutional authorization for Congress to enact such a program?
   
   Politicians tell us that "we have a right to free health care". Where does that "right" come from? Is it one of those unenumerated rights provided for by the ninth amendment?
   
   What about the rights of health care providers? Don't they have a "right" to earn a living? Do we have the "right" to force them to provide care without compensation? If not, do we have the right to tell them what they may charge without regard to their costs?
   
8. The preamble to the Constitution explicitly states that among its primary purposes are to "ensure domestic Tranquility" and to "provide for the common defence". Article IV Section 4 explicitly guarantees that the United States will "protect each of them [the States] against Invasion". Why is it then that people are outraged that a significant portion of the federal budget goes to our military?
   
   If a Senator consistently votes against funding for the military, particularly when it comes to weapons and defense systems, how can that Senator in good conscience blame the Executive for not providing proper armor to soldiers?
   
   When Congress enacts a law respecting the construction of a border fence, yet specifically refuses to fund the construction, what's the point?
   
9. How is it a racist statement to say that the only way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating based upon race?
   
10. The Constitution does not vest the courts with the power to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not. That power was assumed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. If the courts have the power and the responsibility to overturn a law because the law violates the Constitution, do they not also have the power to overturn bad prior judgements?
    
    Is stare decisis such a sacred principal that a court precedent should not be overturned when it is based upon bad law, bad history, poor reasoning, or in fact unconstitutional?
    
11. The Constitution vests the executive power in a single man, the President of the United States. The executive power explicitly includes the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Further, Article I Section 8 explicitly states "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States". Given that, what possible justification can there be for the Speaker of the House, or any Senator or Representative, to go abroad and negotiate policy with the leaders of other nations?
    
12. The Constitution grants the President the unrestricted power to grant reprieves and pardons, except in cases of impeachment. This is a power that Congress has no authority to review. Why then should a Congressman be outraged if political considerations go into the commutation of someone's prison sentence. Especially when that sentence is for a conviction for a crime that could not have been committed except for the continued politically motivated harassment of the executive branch of the government over a non-crime?
    
13. Doesn't it say something about the voters when they keep re-electing people to represent them that hold them, the Constitution, and the rule of law in contempt? After all, we may not be able to change history, we may not be able to undo the wrong that our representatives have done in the past, but aren't We the People the ones responsible for our government?

Links to other Thursday Thirteens! (My trackback filter won't let you trackback unless you link to this post, so you can leave a comment I will add you as I get time today.):

1. Frigga
2. Kristee
3. Your name here...

Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

View More Thursday Thirteen Participants