Nevada Brothel Causes Stir With Stimulus Request

There is an interesting controversy brewing in Nevada over stimulus money and morality. Bella Cummins is the owner of a lawful small business who initially refused an emergency loan under the pandemic stimulus money. The reason? Her business is a brothel.  The CARES Act makes no distinction between moral and immoral businesses so long as they are lawful (and such a distinction in my view would challengeable). Brothels are lawful in Nevada.  Yet, Cummins was eventually allowed to apply for the loan but there are objections to giving stimulus money to an over-stimulating business.

Cummins has allowed her workers to remain on the property at Bella’s Hacienda Ranch in Wells, Nevada.  Her business was deemed nonessential.  While some might disagree, that distinction seems perfectly reasonable.  However, that still leaves the fact that when she went to Nevada State Bank to apply for an emergency loan from the Small Business Administration the bank balked.

Given social distancing rules, this is one business that will face the greatest delay and downturn in recovering from the pandemic.  Social distancing would seem the antithesis of the business model of a brothel.

Since applying for federal help earlier this week, the SBA has notified Cummins that her application to the Paycheck Protection Program for some $70,000 has been approved. However, she was then told by the bank that the funds were put on hold. It is not clear if that is based on the nature of her business or simply a pause in the program.

The question remains about the objections and whether there will be a move to limit future loans.  In my view, such restrictions would be arbitrary and discriminatory.  As many on this blog know, I have been a long critic of morality legislation. This is simply another variation in forcing citizens to adhere to majoritarian morals in my view if the loan is denied or the regulations changed on the basis of the business.

189 thoughts on “Nevada Brothel Causes Stir With Stimulus Request”

  1. Meanwhile, back in the real world hydroxychloroquine was found in a recent study to do nothing at best and at worst to kill those taking it for the corona virus

    Now we find out that the Trump administration continues it’s attempts to dumb down our scientific agencies, and especially if they contradict Dear Leader. This one is fighting back.

    “WASHINGTON — The official who led the federal agency involved in developing a coronavirus vaccine said on Wednesday that he was removed from his post after he pressed for rigorous vetting of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug embraced by President Trump as a coronavirus treatment, and that the administration had put “politics and cronyism ahead of science.”

    Rick Bright was abruptly dismissed this week as the director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, and removed as the deputy assistant secretary for preparedness and response. He was given a narrower job at the National Institutes of Health.

    In a scorching statement, Dr. Bright, who received a Ph.D. in immunology and molecular pathogenesis from Emory University, assailed the leadership at the health department, saying he was pressured to direct money toward hydroxychloroquine, one of several “potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections” and repeatedly described by the president as a potential “game changer” in the fight against the virus.

    “I believe this transfer was in response to my insistence that the government invest the billions of dollars allocated by Congress to address the Covid-19 pandemic into safe and scientifically vetted solutions, and not in drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit,” he said in his statement. “I am speaking out because to combat this deadly virus, science — not politics or cronyism — has to lead the way.”.

    Doubts about the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus and the lack of evidence about the drug’s effectiveness — including some small studies that indicated patients could be harmed — appear to have dampened Mr. Trump’s enthusiasm for it…”

    1. Some preliminary studies find the drug effective, some don’t. The patients in question are in intensive care and the doctors don’t have many options. Your complaint is just what?

      1. Trump’s Anti-Malaria Drug Shows Poor Results In Initial Tests

        An anti-malarial drug President Trump has aggressively promoted to treat covid-19 had no benefit and was linked to higher rates of death for Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the novel coronavirus, according to a study, raising further questions about the safety and efficacy of a treatment that has seen widespread use in the pandemic.

        The study by VA and academic researchers analyzed outcomes of 368 male patients nationwide, with 97 receiving hydroxychloroquine, 113 receiving hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, and 158 not receiving any hydroxychloroquine.

        Rates of death in the groups treated with the drugs were worse than those who did not receive the drugs, the study found. Rates of patients on ventilators were roughly equal, with no benefit demonstrated by the drugs.

        More than 27 percent of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine died, and 22 percent of those treated with the combination therapy died, compared with an 11.4 percent death rate in those not treated with the drugs, the study said. The results were from an observational study of outcomes and were not part of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which is the gold standard for testing drugs.

        The study was published on the site, which is a clearinghouse for academic studies on the coronavirus that have not yet been peer-reviewed or published in academic journals.

        1. The Wapoo overstates this. The peer review is not in. The VA study was observational. These studies did not factor in zinc serum levels one way or another, which are integral to the working of the antivirals.

          Most of all, they were used in late stage treatment. The initial therapeutic assertion coming from France was that the antiviral agents were ONLY useful in the early stages of treatment, not late stage.

          So another instance of mass media moving the goalposts.

          This is not to say that these antiviral agents are certainly effective, studies continue. But the study in France treated over 3000 patients which is an excellent large sample size, and a statistically signficant result

          Engage in science please on a subject like this which is a matter of medicine, not politics.
          of course we all know it happens quite a bit these days, from all sides, it seems

          1. No Kurtz, you and Trump overstated this and the larger point today is the complete hackery of the Health Dept in sacking scientists who don’t suck Trump a…

            1. No, bythebullsh*t, you just lied and shilled again.
              Sources close to Health and Human Services officials, however, told Politico that the newly dismissed doctor supported acquiring tens of millions of doses of those drugs in internal communications.

              One official told the outlet that Bright praised the acquisition of those drugs as a win for the health department in an email exchange, causing confusion about his stance on the drug that he says caused his ouster.

              “If Bright opposed hydroxychloroquine, he certainly didn’t make that clear from his email — quite the opposite,” the official said.

              But, you already knew that.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. Patients did NOT receive zinc, the element that disrupts coronavirus activity in infected cells.
              The study has not been peer-reviewed.
              The drug combination was administered to 368 patients.
              HCQ-treated patients were predominantly elderly black male veterans with comorbidities (other chronic, fatal diseases). The control group was composed of less compromised patients.
              The comorbidities included heart disease, asthma, liver disease, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and cancer.
              The study’s author, S. Scott Sutton, specifically states that the study is not a clinical trial.
              Sutton has been paid to author three studies for Gilead Pharmaceuticals, maker of remdesivir, a drug in trials to treat COVID-19.
              Gilead’s stock price has gone up significantly since February, when remdesivir was identified as a potential treatment.

              1. and Gilead is off some today, qualifying their own earlier assertions about remesdivir

                but let’s home there are many existing drugs that may help, and let them be tested by well informed and consenting patients who so choose

          2. And, you are just parroting the slop served up last evening by Laura Ingraham. Because….Trumpy Bear just can’t be wrong. And that is the only reason anyone would keep pushing an untested drug regimen without any proof of safety and efficacy. The only grounds for claiming efficacy are anecdotal, but a couple of trials, like this VA one, show it is not only ineffective, it produces worse outcomes.

            Meanwhile a drug developed to combat Ebola does appear to have promise.

            1. Natacha,

              If you get coronavirus, please do not take the hydroxyC and zinc and anti-biotic. OK? Please???? Even if your doctor tells you it will help, you just ignore him, OK??? For me??? Just say NO!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. I didnt watch Ingraham. I got my information from Dr Chris Martenson a pathologist. I linked it before.

              1. Kurtz– I wonder how many people here who attack chloroquine will beg for it if they get sick?

                Or would they prefer to die?

                1. It’s probably too late if they are already critical. the therapy is only supposed to be effective at the front end. similar to use of Tamiflu.

                  but hey, i just say leave it up to the doctors. it’s an off label experimental use, it’s not yet proven, just under experimental use. will the positive results of the French study be replicated? this is an unknown so far.. but, the jury is not in however, unlike what they are crowing about here. just more phony fake news.

                  1. Kurtz– It helped that Democratic state legislator in Michigan who was convinced she was dying. After hearing Trump mention it she begged her husband to get some. He did and it turned her around immediately.

                    I wonder how her husband got it since Michigan’s governor is a tyrannical nut who wants to keep even the dying from trying it.

                    1. I posted the link to that article at detroit free press several times

                      i think the answer to your question is that there is an organized experimental trial happening in detroit at one or more locations, and if not that, possibly they simply heard about it and elected to conduct their own experimental off label use, which is perfectly lawful under the care and supevision of a qualified physician

                    2. Young, if you ever read that story about the Michigan legislator, she had already taken the Malaria drug for treatment of lyme disease. So in other words, she was at no risk of an adverse reaction. But right-wing media hasn’t mentioned that.

                    3. “Malaria drug for treatment of lyme disease. So in other words, she was at no risk of an adverse reaction.”

                      How many people have suffered death or a life endangering reaction from the drug when using it for prophylaxis when travelling in areas where the threat of Malaria is high?

                2. Young, the issue here is not what any of us might use, but the ignorant happy talk from Trump which you guys have to fall in line on, and how the administration is removing experts who don’t. It continues, with Trump yesterday claiming 5 times if he said it once, that there is no way – “in his opinion” – that another corona virus outbreak in the fall, coupled with a normal flu outbreak – will be as bad as what we are facing now. This pathetic douche knows nothing about that or medicines but is selling BS to people like you who can’t get enough.

                  Yeah, if Trump’s BS will save me from dying, I’ll use it.

                  Guess what?

                  1. booK;

                    I am not getting my information from Trump. Nor fox news. nor wapost.
                    I get my info on subject from a pathologist named dr chris martenson.

                    for my party, of the “you guys” — I don’t need to polish Trump’s apple. He does not know or care that I exist. Nobody give me a cookie for defending him. Sometimes i do or don’t. this issue is not about Trump in my mind, but you’re free to keep seeing that way if you like

        2. Gainesville beat you to the punch on this one. This is hardly an exhaustive analysis. Please note, Trump was informed of the benefits of HCL from the ground up. Doctors are improvising and this is one of the improvisations they’ve attempted. It will be some time before we get a definitive answer.

          You look bad enough normally without emulating Gainesville.

          1. Absurd, both Trump and Fox News have shut up about the Malaria drug. That should tell you all you need to know.

            1. No they didn’t you lying liar. I just gave you and the other shill a link to Laura Ingraham on last nite. I know it is real because I seen herself myself last nite.

              But you know, I hope stupid Democrats and Never-Trumpers don’t take the hydroxyC if they get sick. They probably will and just not tell anyone, but I hope the truly faithful don’t!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

            2. it doesnt tell me anything besides he has a lot to say and that’s an old issue for him. he moves fast in case you haven’t noticed.

              the science and experimental testing will continue whether trump touts it, or wapoo approves or not.

              maybe there will be some better studies which discount it, but, these are not sufficient

              I hope to avoid becoming a subject of such a study myself. i won’t be going to any protests and you will see me in a mask if you see me out at all. but if i got sick i would take counsel with my own physician not the wapoo

        3. Paint Chips, not only are you a baby killer but your ignorance of what constitutes a good study makes you into a likely killer of veterans. When all is said and done there is a good likelihood that many veterans that wouldn’t have received the drugs because of your stupidity would have died. If you prevented its use by a physician I would consider you a homocidal maniac.

          1. Am I the only one left correcting my spelling whether intentional or not? The word is near the end and starts with an “h”.

    2. You might want to read this too:
      This was not a peer reviewed study.

      A spokeswoman for the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement by email to Fox News which read, “This was not a clinical trial. It is simply an analysis of retrospective data regarding hospitalized patients. The findings should not be viewed as definitive because the analysis doesn’t adjust for patients’ clinical status and showed that hydroxychloroquine alone was provided to VA’s sickest COVID-19 patients, many times as a last resort.”

      One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patient’s had been intubated. “This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”

      Ingraham translates: “The later you take HCQ, the worse the outcome will be.”

      The second problem: “Incomprehensibly, the ‘untreated group’ actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID-19 (Gautret 2020) with in-vitro efficacy.”
      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Well, yeah. There’s lots of contradictory information out there. Study 1 says the Ro for the virus is 2.3, another study says 1.4, a third says 5.7. First they tell us masks are useless, then they reverse field. No one seems the least bit interested in how Japan has contained this epidemic, unless they can refer to Japan as a hook to complain about the amount of testing that has been done here. The state governments and the CDC publish data, but conceal crucial data points (which people at worldometers do manage to suss out somehow). It’s all quite frustrating.

        What’s amusing about this exchange is that it indicates what a head case Gainesville really is. Trump mentioned some promising anecdata about the effect of the drugs on moribund patients, and Gainesville gets emotional validation out of a half-assed study which suggests it doesn’t work.

        1. So far a friend of mine who is an infectious disease specialist is using hydroxychloroquine and the Z-Pak (Zithromax) on a regular basis. Earlier is better.

          The fools on this blog do not understand what makes a good study. If the headlines match their political goals suddenly the headlines are the gospel. That is only because they are Stupid. Gainsville is a turkey who might not be around after November.

          1. Allan – here is the French doctor (who did the peer reviewed study) response to the VA looky loo.

            The two primary outcomes analyzed in the study were death and the need for ventilation.

            About 28 percent who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11 percent of those getting routine care alone.

            About 22 percent of those getting the drug plus azithromycin died too, but the difference between that group and usual care was not considered large enough to rule out other factors that could have affected survival.

            Hydroxychloroquine made no difference in the need for a breathing machine, either.

            The researchers said, “In this study, we found no evidence that use of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin, reduced the risk of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. An association of increased overall mortality was identified in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs.”

            Researchers did not track side effects but noted hints that hydroxychloroquine might have damaged other organs. The drug has long been known to have potentially serious side effects, including altering the heartbeat in a way that could lead to sudden death.


            One of the studies that showed positive results was conducted by French Dr. Didier Raoult. His study included 1,061 patients who were treated with a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and demonstrated 91% effectiveness with zero side effects.

            Upon hearing the surprising results of the VA study, Dr. Raoult reviewed their findings and discovered several glaring instances of “scientific misconduct.” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham reported on Raoult’s response on her program Wednesday night. (Video of this segment is at the bottom of the page.)

            Ingraham read about the first problem from Raoult’s response, “In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct and this article [VA findings] is an absolutely spectacular example of this. The analysis of the data shows two major biases…Lymphopenia is twice as common in the HCQ groups as the non-HCQ group and there is an absolute correlation between lymphopenia and fatality rate, which is well known.”

            One of the major problems Raoult found was that the HQC and the HQC/Zpak were given after the patients had been intubated. “This is unreasonable at the time of the cytokine storm [after patient is critically ill], as it is unlikely that HCQ alone would be able to control patients at this stage of the disease.”

            Ingraham translates: “The later you take HCQ, the worse the outcome will be.”

            The second problem: “Incomprehensibly, the ‘untreated group’ actually received azithromycin in 30% of cases, without this group being analyzed in any distinct way. Azithromycin is also a proposed treatment for COVID-19 (Gautret 2020) with in-vitro efficacy.”

            Well, then you can’t call these patients untreated. I suppose we won’t be seeing any media coverage of the serious problem Raoult discovered in the VA study.

            It looks as if the VA researchers had been trying to achieve a particular result.

            1. Thanks, but I am familiar with most of this stuff. I wanted a repeat opinion from the infectious disease specialist today when we had a friendly chat. He is not in a major hospital where we get most of our information from so this is of additional interest. Since he spends non working time reading all the real studies on Corona I trust what he says based on the scientific literature not the news media. He just laughs at those studies that have no basis to draw a conclusion from.

        2. Trump hard sold it day after day after day and his back up choir here picked it up because Dear Leader.

          None of them know WTF they are talking about.

    3. More fake news from the DNC shills. Here is the real story:
      Bright told the New York Times that he believed his removal was due to his internal opposition to expanding access to and investing in the malaria treatment, which had been touted by President Trump. Sources close to Health and Human Services officials, however, told Politico that the newly dismissed doctor supported acquiring tens of millions of doses of those drugs in internal communications.

      One official told the outlet that Bright praised the acquisition of those drugs as a win for the health department in an email exchange, causing confusion about his stance on the drug that he says caused his ouster.

      “If Bright opposed hydroxychloroquine, he certainly didn’t make that clear from his email — quite the opposite,” the official said.
      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  2. Oh well, listening to a Christopher Hitchen talk, and it has made me feel poetic! Who knows what kind of bugs the chicks there catch from the losers who trade there.

    Carte Blanche???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a gal with a Ranch-
    That made money the same way as Blanche*!
    By kindness from strangers,
    But Good Lord! The dangers!
    And not only from nuit blanche!**

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    * Blanche DuBois

    ** A sleepless night colloquially, I think maybe in French, although I do not speak French.

    1. Haha, as soon as I saw a Poem by Squeeky, I was like Yesss!

      Carte Blanche.

      I swear you could make money off your poems.

  3. Let us not conflate the issue. It is a legal business. Regardless of the type of business, it should enjoy the same privileges as any other business.

    If you want to debate the other aspect, then convince the citizens of those counties to change the law.

    On another note, this morality issue, is something that will never go away. As seen with prohibition in the early 20th century, it created a huge criminal enterprise, making things worse than before. I am not advocating that everyone should embrace legal prostitution. However, prostitution has not and will not go away, for it does supply a desire for some. Moreover, where it is not a legal activity, it creates criminal enterprises, which opens up for more abuses as it is kept in the darkness. Maybe it would be better to convince people not to indulge in such activities, while mitigating the criminal activity surrounding it by keeping it legal.

  4. What I want to know do you have to wear a mask while sampling the product?

  5. I believe it is legitimate for the state to “legislate morality” to some extent and I thank Absurd for the quote from Bork.

    Sex work in my thinking should be legalized to a degree, provided that it is only permissible between consenting adults of course, and subject to proper public healthy and safety regulations. This is not to encourage fornication but actually to accept that it happens and that perhaps charging for it is not quite as bad as we have previously believed. Especially keeping in mind that in general it seems that society does not believe fornication is bad in the first place, at least not anymore. But let’s assume that it is just for the sake of argument. Just pure fornication that is. to continue:

    Why should porn be legal but “prostitution” be illegal? That’s the law in the US b’c of “first amendment”

    Arguably any act of paid sex work need only be videotaped for possible future public display, to be rendered lawful.
    Think about that. How ‘retarded” is this system?

    In my old fashioned thinking, sex is private. And that is modesty, a virtue.
    So even though it is lawful, fornication is arguably a sin. At least for our argument!
    Add money changing hands, I am not so sure it is any worse for society or the individual, than run of the mill fornication for free.

    Then add making it public is form of indecent display, which makes it more socially harmful and negative. (sin of “scandal”)
    That’s what happens when it is published as pornography.
    arguably, private fornication is actually less immoral, even if paid for, than private fornication for public viewing as porn, because while it is illicit, it does not corrupt others if done in private. the display is “scandal” in the sense it is defined as sin.

    And yet porn is redline protected by the First Amendment and private fornication for pay is not.
    This seems crazy to me.

    Now let me go a step further. And I know this will offend women but tough luck.

    A woman who gives fornication away for free, versus a woman who charges for it– who values her sexual capacity more?

    I only ask the question as a “thought experiment”

    Now if you get my drift, here is the equation in America today.,

    If you fornicate for free, that’s legal and ok.
    If you fornicate for money, that’s bad and illegal.
    If you fornicate for money provided that other people can watch you do it, that is again totally legal.

    So the law allows adults to fornicate for free, but not to charge for it, unless you tape the thing to show to others.
    to me, this is hard to understand. it seems a “perverse” set of incentives.

    What kind of country have we been building with this regime of laws?
    A crazy and shameless one just like what we have.

    To put it differently, if the greater evils are lawful due to the First amendment, why is the lesser evil, not?

    I know this will fall on deaf ears because for some reason people think porn is harmless and prostitution is so much more awful. Putting aside the fact that porn is essentially legalized prostitution made lawful through the magic of its shameful public display.

    There is another interesting irony. Some prostitutes ply their trade for one fee, but will charge extra for the privilege of filming it. moreover, many sex workers refuse to have themselves filmed under any circumstances, because, one would surmise, they wish to have a social reputation for decency, in spite of their work.

    Now consider all the people out there on the internet who throw their nude videos out there essentially for free. Why? Oh of course attention, because they find it rewarding in non-financial ways, perhaps exhibitionism, or any number of reasons. All complex and lawful. But the sex worker who does it in private is so much more bad? Because she wants and perhaps just needs, money? I argue she may very well be less bad. In all seriousness. At least she values herself enough to charge for it. I am not saying this is the ideal or a positive good, but I am saying perhaps it is not that much worse than the run of the mill fornicator, perhaps it is even less harmful; and moreover, perhaps the legality of porn is far more harmful by contrast in its overall net results.

    it’s a race to the bottom with laws like ours, and I don’t mean to the derriere, just the absolute gutter of licentiousness.
    I say, have mercy on the sex workers, and let them as consenting adults explicitly trade sex for money do so without criminal penalty and it will not add even one iota of extra “bad” to the miasmal swamp of public indecency we already have.

    1. “Marriage is but slavery made to appear civilized” –. Albert Einstein

      Oh that Einstein, clever about physics but less so about society.

      marriage is an exchange of economic benefits.
      Even slavery was to a degree: the slave got bed and board, and sometimes small wages.

      In “employment’ there are also wages, however small, if not bed and board.
      The dirty secret of capitalism kept hidden in history is that sometimes wage workers are a lot cheaper than slaves

      what is cheaper than a wage earner or a slave?

      one who gives their labor for free.

      see we live in a crazy society. marriage is called slavery even though it is actually a huge stream of income; the woman who makes even less economic benefits than does a wife, as a wage earning sex worker is a criminal–

      but the woman who gives it away for free is praised and considered “liberated.” seem crazy to anybody else but me?

      The Covid crisis has caused divorces to spike upwards in China and one may suspect that it will here too. Sex workers are confined to home earning no pay but at least they’re not on their way to jail, instead looking for a handout from government instead of working for pay. Citizens are consoled with free porn and viewership of “Pornhub” is way up!

      Welcome to the Brave New World!

        1. Einstein yes. But he echoed a remark that was also attributed earlier in some form to Rosa Luxemburg if I recall. Or maybe Engels. Einstein probably meant it from his perspective, but they were talking about women, more so. Einstein’s remark is more well remembered, and probably even less constructive, even though likewise, wrong.

          Marriage is actually far more analogous to partnership, in the legal sense, than slavery.
          Slavery is analogous to the relationship people have today towards livestock and pets.

          Lawful marriage is also a particular social relationship by which society and the state try and lend support and a measure of permanence to the natural association of humans from which all life emerges.

          The modern state in America operates on all sorts of screwy cultural fictions. I explored the one above about why prostitution is illegal, unless it is porn, in which case that’s ok.

          Another one of them is that slavery itself was this horrible awful thing. Ok, it is obsolete, but actually if you would have made slavery illegal say a thousand years earlier, than all those slaves would have just starved to death. Really, people do not have the habit of examining things in the historical and factual context in which they occur.

          I remember a study was published by a respected economists analyzing some of the “benefits of slavery” to the slaves, or something like that. What was the pecuniary value of bed and board, etc. This is a legitimate subject of economic analysis and it was not in the slightest bit an apology for slavery. I am not apologizing for slavery either! I am just pointing out the fact that over thousands of years of the social institution, slaves received as recompense, generally, bed and board, and also sometimes wages. This is factual. You could add it up and come to the conclusion that some people working for wages are actually making less than slaves might in a similar context. This is perhaps a useful analysis to help the workers!

          But the whole thing was shouted down by the public and the professor heaped with disgrace. In short, nobody bothered to try and think, it was all just a public chorus of condemnation orchestrated by the usual obnoxious and short sighted media bosses and their lackey editors and “journalists” and fellow travellers in petty academia.

          The other day I said here, and I have said it before, that it was a laudable achievement of the CCP in the PRC to end foot-binding of women, concubinage, and chattel slavery.

          And yet, I wonder if the CCP has not made slaves out of all of Chinese society, in the bargain.

          This seems to just sail over people’s heads, blank stares.

      1. I saw domestic violence is way up too.

        The other night, I heard a man screaming SOPHIA, and a lot of other stuff for hours, I waited to hear the woman at my window, but nothing. It was coming from a different building adjacent.

        So, I assumed it was a screaming phone call at 3-5 a.m., and not an in-person situation. Debated calling the police.

        But yeah, divorce is way up.

        I thought imagine all those ppl halfway through a divorce, and they are still living in the same house, ouch!

        Or starting a divorce now, ouch!

        Or how about those living with their ex and not even married but blaming to move out pre-CV19 🤔😒


        1. But yeah, divorce is way up.

          It isn’t. The ratio of divorces to extant marriages was at its peak in 1979.

            1. I got my line from the Prez. It wasn’t me, it was the media. 😉😆😂. And this is said in a high to low tone.

              1. WW33 – this is a perfect time to blame everything on the drugs. 😉

          1. What I really want to know is are they going to finally figure out the Kristin Smart case?

    2. Actually you may have meant derriere.

      It certainly gets to a number of issues beyond the legal, and the more female input into the ultimate outcome the better. Sweeping generalization here, but here goes…, women tend to think differently of sex. Not that they don’t partake in sex work for money obviously, or recognize the financial transaction of it. Those are obvious factors…

      Women are able to recognize those factors and still exist within the paradigm yet still know their sexual reality is different and always will be. They’re sexually bilingual in that respect. Men tend to grind against the wall and look foolish.

      Flip it around and look at it this way…, a male escort places an ad advertising the best hands in town for females and males. That escort will be hammered with calls saying stuff like “hey, I got twelve inches and we’re gonna have us a good time” from males. Whereas women will have that escort over for massage a couple times to gauge safety issues first, as well as maybe scoping out the vehicle said escort arrives in such as not to freak the neighbors out when parked in the vicinity.

      And once that initial trust is demonstrated they might turn out to be the best word of mouth advertising ever within her circle of acquaintances.

      It’s a wild world out there.

      But still there are big gender differences as regards to approach. Pretty done with male input on my end. The more women that get into and shape the law going forward the better I say.

      1. Anonymous,

        I intentionally have crafted my remarks here on this blog over the past couple years advocating for limited legalization of sex work, in a way that does not explore differences between men and women, for two reasons.

        a. men engage in sex work as well and theoretically observing these differences does not advance my argument.
        b. in the world, among actual sex workers, of whom I am not one, but among them, they have a sort of norm of solidarity in which they do not differentiate for gender and approach their labor concerns together without respect to male or female or tranny, whatever the term may be. on a certain level i respect this solidarity, even if I personally do not wish to be part of the whole gay rights whatever. What I am saying is they may see an overlap with all that gender stuff, but I do not. it is not integral to my prudential argument so I just leave it out.

        It’s fine for other people to make these arguments and observations of course, but I am just confining my observations to what appeals to my thinking as a person who actually has a somewhat Catholic sense of sexual morality and the role of the state as it relates to regulation of morals. I am not saying that I am presenting a correct Catholic view, I have no such authority, I am just saying that my thinking on this subject is informed by Catholicism.

        That may seem odd to some people, but I would point out that in Catholic Europe, there was and perhaps still is a greater tolerance towards sex work than there was in the Anglosphere. In America, regulation was sporadic until the Mann Act of 1910, the first federal law about it, which emerged from the same Christian-progressive circles as temperance aka prohibition of booze, and woman’s suffrage– these were almost always Protestant circles. Another relic of this era is to be found in the hometown of Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois, a famously self righteous progressive community, where it’s probably easier to get a license to sell pot now than it is to sell beer.

        In Asia, by comparison to a generally non-Christian part of the world, it is often also illegal but more widely tolerated. I believe, it is not necessarily Christianity per se which has informed our cultural viewpoints and laws about this, but perhaps, a certain version of Christianity, which has come to pervade aspects of American thinking far beyond the pews. I generally don’t want to elaborate on that because it just offends everyone.

      2. Anonymous. Just a side observation. Have you noticed that many men’s magazines are about cars, planes, guns, racing, hunting, science and women’s magazines are about men and sex, about men and how to attract them, about men and pleasing sexual acts and about clothes and cosmetics to attract men?

        1. Young – So true. I haven’t read magazine in years, but when I did, yes, always about looks, sex, and attracting men.

          Spot on!

    3. In the mining communities with a population of about 7,000 there were 7 cat houses. Rape and sexual assault were largely unknown (I never heard of one) despite itinerate miners coming in from all around to stay in boarding houses while working. They were a health and safety benefit to the community.

      1. legalized sex work won’t eliminate sexual assault. it happens in countries in either end of the spectrum.

        it will however make sex workers more willing to call the police on an unruly and aggressive customer who’s crossing the contractual boundaries. where it’s illegal, they are understandably reluctant to call police. so sexual assault tends to be an issue which weighs slightly in favor of legalization.

        common sense suggests that legalization will also decrease the incidence of abusive pimping and genuine sex trafficking — however, the experience in Germany with legalization suggests that just like sexual assault, the problems will not be eliminated. reduced to a degree, that’s common sense, but not eliminated.

        a derivative of this conversation is the extent to which the incidence of sex trafficking among adults is overstated by certain NGOs and nonprofits which are getting grants from well-endowed donors plying their own political agenda.

        that is a matter which is “reported” and “surveyed” in a matter much like “hate groups” are counted by the SPLC.

        So, for example, if one isolated bozo in a backwoods town throws up a kkk type website with a PO BOX and starts selling hoods, that is a “dangerous hate group”

        likewise unproven “hotline” calls from anonymous “victims” which are never verified or proven in the slightest bit are counted and reported by self serving grant receiving machines like the “Polaris foundation”


        as in many types of “social research” the “studies” are often undertaken with predetermined results, and sifted in “academia” by a bunch of ivory tower socalled experts who are themselves, often paid to screw somebody over, if only in a figurative way

        1. I know longer trust ‘studies’ or ‘science says’ because too much nonsense is sold with those labels.

          Nor was I pretending to have a universal result.

          I was conveying my obsevation made over years in a real-life situation.

          Many of the women in town had come to the same conclusion and wanted the cat houses to remain.

          Maybe they were all wrong, but no harm was done.

        2. By the way, the cat houses in the mining district wouldn’t let drunks or unruly customers in.

          As for reluctance to call the police I noticed an electrical knife switch on the wall just inside the door and asked what it was. I was told it was an emergency alarm to the police department. It was possible. The police department was just three doors down on the same side of the street.

          I heard that the girls bought a new cruiser for the police department a few years after I left.

          They were not afraid to call the police.

            1. Paul–Yes, they were generous. I had to sell raffle tickets to raise money for our scout troop. The best places to sell (after nothing going door to door or to grocery stores) were the saloons, and we had plenty. Then I went to a cat house. I was clearly too young to get in but when I gave my spiel the madam, Delores, asked how much for a whole book. She bought it. Nobody else came close. Very nice people.

              1. Young – at my last high school reunion, one of the parish priests was there and he was talking about how generous they were when ever the church needed help.

                1. Paul– Thanks for that. They were generous and much of their generosity was unseen.

              2. Humph, just occurred to me it is kind of neat to sell Boy Scout raffle tickets in a cat house. I imagine the result would have been the same if I were selllng Girl Scout cookies. They were kind.

                It didn’t seem as outlandish to me then as it does now.

  6. Nevada isn’t the only state with brothels. Look at California with Feinstein, Pelosi, Schiff and whats her name the other loser. That’s just one example.

  7. the more interesting aspect for business lawyers and accountants concerns payment of workers and taxation. Some businesses like this pay the workers as independent contractors with 1099 reporting, not W-2 wage earners.

    More specifically, for example, every “customer” may pay a house fee, which is split between the worker and the boss, and then the worker keeps 100% of tips on top of that. That is also common split of the take for hair salons or barbershops.

    By contrast, while it’s also a 1099 setup rather than w-2, at strip clubs often the dancers have to pay a floor fee per diem, and then they keep the tips net of that fee. I can’t imagine a strip club qualifying to pay strippers because in actual fact usually they dont pay them a dime. It’s the strippers paying the club to rent the floor, essentially. Big difference from a brothel. Although the brothel probably has a per diem housing fee too come to think of it. Hmm.

    Maybe I could write up a CLE on this and take a tax deductible trip to Nevada to do some “field research….:”

    Anyways they say the PPP was to be allowed not just for wage payrolls but also other forms like self employeds and quasi-employee contractors (probably like these sex workers or barbershop employees, usually a similar setup) but Im not sure it really panned out that way. Run out of money before it could be figured out!

    1. Mr. Kurtz – CLE and a field trip 😂 ima bout to fall out my chair. Nicely placed in the middle.

      1. yeah i was thinking of a CLE I went to in Las Vegas. but there’s no lawful brothels there, as the other poster noted. i did play cards and drink a little, however.

        the cle research would be more fun than giving it. probably some rat fink lawyer would get offended and report me for violation of rpc 8.4 for saying something offensive. Or perhaps one of these “carceral feminists”* my sex-worker friends complain about would think i was a secret pimp or something and try and get me investigated for money laundering.

        so I won’t bother. there’s no money in giving CLEs anyhow. it’s mostly a waste of time for the presenters, unless you’re building your name. im already too busy for that.

        *See, Bernstein, Elizabeth (2007). “The Sexual Politics of the ‘New Abolitionism”.

        1. Mr Kurtz – the name of the documentary maker escapes me now, but he did one called Aspen in which you see all these docs in a room on the first day of a CLE. On day two, half the doc are there are the rest of the seats have recorders. Day three, all the seats have recorders and the speaker is using a recorder.

  8. Hmm, if “immoral” businesses were not eligible then a LOT of people in Congress should not be getting paid!

  9. It’s Wells, not Well. Take I80 West and turn right on US93. Been there many times, Wells, not Bella’s. I’ve seen her bill boards but I just stop for gas and to use a bathroom.

    1. “Social distancing would seem the antithesis of the business model of a brothel.”

      Nah, my dick is 6′ 7”.

  10. As many on this blog know, I have been a long critic of morality legislation.

    Robert Bork’s response to the trope, “you can’t legislate morality” was, “In truth, we legislate little else”. Until a law professor is willing to advocate we restore freedom-of-contract in ordinary commercial transactions, the rest of us are justified in chuckling derisively when a remark such as that above is uttlered. The four most prominent advocates of restoration of freedom of contract are:

    1. Richard Epstein

    1. Absurd, what is your objection to legalized prostitution? Should business and home owners have to tolerate prostitution in their neighborhoods? It can easily come down to that.

      You might recall that actor Hugh Grant was arrested for picking up a prostitute in Hollywood back in the 1990’s. But what you may not know is that street Grant was arrested on is lined with beautiful craftsmen homes. It is NOT a sleazy neighborhood by any stretch.

      Instead those homeowners were the longtime victims of prostitution that operated from an adjoining business district. The LAPD finally rooted out that problem. But for years homeowners in that area had to endure an intolerable nuisance.

  11. Technically, brothels are not legal across Nevada. The county in which the brothel will reside must have less than 10,000 residents. That’s why there are no legal brothels in either Reno or Las Vegas. Second, the voters of the county can vote to outlaw brothels in their county.

  12. It seems the popular thing is that a legal business should be treated the same as other businesses no matter the occupation. Broad based opinion at least for now.

  13. “As many on this blog know, I have been a long critic of morality legislation.”

    Which is probably the biggest mistake you have made in your life. All legislation is “morality” legislation in one form or another. To remove sexual taboos/laws is a dangerous thing and you end up with a society where anything goes – and anything will definitely go. And the words, “LONG been a critic” betrays the roots of this idiocy, because it is a childish belief. One probably held since those heady days of college, when students think they are the smartest people who have ever lived, and have all the answers to life.

    Look at a place where “anything goes” here in America. It is in the black inner cities where black women mate with whatever random male is there at the time. It has created a place where no sane person would want to live – savage, violent, stupid, criminal. Worse, the children who are born there are mostly going nowhere definite in life. Except maybe prison.

    That is what happened when marriage became optional, encouraged by people who thought it quaint that children should have fathers in the home, and encouraged by government money.

    So look at that when you decide to eschew “morality legislation.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Which morality laws exactly are you grieving the loss of and how do they relate to your pet issue of out-of-wedlock births?

    2. “All legislation is morality legislation in one form or another.”

      No it isn’t.

      Speed limits, size standards for categories of produce, fishing limits, and on and on.

      The common law makes this distinction: “malum in se” and “malum prohibitum”. The former is wrong in itself, evil, the latter is mere regulation that could be adopted or abandoned without a ripple in the moral universe.

      1. Young, I like this and it makes sense. I don’t want to delve in too deep but I am sort of interested now in when you believe that idea was actually created, how, where and by whom. Maybe the ideas were created in social convention developing spontaneously. Forget the law as we know it. The idea in its historical setting strikes me as interesting.

        1. Allan– This is an interesting area of exploration and I have not learned enough to do it justice.

          I think originally laws that carried a penalty were almost exclusively malum in se, that is acts that were wrongs in themselves. They are usually instantly recognizable: murder, rape, treason, theft, and the like. They are the types of things that we know are wrong and probably unlawful without needing a statute. Indeed in some jurisdictions there may be no statute. I notice in some Brit movies a person will be charged with murder in violation of the common law. Also common law [aiding a felony] was used to charge Kevorkian for participating in assisted suicide. He kept yelling, “You have no law!” They did have a law but no statute.

          Other offenses, generally misdemeanors, were purely regulatory and did not seem particularly immoral or evil. They were prohibitions rather than grave sins, hence malum prohibitum. Moral turpitude is involved with theft but not with exceeding the speed limit.

          Unfortunately, off the top of my head I can’t say when the terms came into use. Could give an idea how res ipsa loquitur came about in England on the other hand. Most of those cases are darkly funny.

          1. Regarding malum, in two forms: a reference that I cannot easily reference states that the first judicial use in England dates from 1496. Malum in se cannot be ‘bypassed’ by an edict of the King.

            1. Sounds right. I just came across a reference to that era as well. Concepts in common law grow over time, case by case, and gain fuller meaning almost in the way an organism adapts to new or varied conditions.

              It seems to have existed as a concept before 1496 and was refined by the case you mentioned. Unfortunately my Blackstone is packed away. I would like to see if he says anything about it.

              Very interesting that it appears also as a limitation on the king’s power.

          2. Young, one always has to ask themselves the origin of the most fundamental laws. I don’t believe fundamental laws originated in a court with lawyers and politicians. I believe they arrose during the many milenia man learned to socially interact with other men. Those fundamentals were tested by time so when great leaders like Hammurabi or Moses appeared they didn’t create the law rather they codified the laws to result in what was perceived best for the needed social interaction of the time. In other words I think years of social interaction created an unsaid set of fundamental laws dictating the actions of society. Sometime in history a distinction must have been created prior to thoset two concepts being voiced. It’s that history that fascinates me.

            1. Allan– That is essentially correct. The term Draconian Law refers to an early attempt to write down existing laws that were supposed to be known but, turns out, were more harsh than people realized, hence the demand for a re-write. The famous Twelve Tablets were in part a codification of existing customary law at least in part.

              When farming developed in Anatolia the kit included domestication of animals, better varieties of grains, and techniques for planting, harvesting and storage plus, importantly, early legal rules for recognizing private property. Once you have a home you have storage and stuff and property. You need new rules for handling it. The evidence for that is archaeological sites showing the rise of an early social order with homes set a bit apart. The opportunities for violence increased when people lived closer and in cooperation in early farming communities so rules had to arise to control that.

              It seems likely that just as we were domesticating animals we were also domesticating ourselves genetically as well. Our core behaviors likely changed.

              Even now some law emerges almost out of sight. When I said on our association board that the rules we adopted for the community were actual law the attorney for the managesment company was incredulous. I pointed out that if we followed the required procedures our rules were enforceable in court with the full force of the legal system behind them. That’s law.

              I know that in early times a lot of law emerged informally and locally to meet the needs of small communities. It wasn’t always easy to say what the law was and juries might testify to that as well as to the facts. We do something like that now in medical malpractice cases. A doctor must perform to the standard of care but lawyers and judges don’t set the standard of care; doctors do by their testimony.

              1. “Once you have a home you have storage and stuff and property. You need new rules for handling it. … but those rules most likely to be long lasting and acceptable will be based on the fundamental laws created by the people themselves over milenia.

                ” the attorney for the managesment company was incredulous.”

                It sounds like you need a new management company 🙂 . Unless of course the rules of your HOA didn’t comply with the law.

                ‘Standard of care’ is so vague and maleable that the idea should be tossed out or completely revised.

                1. On your first paragraph: The rules were created by the people themselves over millenia as they worked out how to live around each other in the new system. It took as much as 3,000 years to domesticate wheat. Imagine that before the Trojan War somebody said “hey this is good. We can grow it.” It would be just about now that the grains would be fully domesticated. Meanwhile they are working out the social rules by trial and error. They had the millenia you mentioned. About another thousand years to domesticate animals.

                  We didn’t get a new management company. We got a new attorney, but for other reasons. It is easy to work long in a specialty and not see beyond the near horizon. It happens to all of us. What annoyed me wasn’t that he didn’t know it but that he didn’t grasp it instantly once stated. Not fair, I suppose because I had the advatage of having read a good bit about the history of law for pleasure and had a broader view of how it emerges.

                  I like standard of care. Can’t think what could replace it. It has to be relatively plastic because medicine advances to quickly and standards of care change with it. Probably it is not standard of care to treat covid with hydroxychloroqine just now but that could change rapidly. I am pretty sure it is not below the standard of care to use it off label with the patient’s consent. Law has to adapt to its conditions just as creatures do.

                  1. “I like standard of care.”

                    Whose standard of care? The hospital where the care took place? The referral hospital away from the scene? The medical center? Harvard? The institution where the physician studied? A world renown institution in a different country?

                    1. The standard of care is established by the testimony of expert witnesses testifying to the recognized practices in the community or their specialty or, sometimes, nationwide.

                      Who else can explain what the current measure of adequate care is?

                      Average is not the standard. That would automatically make half the doctors incompetent. An average doctor should be pretty good and there is a fair amount of room below that that can still be within the standard of care.

                      Both sides will have experts subject to cross examination and a jury will decide which is more credible by a preponderance of the evidence.

                    2. “The standard of care is established by the testimony of expert witnesses testifying to the recognized practices in the community or their specialty or, sometimes, nationwide.”

                      Young, take note at what you just said, community or nationwide, the latter of which can mean Harvard and the like while the former might be a location in the middle of nowhere. That is a pretty wide spread for a standard. The one being sued hasn’t been to the weekly grand rounds at Harvard for years or ever and practices with limited back-up.

                      “that can still be within the standard of care.”

                      Don’t forget it is a jury that is deciding this very technical information that neither you nor I know much about. Harvard has the 20th generation ultrasound and other high tech equipment while the doctor in the middle of nowhere has his old stethescope and it isn’t even the newest model.

                      That standard is bull. Paid experts fight one another and they are chosen by the lawyers and frequently the expert chooses the position of the lawyer that hired him even though in his most recent act as an expert witness he took the other side of the issue. But…. he must know what he is talking about because he comes from Harvard.

                    3. Allan–Coming from Harvard doesn’t impress juries as much as you think. Could even piss them off. In any event the usual experts are physicians found locally in a large municipality or from a not too distant similar community. A physician in rural Fritters, Alabama is not going to be held to the standards of Cedar Sinai in LA.

                      Both sides will retain experts likely to support their positions however if a doctor strays too far from the accepted standard of care in his testimony he faces very strong cross examination and if he is caught out in being dishonest about a generally accepted standard of care he also faces discipline from the medical board including possible loss of license. I have read of a couple of such instances in the discipline pages put out by medical boards.

                      It costs a lot to mount a full scale med mal case through trial and some established firms turn down far more cases than they accept.

                      What alternative do you propose?

                    4. “Allan–Coming from Harvard doesn’t impress juries as much as you think. Could even piss them off. In any event the usual experts are physicians found locally in a large municipality or from a not too distant similar community.”

                      Maybe where you live or what you have seen. Try one of the metropolitan areas where malpractice suits hit high numbers. You think that the physician won’t be held to the standards of medical centers but at times they have been. The standard of practice is very broad and varies considerably. Your own response earlier admits to that fact. That means the community standard is a crap shoot.

                      What would I suggest. I can think of a lot of things but one of the first things I would do is assess the experts and make sure all of their testimonies are made open to the court and perhaps not permit a good number to testify.

                      In many cases juries award based on being shown that there was another way where the patient would (based on the expert witness from Harvard) have likely survived or not suffered injury. I would make them prove what the physician did was wrong, not that there was a better way. Remember when you respond that juries are deciding the results not you or I.

                      The question of whether or not juries can give a reasoned decision in highly technical issues is questionable. My quick off the cuff responses weren’t carefully considered. Too late to really think about it.

                    5. A nationwide standsrd would not be based on esoteric work in Mayo Clinic or the like. Instead it would use widely disseminated and well established practices. For example there are a number of formularies sold nationwide in pocket and electronic versions that are available everywhere, including rural areas, and they provide instant information on approriate medicines and doseages and cautions for many ills. Strep throat, look it up and prescribe the appropriate drug. Tarascon is one such. You could probably get a copy from Amazon. There is no reason why a rural doctor should not be up to date on appropriate medications used throughout the country. I could locate the appropriate drug and dosage and I am not even a doctor. Couldn’t prescribe it of course.

                      If your rural doctor had caused bad side effects because he gave you an obsolete medication when a better drug known to every doctor in the country with Tarascon in his coat was available wouldn’t you be annoyed?

                    6. “A nationwide standsrd would not be based on esoteric work in Mayo Clinic or the like.”

                      Young the standard of care need not deal with esoteric things to be vastly different from one community to another. It can vary between specialties in the same community. I think you are making things more complex than they are. In medicine there are frequently many options to be considered or for a surgeon many complexities as anatomy is not identical from patient to patient. Decisions that are made are based on how one looks at the situation. Differnt viewpoint, different treatment.

                      Look at Covid right now not in the malpractice dilemma but look at the variation of opinions. Medicine is not as clean cut as you might believe.

                      “If your rural doctor had caused bad side effects because he gave you an obsolete medication when a better drug known to every doctor in the country with Tarascon in his coat was available wouldn’t you be annoyed?”

                      Pull a Harvard Professor out of Harvard and put him in one of these distant communities and he might have a lot of trouble practicing medicine.

                    7. “Allan, every trial is a crap shoot.”

                      Young, that is not a good way of determining whether or not a physician did a reasonable job.

                      Bad legal decisions cost the country huge amounts of money in defensive medical care

                    8. Expert witnesses– An expert witness is one whose opinion can be evidence.

                      A non expert can only testify to what he has actually witnessed. His opinion doesn’t count.

                      To be an expert foundation must be laid, that is there must be testimony to establish that the witness has the necesssary learning and experience to offer an opinion on the subject at issue.

                      Opposing counsel can cross examine on the expert’s history and expertise.

                      His credibility is subject to examination.

                    9. “To be an expert foundation must be laid, that is there must be testimony to establish that the witness has the necesssary learning and experience to offer an opinion on the subject at issue.”

                      Young without being insulting or anything like that it sounds like you haven’t been involved in malpractice cases where a lot of money is at stake.

                      A lot of experts will take either side of the argument as long as they are paid. Sometimes experts become very adept at testifying on one issue. Their professorship at Harvard or elsewhere might provide them status but it doesn’t necessarily provide them integrity.

                    10. ” it doesn’t necessarily provide them integrity.”

                      I should have added or asked if during the impeachment hearings if you listened to some of the Constitutional experts on the panel that were from professors of law? Or, how about the experts in government that testified about not getting any direct information. Or, perhaps did you listen to lawyers that are in Congress like Schiff.

                      That should make one think twice about integrity.

                    11. A Harvard professor practicing in a rural community could end up decorated like a Christmas tree with malpractice suits. He would be the first to say it is not his field

                      By the way, if you are in a specialty you will be held to the standards of that specialty.

                      If you are in family practice and you decide to try your hand at brain surgery you will be held to the standards of brain surgeons, not other family practice docs giving it a try on a slow week.

                    12. “decide to try your hand at brain surgery you will be held to the standards of brain surgeons, not other family practice docs ”

                      Young, sometimes juries think differently but I won’t argue that case presently. Think about diagnosis where one is a brain surgeon and one is a neurologist.

                    13. I know a lot of doctors and I don’t know one who practices defensive medicine.

                    14. “I know a lot of doctors and I don’t know one who practices defensive medicine.”

                      That is anecdotal, but how would you know?

                    15. Rather than practicing defensive medicine I know of doctors fighting with insurers to get approval for tests or procedures they believe their patients need. That is the battle I have seen.

                      If the insurer denies it the doctor should tell the patient why he thinks it appropriate and that the insurer won’t pay for it and they can do it out of pocket if they can afford it. At least the patient knows and has a choice. A few years ago some insurers tried to prevent doctors from telling patients about procedures the doctor recommended but the insurer would not pay for. I think that got shot down.

                      Defensive medicine? The insurer can drag its feet on needed procedures and sure as hell isn’t going to jump in and pay for an unneeded procedure just to make a doctor feel comfortable.

                      Come to think of it, I would not be surprised if the complaints about defensive medicine originate from insurers.

                    16. “Rather than practicing defensive medicine I know of doctors fighting with insurers to get approval for tests or procedures they believe their patients need. That is the battle I have seen.”

                      Young, as you well know two different things can happen at the same time. Insurers are denying care and physicians practice defensive medicine.

                    17. “A few years ago some insurers tried to prevent doctors from telling patients about procedures the doctor recommended but the insurer would not pay for. I think that got shot down.”

                      Young, i am pretty sure that a number of years ago written into contracts of physicians was that they could not inform patients of alternative treatments not performed by the insurers.

                    18. “Come to think of it, I would not be surprised if the complaints about defensive medicine originate from insurers.”

                      Defensive medicine preceded managed care.

                    19. “Allan– Here’s are article touching on insurer’s attempts to gag doctors about treatment patients needed.”

                      Thanks Young, I am quite familiar with gag rules and many aspects of managed care

          3. some states have statutes that abolish all common law crimes in favor of only statutory crimes. I don’t know about michigan but illinois does. i think most states do, actually

            aiding a suicide can almost always be charged as conspiracy to commit murder if the evidence is there. the problem is, a key witness is dead.

            i have seen ugly situations like this up close. sometimes the prosecutors will just go for process crimes and pleas just to clear the deck of a difficult case rather than be bothered with trying it in court. they don’t like hard cases with uncertain outcomes. none of us do, really, at least not when we are on offense.

            1. Kurtz– That is my impression too though I never really checked. I was surprised to learn Michigan still had common law crimes. Don’t know if they still do.

              The Kevorkian case was very interesting. The legislature neglected to make assisting a suicide a crime, but there was some public and political sentiment against it so something needed to be done.

              Suicide was a common law crime, a felony. Though the punishment was no longer appropriate [ a stake driven through the heart and buried at a crossroads] it was still a felony.

              Michigan had a statute making assisting a felony a felony and Kevorkian was charged with that.

              Great thinking. I asked the prosecutor to send me a copy of their brief. Still have it in a box somewhere.

              The state lost not because they were wrong on the law but because the defense attorney did a great job in reaching the hearts of the jurors. Jury nullification in effect, though I don’t think anyone used that term. Had I been a juror I would have voted for acquittal despite knowing the law.

              Even though most states have abolished common law crimes, common law still informs our interpretation of the criminal law.

              1. Geoff Fieger represented him. Fieger is a great lawyer. He has been in trouble under my bete noire rpc 8.4 more than once, for saying bad words.

                The equally great Gerry Spence represented Feiger when he was charged with campaign law violations, and got a complete acquittal.

                In my mind Gerry Spence’s highest achievement was his favorable result in the wrongful death suit on behalf of Randy Weaver, a backwoods loner, with unpopular political viewpoints, whose wife and 14 year old son were murdered in a botch ATF raid over a trifle.

                1. Agree absolutely. Fleger was superb and Spence was magnificent. Spence was a hero in the Ruby Ridge criminal case and the civil case.

                  I think the FBI was involved in the murder of Weaver’s wife and son. The Bonners Ferry prosecutor was going to prosecute at least one agent for muder but he lost his position before he could bring the case. Too bad.

                  I thought the defense counsel in the Duke Lacrosse case and also those in the George Zimmerman trial did very good work. Neither case should ever have been brought. Stalinist political trials both of them.

            2. aiding a suicide can almost always be charged as conspiracy to commit murder if the evidence is there. the problem is, a key witness is dead.

              I think it’s a class C felony in New York, not a class A felony. Where I grew up, our odious local DA went out of his way to let the likes of Timothy Quill skate. Jack Kevorkian was a serial killer.

          4. The most fundamental law is respect for authority.
            all respect is born out of fear
            fear is made most real through violence.

            the biggest caveman laid down the first law. listen to what i say or I’ll kill you.
            then he killed somebody as an example and people understood.

            he was the first king

            all laws exist only in the context of a recognizable authority to enforce them

            the primordial kings were also the high priests. such as Melchizidek

            there is no way out of this equation. it can be attenuated and it can be hidden but it is at the omnipresent root of all politics and government. Mao only spoke the truth when he said: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

            1. Kurtz– There is some truth to your interpretation but I think it is too Hobbesian. A lot of early law emerged from mutual agreement as to how things should be done. Breaking an agreement had consequences beyond brute force punishment. Allan, being in business, knows this better than most. Break your word and you may have trouble finding others to deal with. That is why reputation, honor and trust have become important in a civil society. And that is why diversity can be harmful; the traditional bonds of trust are not immediately in place.

              Read about the relationship of Medieval peasants, villeines, to the manor. There were a lot of obligations running in both directions that had to be honored because they were expected to be honored. I was surprised when I first read about them.

              1. Fine until the irrelevant shot at diversity, when what Young means is small town familiarity. You are no less likely as a white man to be ripped off in a big American City by another white man who owns a plastering business than a Mexican. Maybe less. Diversity has nothing to do with it, and of course adds many positive values to American life.

                1. One day Anon will learn that different cultures have different attitudes. We use written contracts in part because of those differences. This is not to say that one attitude is better than another. They just are different.

                  I used to get substantial bank loans over the phone and the money was transferred long before any signatures were provided. Look at the diamond center in NYC. They would transfer millions to one another ( or at least they did in the past) without any signed agreement. We have to believe others in order for our economy to survive and I believe that our primary instinct is to believe not to not believe. However we also have to know exactly what we are believing in.

                  Maybe Anon’s culture is one of cheating everyone else, maybe not but it is obvious Anon is lost when one is discussing diversity.

                  1. There was a study awhile back on the impact of diversity in a community. One of the most arresting results was a significant drop in trust.

                    1. Indeed, ignorant f…s like Young – who by the way cannot differentiate between small town familiarity and diversity – are always looking to bolster their prejudices. With Mespo and Sqeaky he dragd down this site.

  14. Since she is the owner of a legal business, she should get the loan. She is even allowing the staff to stay on-site.

  15. That name “Cummins” is too appropriate for her stimulating business. Is it a nom de guerre?

    1. I thought the same thing. I said, really? Last name: Cummins. 😂 Alrighty then…jokes on us.

  16. No mistaking that Ms. Bella Cummins is involved with the world’s oldest profession. The trade thrives for a reason. So morality legislation to the trash bin, please. She deserves help as much as anyone in the economy.

    A more interesting way to examine her business is in making sure she maintains her protocols and standards since there is so much abuse in the business. On the one hand, sex work is basically getting abused for money. Her business, writ large, also thrives in the still present slavery and indentured servitude realm. So a bit of scrutiny there, please.

    On points? Party on. On execution? Let’s be clear on intent.

  17. If her business is legal…and apparently it is…then she should receive the funds.

  18. How does Ms. Cummin’s business differ from a K Street lobbying firm?

Comments are closed.