My Favorite Car Service

Whenever I go to the park I travel with MB Car Service. I have a special relationship with the owner. I usually get a free biscotti.

Another Battle Won......The Same War Lost

TODAY WE LEARNED THAT A PRIVATELY HELD CORPORATION CANNOT BE FORCED TO OFFER ITS EMPLOYEES BENEFITS THAT IT OPPOSES BASED ON THE CORPORATION OWNER'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

• When I first heard this I wanted to find this a cause to celebrate. And it IS a cause to celebrate. People are finally winning in their battle against increased government intervention in their private lives.
• But, on the other hand, is this just another "carve-out" of the basic premise that the government does have authority over what employers can be forced to provide for their employees' health care?

• It is a tacit admission of the base issue - that we no longer are in control of our own health care choices.  We have an exception for our employer's religious beliefs under well defined circumstances - but what about the religious beliefs of owners of widely held entitities? 

Also - for an individual things are WORSE- because the Supreme Court of the United States is tacitly accepting the notion that the US Government in Washington D.C, is entitlted to regulate an individual's health care choices.  Except when ..... (yack, yack, yack).

What about Apple?  What about Microsoft?  What about all the other publicly held companies that operate in this country, will they remain subject to this law?

I have a an idea.  (Which means that many people have the same idea).  Let's force shareholder votes in all publicly held companies on this issue.  If the majority of holders of Microsoft Shares are opposed to offering employees benefits that the majority of Microsoft's shareholders (based on their religious beliefs) oppose, that corporation will have to apply for (and I assume will gain) an exemption from this partcular provision of the law.

I believe this is an effort worth pursuing.  The effects of such efforts could be quite interesting.

All of a sudden, faceless public companies will have a face.  Hey - that's the company whose owners favor free contracteption for their employees.  Hey - there's a company whose shareholders are against helping their employees' contraception as a free benefit, etc.

All of a sudden, faceless publicly held companies (which corporate law requires be treated as individuals), will have faces.  And those faces won't simply be the faces drawn for them by their shareholders' relations groups, they will represent the majority of the faces of their shareholders, who won't be able to hide behind the corporate veil.  Will corporate bylaws prohibit these kinds of votes? Will conflicts between shareholders on bylaws reach the courts?  Will they reach the Supreme Court?

Probably not - but better yet - they will reach our legislators!

White and Fluffy has no idea of course, but he thinks it might be a good thing.

Listen to Shlomo Carlebach tell the Amazing Story of Schwarzer Wolf!

Zusha and White and Fluffy Like Rabbi Shmuley

Obama at AIPAC: Let the Fun Begin
Obama at AIPAC: Let the Fun Begin

The Continuing Saga of Obama and Israel - not a happy story

Obama"s abandonment of America

Caroline Glick's Yom Hashoah Day Speech at Young Israel of Hillcrest

An extraordinary presentation by Caroline Glick on what "Never Again" requires of us.

Be Holy - Beyond Virtue

Leviticus 19:2


Simon Jacobson OP-ED Weekly 05.02.08$Kedoshim: Beyond Virtue