Story Behind the Story: Mommy, Where Do Governing's Stories Come From?

posted by Josh Goodman

The classic childhood question is "Where do babies come from?" Well, that's the classic question other than "Are we there yet?"

Since we're all so curious about origins from such an early age, perhaps you've wondered where Governing story ideas come from. Unlike babies, which only come from one source (storks), the answer is all over the place. A good example of the varied origins of Governing stories is a short piece I wrote for the October issue on fire-safe cigarettes.

Unless a smoker keeps puffing, fire-safe cigarettes extinguish on their own. I'd seen several press releases from the Coalition for Fire Safe Cigarettes about their efforts to persuade states to pass laws mandating the technology, but I'd never really thought about writing about them (the pithy answer to where Governing story ideas come from: anywhere but press releases).

That changed a couple of months ago, though, when I read a blog post (warning: foul language) from Andrew Sullivan on the topic. True to his libertarian inclinations, Sullivan was passing along a reader's e-mail that fire-safe cigarettes tasted terrible and that the State of Missouri, by mandating that only fire-safe cigarettes be sold, had given in to its worst nanny-state impulses.

Were states really mandating horrible-tasting cigarettes? I was intrigued, especially when I found out that 49 states had laws mandating fire-safe cigarettes and that most of those laws had passed in the last few years.

So, reading a blog post prompted me to write a print edition story. Now, I'm writing a blog post about reading a blog post and then writing a print edition story about it. Score one for new media.

But, if Governing story ideas come from all over the place, including from blog posts, Governing stories come from only one place: reporting. When I actually started digging into the story, I discovered other angles.

Supporters had been trying for decades to pass congressional legislation mandating fire-safe cigarettes, with no luck. States acted when the feds didn't. In other words, my story ended up being a case study in federalism.

What's more, one reason states were able to act is that the tobacco industry dropped its opposition to the concept. They decided that they could live with a fire-safe mandate, as long as states all did the same thing. So, my story was about the tobacco industry's regulatory strategy and its more cautious posture in a post-Tobacco Settlement world.

In fact, I didn't even end up mentioning the taste issue in my article because it seemed tangential to these other angles. Plus, many people dispute that fire-safe cigarettes taste bad -- and I wasn't about to take up smoking to find out.

How Will States Handle DIY Funerals?

posted by Zach Patton

According to the New York Times, there's a hip new thing all the kids are trying these days: home funerals. Apparently, a growing number of people are bypassing funeral homes and handling the funeral -- and burial -- of a loved one at home.

From the Times:

Advocates say the number of home funerals, where everything from caring for the dead to the visiting hours to the building of the coffin is done at home, has soared in the last five years, putting the funerals “where home births were 30 years ago,” according to Chuck Lakin, a home funeral proponent and coffin builder in Waterville, Me.

What's behind the new popularity? Well, mostly, money. The average American funeral costs $6,000, not including the costs of cremation or burial. Doing it yourself at home can cost as little as $250. In addition to the cost savings, some people say they like the more private, more personal tone of a home burial.

But this doesn't mean you can just bury Aunt Myrtle out by the tool shed.

According to the Times, "In Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska and New York, laws require that a funeral director handle human remains at some point in the process. In the 44 other states and the District of Columbia, loved ones can be responsible for the body themselves."

Even in the states that don't require a funeral director to be involved, you'll probably have to get a permit in order to bury someone in your back yard.

And some states are considering tightening control over home funerals, the Times says:

Recently, some states, with the backing of the funeral industry, have considered restricting the practice of home funerals. Oregon legislators last month passed a bill that would require death midwives to be licensed, something no state currently does.

Texas to Dentists: Stop Horsing Around

posted by Zach Patton

You may not give much thought to traveling horse dentists, but in Texas, they're causing quit a stir:

Here's the deal: These equine dental workers -- or "horse teeth floaters" -- go around the state filing down and smoothing down domestic horses' teeth (something that would be taken care of in nature by the horses' diet of hard wild grasses).

But last year the state told the floaters to rein it in: The state Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners issued letters telling them to cease their practice. The board says there's no way it can regulate what the floaters do, and if it can't regulate it, the practice must be stopped.

Now the Texas chapter of the Institute for Justice has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Texas floaters and ranch owners over what it calls "anti-competitive regulation." From the Houston Chronicle:

With non-vet specialists able to castrate, dehorn, birth and brand large animals, with no public outcry about the practice — and with the same Veterinary Practice Act on the books for 97 years — Institute lawyers say Texas' "elitist veterinary cartel" is trying to big foot the niche.

"This isn't a vets-in-the-field issue, this is a state-board-control issue," Institute lawyer Matt Miller said. "The state has a right to regulate, but there are limits to that. Where there is not a specific health issue, where there is not market failure, under the state constitution there's no need to intrude."

States elsewhere vary on how they've handled this issue:

So far, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota and California have enacted legislation to restrict horse teeth floating to vets.

Minnesota now requires a certification.

The practice is exempted from the veterinary code in Virginia, Illinois, Maryland, and Florida.

Cease and desist letters have gone out in Utah and Arkansas.

Mostly, though, states have taken the route that Texas had until last year: Pay no attention to this one way or the other.

But If You Put a Price On It, Will It Still Be Special?

posted by Zach Patton

As an American circa 2008, I've been known to eat in a restaurant from time to time. And there's probably nothing that irks me more than hearing all about the chef's specials -- except for their cost.

You fret about blowing your paycheck by blindly ordering something with no price tag. But you don't want to be the cheap-o hick rube who interrupts the server with, "Uhh, how much does that fish cost?"

Anyway, that might be changing in Nassau County, NY:

That familiar dining dilemma would end under a proposed Nassau County law that would require restaurants to divulge the prices of specials not listed on menus.

"€œI'€™m sure that at one time or another you have been enticed by a waiter or waitress into ordering the special of the day, only to discover that it was really the price that was special,"€ said the proposal's originator, Harvey B. Levinson, chairman of Nassau County'€™s Board of Assessors. Mr. Levinson does not regulate restaurants, but he discussed his pet peeve with other officials.

David W. Denenberg, a county legislator and fellow Democrat, sponsored the legislation. “The special of the day should not be the surprise of the day in terms of price,” he said.

I'm not sure whether I think this is really something the government should regulate. But speaking solely as a diner, it would be kind of nice...

But Then Again You Probably Already Knew This

posted by Zach Patton

Clairvoyants of St. Johnsbury, Vermont: Rejoice! You can once again practice your sooth-saying gifts without fear of recrimination:

Soothsaying might still be banned in some parts of the country, but St. Johnsbury has repealed the ordinance against peering into the future that it had on the books since 1966....

Fear of fraud has prompted many communities to ban fortunetelling but critics say it's not government's place to decide whether such personal beliefs or practices are fraudulent.

Nationwide, the legality of fortune-telling is a mixed bag.

Last year in Philadelphia, city inspectors shut down more than a dozen psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers after discovering a decades-old state law that still bans fortunetelling for profit.

Also last year, Louisiana's Livingston Parish made soothsaying, fortunetelling, palm reading and crystal-ball gazing illegal; a Wiccan minister filed a challenge to the law in federal court.

Other laws are on the books or have been challenged in Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and Oklahoma, said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center in Washington.

A ban in Lincoln, Neb., was struck down by a federal appeals court in 1998 as unconstitutional.

Whether it's constitutional or not, isn't it a big waste of time? Isn't this like a state outlawing, say, time travel? Or banning, I don't know, turning yourself invisible?

omg u guyz: Illinois' Proposed Walking/Texting Ban Still Has Legs

posted by Zach Patton

Texting-while-walking could become a crime in Illinois: Several officials, including the Illinois secretary of state, have voiced approval for a bill that would outlaw the practice.

Is this merely the next logical step after so many states and cities have passed bans on using handheld cell phones while driving? Or is this a pointless step too far?

More importantly, would you be affected?  Are you a texter-walker?

Up Next: Ban on Murder Forces Rewrite of 'Hamlet'

posted by Zach Patton

Whether you agree with city-enforced smoking bans or not, you can probably at least see the arguments for them -- people shouldn't be subjected to carcinogens just to enjoy a meal or a drink in public.

But Chicago's ban on smoking might be going a little overboard. The ban -- which includes herbal cigarettes -- has forced the Broadway musical Jersey Boys to rewrite its script, according to the Chicago Tribune:

The Chicago production of "Jersey Boys" has gone smoke-free in the last few days. It is as if the Four Seasons never took so much as a drag.

But in New York and London, Frankie and the boys still puff away. That's because those more enlightened cities allow artistic exceptions to their bans on smoking in public. But as the anti-smoking law is written in Chicago, no such exception is possible. And the law makes no distinction between tobacco and herbal cigarettes.

The Tribune critic goes on to say that legally requiring "that shows pretend that no-one ever smoked in the history of the world is absurd, unreasonable, damaging to the city's cultural reputation and injurious to art."

So is smoking a First Amendment right?

Lifting Saggy Pants Miraculously Solves All of Flint's Problems

posted by Zach Patton

You know Flint, Michigan? The place so decimated by job losses that it's sort of become synonymous with Rust Belt poverty?

Well, fear not!  The city has just solved all its problems by requiring its residents to wear their pants a few inches higher. From the Detroit Free Press:

Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.

Dicks, who took over the department last month on an interim basis, announced that his officers would start arresting people wearing saggy pants that expose skivvies, boxer shorts or bare bottoms.

"Some people call it a fad," Dicks told the Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. "But I believe it's a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years."

On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: "This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression."

The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, both misdemeanors punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and/or fines up to $500.

The city has even developed a highly scientific method for determining exactly how much you're harming society with your saggy jeans:

Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.

Seriously, doesn't the city of Flint -- and its police force -- have slightly bigger fish to fry?

VA Legislators Save Brew Pops, Summer

posted by Zach Patton

Thanks to a couple of Virginia state legislators, residents of the Old Dominion state can once again enjoy a fanstatical summer treat -- frozen beer on a stick.

See, this restaurant in Arlington had an amazing idea last summer: Brew Pops -- frozen beersicles.

But then it turned out that it's illegal to serve frozen beer in Virginia for some reason, because freezing beer turns it into a food. And it becomes illegal. Or something.

Anyway, now the state has changed its liquor laws to make room for Brew Pops.

Viva Summer!

(image via Wonkette)

L.A. May Say "Adios, Amigos"

posted by Laura Allen

Los Angeles Supervisor Gloria Molina is attempting to put in place new restrictions on street vendors to quiet complaints from local restaurant owners, who claim the vendors take away from their business.

The new restrictions would increase the penalty for violating the law to a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or a six-month jail sentence. To soften the blow, however, she would extend the time a catering truck can be parked in one place from 30 minutes to an hour.

East L.A. is not the only place in the City of Angels with people lining up for some "street meat", but recently many other areas have thought about restrictions on vendors, as well.

The tug-of-war between taco trucks and restaurants is not limited to East Los Angeles. Businesses in South Los Angeles have also registered complaints with their supervisor, Yvonne B. Burke.

"It just makes the community look like there's no order," said Maria Cerdas, a deputy for Burke.

Salinas, a city north of L.A., experienced a similar situation last year, in attempt to restrict vendors.

Vendors “are very angry, very upset,” Teresa Hernandez, a volunteer spokeswoman, said. “That group’s whole argument is that the vendors are in the way of revitalization.”

Photo via Flickr, from gwen