The Crime Of Teaching Yoga Without State Intervention
Virginia's unconstitutional regulation of yoga teacher training:
The marketplace should be the judge. If you're a terrible yoga teacher, nobody will study with you, and no other teachers will want to study with whomever you studied with.
Is it just me, or is more and more being criminalized, or at least being made illegal these days?
This reminds me of a story awhile back. Some county was having trouble figuring how to categorize some yoga studios and similar business.
This was important to them for tax purposes and licensing requirements.
A studio might be the same as gym and the yoga instructor would be the equivalent of the lady who leads the aerobics or spin classes. That is one tax bracket. The instructor was required to know such things as first aid.
A studio might be a training place, people were expected to come and learn the techniques and then be on there way...a school not a gym. different taxes and stuff required.
Third, they could be a spiritual organization. They were doing spirtual training. I believe that was not taxed.
Most were claiming the third but were really the first. So they were having to come up with all kinds of rules to determine what a studio was. Part of the problem was they could be mutltiple things...one class is like the gym, another spirtual.
don't know what became of it.
The Former Banker at December 7, 2009 1:21 AM
Can't yoga done incorrectly cause strokes? Might be some cause for regulation.
momof4 at December 7, 2009 6:51 AM
Flower arranging is another job states try to horn in on. You're supposed to be licensed in some states to be a florist. Why? Because mixing yellow and white roses could cause someone aesthetic trauma?
How does making people piles of paperwork and pay into state coffers prevent strokes?
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2009 7:39 AM
Amy - are you really arguing against the practice of requiring a business license?
Such things identify the person in charge and the intent of the business. If it has the means and expertise, the issuing agency can then see that the company complies with real laws, such as hygiene/sanitation, occupancy limits, fire protection, and so forth.
And obvious cases occur - you can't claim to be opening a doctor's office to treat people with no doctor, or work on cars without handling fuel and oil properly.
Those aren't trivial. Happy viral infection, from that film on the yoga mat.
Radwaste at December 7, 2009 8:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/07/the_crime_of_te.html#comment-1681045">comment from RadwasteMy sister teaches yoga, and there are all sorts of requirements of the teachers by the school. They aren't just hiring anybody off the street who comes in able to do a bunch of yoga moves. And do we see an increasing number of people dying from being taught by poorly trained yoga instructors? Or is this just a money grab by the state that makes it harder for people to do business, at a time when business is already hard enough for everyone?
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2009 8:45 AM
Just watched the video. Is this a comercial?
lujlp at December 7, 2009 9:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/07/the_crime_of_te.html#comment-1681062">comment from lujlpWell, of sorts. It's a YouTube video put out by the Institute for Justice. Sorry...on deadline or I'd go grab a link.
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2009 9:47 AM
They need to fire their video editer, it looks like a cross between a news report, late night infomercial, and a ad for the local law office.
As far as buisiness licences go, it should be a flat fee. the fees for fire inspection should be based on square footage.
Business which sell foods have to get inspected by the heath isnpecter before they get a licence.
Business which dispose of waste need to get inspected by what ever agency does that.
I understand the need for regulations Rad, but whats to stop someone from jumping thru all the hoops to get the licence and then not comply with the regulations?
Getting a peice of paper from the govenrment isnt going to gaurentee someone mops their floors properly.
Beuracracy is out of control, as Amy pointed out is some states you need a licence to arrange flowers - which menas you have to get a business licence, and a flower arrangers licence - why do you need two differnet licences from the same buracracy to run one business?
Why cant you just get the business licence and leave it at that? Its flowers not nuclear waste.
lujlp at December 7, 2009 10:14 AM
"Is it just me, or is more and more being criminalized, or at least being made illegal these days?"
Yes we are moving steadily forward to the day when all behavior will either be mandated or prohibited by law.
"They need to fire their video editer, it looks like a cross between a news report, late night infomercial, and a ad for the local law office."
Well, it sounds like they have a good editor, because that's exactly what it is. They are a non-profit public interest law firm looking to spread the news about this story and garner support for their efforts.
Scott at December 7, 2009 10:23 AM
Wow.
I'll get a business license to sell used furniture, and then start a crime syndicate. I'll import agricultural products from abroad, like Hydrilla, because I don't care what happens after Homer dumps his aquarium. I'll just live there, too, because it's cheaper. It's not zoned residential, but what's the harm? It's just me. And a few family members. And their cars. And the dogs and cats.
I should just do whatever I want and call it my business. My neighbors can just shut the hell up.
There's a nice piece of property for sale here. I'll open a studio and tell my customers "bring your posse, my employees just park down the street to keep our lot clear". But somebody might call me a name. And they'd be justified. But without regulations, what on Earth could I be charged with?
-----
You want rules to keep people from taking advantage, you have to a) see that the right rules are put in place, and b) remember they can have an impact on you, personally. The IRS is concerned about how much of your residence is business office, and that's not a bad thing.
Radwaste at December 7, 2009 12:37 PM
If we have unlicensed and unregulated yoga teachers giving lesson with no oversight, pick-a-nick baskets are going to start disappearing all over the country. Chaos will riegn...what?...ooooh...never mind.
On a serious note, if you're providing lessons that requires physical exertion with attendant risks and the sharing of equipment with potential exposure to another person's bodily fluids, some regulation is probably reasonable from a public health and safety standpoint.
Conan the Grammarian at December 7, 2009 2:16 PM
ofcourse it is, but do we really need them to get a yogi licence in addition to the gym licence?
lujlp at December 7, 2009 2:42 PM
The delicious irony here is that 99% of yoga instructors are left-wing socialist maniacs who want to regulate the wazoo out of everyone else. So you aren't going to get a bit of sympathy from me. Screw 'em.
Crusader at December 7, 2009 3:30 PM
Well, take a look at Dara O'Briain on Homeopathy.
Claim to be a "dietician", you must have credentials. Claim to be a "nutritionist", and all you have to do is eat.
You want consumer protections. You got them. If you don't like how they are set up now, then get busy and get them changed.
But you'll have to prove your case, not just complain about it!
Radwaste at December 7, 2009 3:39 PM
"The delicious irony here is that 99% of yoga instructors are left-wing socialist maniacs"
Somebody has to balance out Nancy Reagan's astrology and her influe-ce of the former President. Damned right wing astrology maniacs and their 600 ship navies and secret Iranian negotiations!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 7, 2009 3:52 PM
Way back when, John Stossel did a 20/20 about trying to open businesses in several different countries. He was stifled in India (socialist government). The U.S. was complicated, but doable. Hong Kong was the easiest. But they had no bailout if you failed.
Amazing what happens when the government gets out of the way.
Jim P. at December 7, 2009 9:36 PM
Please tell me you're not buying the October Surprise hostage release nonsense.
Conan the Grammarian at December 7, 2009 10:59 PM
Could be refering to the traitors illegal arms sales
lujlp at December 7, 2009 11:09 PM
Traitor?
Conan the Grammarian at December 8, 2009 11:44 AM
Oliver North - I swear to god ifthe bury him at Arlington I'll make a special trip out their just to piss on his grave
lujlp at December 8, 2009 2:14 PM
While North remains a controversial figure, that's an awfully strong accusation.
I've noticed that too many people toss the word "treason" around to describe people with whom they have significant policy disagreements. Such fast and loose use of such a charged word dilutes its impact and diminishes its import.
Wikipedia: "Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: '...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].' In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."
North did not aid a foreign government's attempt to overthrow the US government or to make war against the US or inflict harm upon the US. Nor did he attempt to or conspire to overthrow the US government.
====================
I did a little research on Oliver North. Here's what I found:
During his tour of duty in the National Security Council, North was the architect of the plan to funnel money from arms sales to Iran (made in exchange for hostage releases) to the Nicaraguan Contras. North had been tasked by his superiors with finding alternate sources of funding when the [some would argue unconstitutional] Boland Amendment prohibited using appropriated CIA or DoD funds to provide military aid the Contras in overthrowing the Sandinistas.
During this time, North was also the architect of the plan to intercept the fleeing Achille Lauro hijackers and bring them to trial, the hunt for the Beiruit bombers, the retaliatory bombing of Libya, and the invasion of Granada.
North has been accused, by a 1988 Senate subcommittee led by John Kerry, of involvement in drug trafficking in Central America. North denies any involvement. The subcommittee report states that North's [now edited] notebooks indicated a knowledge of drug trafficking being used to fund the Contras, but the notebooks did not not conclusively indicate any direct involvement by North in the drug trafficking activities. Nonetheless, North and others have been banned from entering Costa Rica by the Costa Rican government.
When the Iran-Contra activities came to light, North was fired by Ronald Reagan. Nancy Reagan has stated that North lied to her husband. No word on whether Nancy got that information from first-hand knowledge or from the spirit world.
It has been argued by North supporters that he fell on his sword to protect those higher up in the chain of command. North testified that William Casey and Robert McFarlane both had him shred documents and alter official records regarding Iran-Contra activities.
North was charged with 16 felonies and convicted of 3 (2 of which were related to the aforementioned document alteration and destruction). The convictions were vacated by the appeals court and all charges were later dropped due to likely improprieties with the evidence handling. The ACLU helped North with this appeal.
====================
I suppose one could make a pretty solid argument that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional and was an attempt by a Democratic Congress to interfere with a Republican president's foreign policy and to dictate its own foreign policy to him.
In all, North probably acted in what he thought was the nation's best interest, but some of his actions did go beyond the pale and some of them might even be criminal.
But to call him a traitor to his country seems to be politically motivated and a misuse of the term.
Conan the Grammarian at December 8, 2009 3:55 PM
He was involved in the sale of arms to an enemy of the state - that is treason.
Motherfucker should have been shot
lujlp at December 8, 2009 6:18 PM
Then you'll have to include the president, several members of his cabinet, members of the intelligence community (including its oversight committee in Congress), and other members of the administration.
Iran was not, at that time, a declared enemy state (although it should have been since the hostage fiasco).
Iranian-backed militants were kidnapping Westerners (including Americans) and demanding ransom. A group of Iranians seeking to establish relations with the United States (informal at first, formal after the death of the Ayatollah) offered to prove their seriousness by getting Hezbollah to release some of the hostages. Iran was in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war and in desperate need of weapons. The deal was struck that the US would sell weapons to Iran, Iran would convince Hezbollah to release the hostages, and the Israelis would broker the deal. The logic behind it was that it would enable the US to establish relations with a strategically-located country before the Soviet Union could.
That hardly seems like the treasonous selling of weapons to an enemy state. It sounds like he was carrying out policy.
Conan the Grammarian at December 8, 2009 9:15 PM
Leave a comment