Report from Counsel
His Own Worst Critic [Dick Clark]
By George F. Will
Wednesday, March 31, 2004; Page A25 Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37704-2004Mar30.html
Excerpt:
“Former senator Slade Gorton, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, asked Clarke
whether there was "the remotest chance" that acceptance by the Bush administration of all the recommendations Clarke made four days after President Bush took office would have prevented Sept. 11. Clarke said:
"No."
So what makes Clarke strident -- his self-description -- is his belief that the Iraq war was a tragic blunder, arising from the president's monomania about Saddam Hussein and draining resources from the war on terror.
Intelligent people can and do make that argument. However, by day eight
Clarke's version of it was puerile:
But for the Iraq war, Sept. 11 might have caused the Islamic masses to say "maybe we've gone too far."’
NOT LIKELY...BUT BOOK SALES ARE STRONG...
Links to this post:
BASEBALL SEASON OPENS - DOCTOR TRIES BEANBALL STRATEGY ON LAWYERS
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8306886.htm
Charleston, S.C.,
Doctor Plays 'Hardball' over Malpractice Rates
By Jonathan Maze, The Post and Courier, Charleston, S.C. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Mar. 27 - Frustrated by skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums, a prominent Charleston surgeon [Dr. Chris Hawk] on Friday ignited an ethical debate by
urging fellow physicians at the South Carolina Medical Association's annual meeting to stop treating plaintiffs' attorneys and their families.
...
"
This idea may be repulsive," Hawk said. "It's hardball.
Hawk said the idea is to give trial lawyers insight into the difficulty patients in many parts of the country are having with access to care because of ever-rising malpractice insurance costs.
...
Last year, the two state-owned malpractice insurers, the Joint Underwriting Agreement and the Patients Compensation Fund, increased premiums 24.1 percent on average. That increase came on top of big hikes in the past few years. Malpractice rates for some medical specialties are nowapproaching $50,000 a year...
Doctors believe that a $250,000 cap on damages paid for a patient's pain and suffering is the only way to hold down premiums. The liability reform bill making its way through the GeneralAssembly was written with such a cap in place, but many doctors consider it meaningless because it includes several exceptions.
Trial lawyers don't like the bill, either, though they believe it goes too far.
Luther Battiste, president of the state Trial Lawyers Association, said he doesn't believe anyreform is necessary. He said that states with caps have higher malpractice insurance rates than South Carolina's.
He said
Hawk's idea "would violate everything the practice of medicine stands for."
Opponents of liability reform cite a Clemson University study last year that blamed the high premiums on mismanagement of the state's two malpractice insurers, which cover most of the state's doctors, and rising health care costs.
Physicians responded that the Clemson study isn't reliable because it was funded by lawyers.
...
Hawk already has notified one of his patients, a plaintiff's attorney, that he wouldn't see her any longer. He treated her for a particular condition, and when it was cured, gave her 30 days' notice that he couldn't see her any longer. "It is the only way I know she will not sue me," he said.
"Do plaintiffs' attorneys deserve care?" Hawk added. "Of course they do. But we are facing more than a financial crisis. We are facing a public health crisis."
Along those lines, physicians in Texas set up a Web site called
DoctorsKnowUs to track patients who file lawsuits, plaintiffs' lawyers and expert witnesses.
The site shut itself down earlier this month after word of it sparked intense controversy.
Patient advocates and attorneys said the site could have been used to blacklist patients.
Links to this post:
From a philosopher-lawyer - well-reasoned commentary on the state of our politics:
The Natural History of Bush-Hating [click here for full article]
By Keith Burgess-Jackson Published 10/21/2003
"Like any emotion, hatred (in others) must be inferred from (their) behavior (including linguistic behavior). There are four signs of hatred:
*
Obsession. The hater returns again and again to the hated. Nothing looms larger in the hater's mind. The hated becomes a brooding omnipresence, a focus of suspicion, fear, and loathing.
*
Inability to see ‑- much less to acknowledge ‑- good in the hated. The hated becomes the very personification of evil, incapable of being, intending, or doing good. Nobody is perfectly bad, of course, but this is how the hated appears.
*
Cynicism. Nothing the hated says is taken at face value, however plausible it may be on its face and however sincerely it is expressed. Indeed, the hated's claim of good motivation is often taken as further evidence of his or her viciousness, duplicity, or perversity.
*
Malevolence. The hater is not merely indifferent to the welfare of the hated, as might be the case with a stranger, but wishes things to go poorly for him or her. The hater delights in the hated's misery or misfortune. The Germans have a special word for this: "schadenfreude."
The most hated person in the United States today (dare I say the world?) may be our president, George W. Bush...The depth and breadth of animosity toward President Bush astounds me. It is also dismaying, for it distracts attention from matters of principle and policy in which all of us have a stake.
... politics can and should be the most noble of human endeavors. It is the means by which citizens forge their collective destiny -- and identity. But the politics we actually have falls far short of this ideal. American politics today has become the politics of personal destruction. Temperate comments are the exception rather than the rule. Reason gives way to emotion, and not just any emotions, either: the very worst of them, such as spite, anger, envy, greed, and hatred.
Politics has become warfare by other means. Anyone who loves this country has to be saddened."
Whether directed at Clinton, Bush, or your local candidate for dog-catcher, such emotions should be examined and recognized, so that we are not controlled by them.
Links to this post:
Courtesy of
Garrison Keillor's "Writer's Almanac: It's the birthday of
Joseph Campbell, born in New York City (1904). He saw Buffalo Bill's Wild West Riders as a child and decided to learn everything there was to know about American Indians. He read his way through the children's room at his local library by the time he was eleven, and then started right in on reports from the Bureau of Ethnology. In college, he turned to studying Arthurian legend. He abandoned a Ph.D. dissertation and went to live in a shack, where for five years he continued to read. In 1949 he published a monumental study of mythology called The Hero With a Thousand Faces, which traced the common theme of the spiritual quest in myth. The filmmaker George Lucas said that without it, he would never have been able to write Star Wars.
Links to this post:
Follow-Up to Kofigate
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 29, 2004
New York Times [click here for full story]
E-mail: safire@nytimes.com
WASHINGTON — Never has there been a financial rip-off of the magnitude of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal.
At least
$5 billion in kickbacks went from
corrupt contractors — mainly French and Russian — into the pockets of
Saddam and his thugs. Some went to pay off his protectors in foreign governments and media, and we may soon see how much stuck to the fingers of U.N. bureaucrats as well.
Links to this post:
The Art of Persuasion:
At the Tyco corporate looting trial, as reported by the
New York Times today:
"Earlier in the day, Justice Obus had told the jury to try to resolve their differences. 'Given the amount of time you have spent cooped up in that jury room, it is not all that surprising that things would get heated, even incendiary," he said. "
If you actually want to convince someone of something, you must address them in a respectful way and try to convince them; otherwise you are defeating your own purpose.'"
Keith Burgess-Jackson has an article posted on his blog, on
"How to Argue."
While the article itself is rather lengthy, there are a few tasty excerpts:
"... argumentation is difficult and time-consuming. It involves painstaking
attention to the logical relations among propositions and to the beliefs of
one's interlocutor. Of course, I might give up as soon as my interlocutor
denies or doubts one of my premises. But that is a failure of the argument.
What was the point of my arguing, anyway? Presumably it was to persuade
someone to believe something that was not already believed. But if my
interlocutor denies or doubts my starting point, then I have failed to
accomplish my goal. I may accuse my interlocutor of being "irrational,"
"unreasonable," or "pigheaded" (you hear that a lot among philosophers), but
this should not bother the interlocutor. He or she may claim to have good
reason to deny or doubt the disputed premise.
Reasonableness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's reasonable belief is another's absurdity.
All argumentation, to be effective, must be ad hominem in nature. The term
"ad hominem" has two very different uses in philosophy. They must not be
confused. You have probably heard of the
ad hominem fallacy. (A fallacy is an argument that is psychologically attractive but logically infirm; it seems like a good argument, but isn't.) This fallacy consists in
dismissing someone's argument on the ground that he or she is a bad person (a Marxist, for example, or a goddamned Democrat). This is clearly fallacious, for bad people can make good arguments and good people bad arguments. One cannot transfer goodness or badness from arguers to arguments any more than one can transfer goodness or badness from politicians to policies. Even Hitler wascapable of making, and probably did make, a sound argument.
The other use of the term "ad hominem" has nothing to do with fallacies.
Indeed, it describes a respectable mode of argumentation. According to the
British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), "A third way [to persuade] is,
to press a Man with Consequences drawn from his own Principles, or
Concessions. This is already known under the Name of
Argumentum ad Hominem" (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book IV, chap. XVII, sec. 21).
Let us unpack this. People (most of them, anyway) have principles.
Principles have implications. If I can show you that your principle commits
you to belief B, then I force you to either embrace B or abandon your
principle. Yes, this is coercive. All argumentation is coercive. It is the imposition of a choice by one person on another. In the example given,
I tell you that you cannot have both your principle and your belief that
non-B (or your nonbelief in B, if you are merely agnostic about it). You
can't both have your cake and eat it.
To summarize,
the ad hominem fallacy is an attack on a person. It is
disreputable and disrespectful. Don't do it. The
argumentum ad hominem is an appeal to (i.e., an argument
directed to) a person (rather than to the world at large). It is
reputable, respectful, and respectable. Do not confuse the two."
....
To repeat my claim, argument, to be effective--to have any chance of
persuading--must be ad hominem. This is as true of nonevaluative arguments
as it is of evaluative (including moral) arguments. The idea is to begin where your interlocutor is, even if you believe it to be false and even if you reject it. ... Friendship, as Aristotle explained long ago, is a demanding relationship. This--promoting personal integrity--is one of its demands.
....
All of us have a great deal to learn from one another--if only we are willing. The flip side is that all of us have a great deal to teach one another--if only we make the effort.
Alas, teaching and learning require listening and reading skills that are in short supply in our impatient, inattentive, aggressive culture. We value winning more than learning. Argumentation should not be thought of as a contest, much less as warfare. It is more like helping a friend...There is no more shame in being persuaded to change one's beliefs than there is in being helped by a friend to have a more efficiently running automobile.
Argue away!"
Links to this post:
Worth repeating -- from the blog " the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid"
DEPT. OF KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT... Another letter from one of the many soldiers who have been reading this blog from Iraq, this one a lieutenant colonel who is just returning stateside.
My mobilization tour has ended, and I am back from Iraq. ...
Congressional Democrats have latched on to certain phrases that no doubt have come from focus group reactions. The most used are "
Bush and his go-it-alone strategy," or "
Bush and his unliteral approach," or something similar. I had just landed in the US heading to McDill AFB when I heard Rep. Jim Davis (Democrat, 11th District, Florida, home of McDill) on the radio saying that he, too, had just returned from Iraq, and his primary concern was the go-it-alone approach, and that this seem to come from SecDef Rumsfeld. If one looks at Rep. Davis' website, he made the same observation about unilateralism after a trip last October. Now, if Rep. Davis, who supported the war, visited the palace where the Coalition Provisional Authority is headquartered, and where I spent much of the past two months, then he simply could not have missed the representatives of dozens of our allies who are readily apparent in the hallways and offices.
There are 34 other nations with troops officially on the ground, plus a couple of others who are not official members, but nonetheless have personnel directly engaged. The coalition divisions controlling all of Iraq south of Baghdad are composed entirely of non-US troops. The only conclusion I can reach is that such Democrats, who could not have missed the evidence, have chosen to lie out of political expediency. My only consternation is that the facts and the truth are not readily available, nor do journalists, who should have an obligation to the facts, ever challenge such assertions. Mostly, these lies insult our allies who have placed their citizens in harm's way for our common cause.
Links to this post:
Spring is here - a great turn of phrase in today's New York Times:
"It's hard to believe that one season could leave behind as much wreckage as this winter has done. And yet it may be that most of that wreckage is really mental, the bare, dry thatch of winter-thoughts still stuffed between our ears.
In the bulbs that have already sprouted, there is not an ounce of distrust in the weather to come. They bloom with complete confidence, in utter optimism. We are the ones who are still backward, waiting for more than a few crocuses, a few robins and red-winged blackbirds to prove that spring is here to stay."
Links to this post:
USA TODAY ONLINE 3-25-04
Research counters furor over malpractice lawsuits
By Carl T. Bogus
...
The specter of spiraling, unjustified lawsuits forcing dedicated physicians from practice is alarming indeed.
But it's a false image.
There are problems in the health care industry, to be sure. But before making a diagnosis, a good doctorexamines the facts, and we should do the same. In fact, a lot of data bear upon the relationship between malpractice litigation and the health care system, and little of it supports conventional wisdom. Moreover,
trying to cure what ails the system by curbing lawsuits would make the health care system more dangerous.
First, there is
no explosion in medical malpractice litigation. Data compiled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners show that, from 1995 to 2000, new medical malpractice claims declined byabout 4%.
Second,
weak cases seldom succeed. The popular image holds that jurors are overly sympathetic to patients with unfortunate medical outcomes regardless of whether anyone is to blame. However, research on juror attitudes shows nearly the opposite. Jurors tend to be wary More than 80% of people beginning jury duty say they believe there are too many frivolous lawsuits,
according to researchers Valerie Hans and William Lofquist. Only a third believe most plaintiffs have legitimate grievances. Those are difficult predispositions to overcome, and, in fact, most plaintiffs do not.
The rate of victories for plaintiffs in medical malpractice trials is about 30%, lower than in any other category of litigation, according to a 1996 study by the National Center for State Courts. To win, plaintiffs need strong evidence.
...the trial judge and appellate
courts are required to reduce excessive awards. Several studies show that the total sums of jury verdicts exceeding $1 million are paid in 25% or fewer cases.
Wall Street's contribution
What caused soaring medical malpractice insurance premiums? A key factor appears to have been the downturn in the stock market, only recently reversed, which reduced insurance company reserves and investment income. ...
The
unpleasant reality is that there is too much medical malpractice. According to the Institute of Medicine, 44,000 to 98,000 hospital patients die every year from preventable accidents, and many others suffer severe and permanent injuries.
... Unfortunately,
the medical disciplinary system is weak. Among doctors who have paid five or more malpractice claims, only 13.3% have been subject to professional discipline...
The most privileged among us may not have to worry about being treated by a doctor with a bad record. But the rest of us do. The civil justice system is a flashlight shining into the dark corners of the medical delivery system. Let's not dim the bulb.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040324/6037169s.htm
Links to this post:
AN IRAQI VIEW OF THE PAST YEAR:
Calling the news coverage of Iraq "
extraordinarily one-sided," with its focus on dramatic, bloody events, Rend Rahim, Representative of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) to the United States, said, "
the reality is nothing like what you see on television."
"It is an extraordinary achievement that we now have an interim basic law that is the most progressive in the Arab world," she said. "If you think back a year ago, early March 2003, what were Iraqis living under? They were living under a dictatorship where political life was nonexistent, where political dialogue was punishable by death, where there was no political diversity, no political discourse. There were no politics in Iraq."
"Less than a year later, we have gone through a process of political dialogue, political negotiation in which a wide array of individuals and parties and political groups have participated. The transitional law was not the creation of one person or one political party. It was a law that was forged by committee," she said, noting that no group got 100 percent of what it wanted, and no one was left out.
Links to this post:
A fascinating,lengthy article on the suffering of animals/fish, and the ethical questions.
'Do Fish Feel Pain?' by James Hamilton-Paterson - full article at
http://www.granta.com/extracts/2040
"Our mistake in this debate is to think that these issues can be resolved by science and ethics and the passing of nice clear laws. There will always be an unbridgeable conceptual gap between our unique species and the rest. Our decisions will mostly have to remain matters of individual conscience because there can also be no clear solutions to the inconsistencies presented by our unstable notions of exactly what constitutes pain or cruelty. The golden rule of ‘Do unto others...’ ... fails in the case of animals we elect to hunt or eat, just as environmentalism’s ‘Precautionary Principle’ of doing nothing that cannot be scientifically proven not to cause harm collapses under its own welter of negatives. Nevertheless, these things trouble us; and it is good that they should. It is a sign of our humanity that they cause us unease..."
"The cultural historian Mark Cousins recently observed to me that he would scold a child for being cruel to a brick. What he meant was that the object of a person’s cruelty is often less significant than the impulse itself, and unchecked expressions of minor cruelty can mature into very much worse."
I am not familiar with the magazine GRANTA in which this article appeared, but the current issue may proveinteresting :
Granta 84: Over There: How America Sees the World
The USA is the world's newest, greatest and only empire. And, some would say, the world's most insular state as well as the most powerful, never troubling to correct its ignorance of the people and places beyond its borders.
Is it a slander? In this issue of Granta, American writers describe their encounters abroad and how they were affected by them, while, in reportage and fiction, outsiders to America come upon the strangeness of the place itself.
Two years ago, in the wake of September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, Granta asked writers across the globe to describe how America had influenced their lives—culturally, politically, economically, for good or ill. For this issue we turned Granta 77's question around and asked American writers how they had encountered countries other than their own.
Links to this post:
Ohio Legislators can learn from the Texas experience:
March 22, 2004 -
Houston Chronicle
HEALTH-CARE COSTS
Jury still out on lower medical bills and bad doctors
The number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in Harris County has dropped dramatically during the past six months. This is the predicted result of a state-imposed cap of $250,000 on the amount of money a jury can award for pain, suffering and noneconomic damages.
Most doctors, hospital spokesmen and insurance companies welcome the reduction in malpractice lawsuits, claiming it will result in less expensive malpractice insurance and therefore less expensive health care for patients. Some personal injury lawyers say the drop reflects their inability to take on such cases because the potential financial rewards are now too limited to be worthwhile.
During last year's debate about malpractice caps, proponents assured Texans that their health-care costs would go down as a result of caps. They said more skillful and experienced doctors would stay in practice because their malpractice insurance would be cheaper.
But, as Andrew Tilghman reported in Saturday's Chronicle, doctors and hospitals have seen little change in their insurance rates. Several insurance companies, in fact, say they need rate increases. Malpractice cap proponents say it may take several years for the insurance rate reductions to show up. We'll be waiting.
Texans were also promised that agencies such as the State Board of Medical Examiners and the Department of Health would crack down on physicians who had been repeatedly disciplined for negative performance. That has not happened, either.
As Lise Olsen and Leigh Hopper reported in Sunday's Chronicle, several local hospitals continue to employ certain doctors despite their poor records or the number of times they have been sued for alleged malpractice.
Until sorry doctors are purged from practicing and malpractice insurance rates come down, lowering costly doctor and hospital bills for patients, the promised reforms are nothing more than bad medicine for sick people whose health care has done them more damage than good."
Legislators and special interest groups (in this case, insurance companies and the medical association) promise many things, but of course those promises are not incorporated into the legislation, and are soon forgotten. One thing they all leave out when imposing caps on damages >> an inflation factor. In twenty years, those caps will actually be (in real dollars) one-half to one-fourth of the current caps. Persons injured by medical mistakes will recover less and less. Doesn't seem fair...
Links to this post:
Disciplined doctors still find work in Houston-area hospitals
Associated Press
HOUSTON - Officials at several area hospitals have overlooked or ignored negative information about doctors disciplined by state regulators, allowing even those that have been sued for malpractice 10 or more times to continue practicing, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.
The newspaper examined six years of physician disciplinary records from the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and determined where disciplined doctors reported having hospital privileges.
The newspaper found that a few small for-profit hospitals, such as Houston Community Hospital, have repeatedly accepted doctors that others have rejected.
It also found that at least one hospital, Vista Medical Center in Pasadena, allowed an orthopedic surgeon to perform operations in an apparent violation of his probation, according to findings from a January inspection by the state Department of Health. The surgeon has been sued for malpractice more than 60 times and his license currently is suspended.
Links to this post:
Former Terror Chief giving the "scoop" to Congress and Sixty Minutes, or merely promoting his book which comes out today?
Check out the quote from a Lt. Colonel, returning from Iraq,
on this blog:
"
If Spain was attacked by Al Qaeda in revenge for Spain's support of the US in the toppling of Saddam Hussein, then Al Qaeda and Saddam must have been much closer than the liberals tell us. They claim that Saddam had no connection to worldwide terror. Or when confronted with Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas, or Saddam's payments to families of the Palestinian homicide bombers, they respond that at least he had no connection to Al Qaeda, our real target in the war. Then comes Al Qaeda, vaporinzing their arguments along with 200 Spanish commuters. Of course, they could have maintained their "no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection" argument, and simply recognized that Spain was a target because they support the US in Afghanistan and in the secret intelligence efforts, and because Spain is now also a bastion of liberal democracy, thus an anathema to Al Qaeda and the other Islamic extremists. "
MAKES SENSE TO ME.
Links to this post:
The
Anal(ytic) Philosopher , (Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.) has two very interesting posts today,one concerning unreasoning hatred of President Bush by a
certain New York Times columnist, and another with an excellent rationale on the morality of the war against Sadaam Hussein's regime. Pacifists who incorporate hatred of President Bush and/or a notion of appeasement should take a look.
A great excerpt:
"Why do I say that the war was justified? Well, it liberated a people. I wish that those who oppose the war would acknowledge this fact. Do they not care that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist thugs (including his vicious sons, who were being groomed to replace him) are no longer in power? Do they not think it good that people who were once raped, tortured, and murdered by their own government are free of these abominations? I don't see how anyone who is functioning normally and thinking clearly can deny that the Iraqi people--all twenty-five million of them--are much better off today than they were a year ago.
Ah, you say, war was not necessary to achieve this goal. Oh? Suppose the United States had not displaced the Hussein government. Do you think anything would have changed? If anything, not acting would have convinced Hussein that nothing he did had consequences. He would continue terrorizing his people, rewarding mass murderers, and destabilizing the Middle East. The United Nations lacks the backbone to enforce its resolutions. Unenforced resolutions are so much ink on paper. Thank goodness President Bush had the resolve to do what the United Nations would not (or institutionally could not).
Much of what I hear from war opponents is irrelevant...
Many opponents of the war appear to be extreme pacifists. This is the view that violence is never justified, even to prevent great evil. But extreme pacifism in a world of evil people is a recipe for disaster. If anything, it emboldens evil people to commit even more depredations and atrocities. There are evil people in this world. Please come to grips with that fact. Unless someone stands up to them, nothing will change and everyone will live in fear. Don't say that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to Americans. Are Americans the only people who matter? Don't Americans have a special role to play in the world by virtue of their economic and military power?
Peter Singer, whose new book on President Bush I don't own (yet) and haven't read, has been saying for thirty years that if it's within a person's power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, he or she ought to do so. Singer applies this principle to famine and derives the conclusion that individuals have a moral obligation to relieve and prevent it. But Singer's principle applies generally, not just to famine, and it's applicable to corporate entities such as nation-states as well as to individuals. Since it was within the power of the United States to prevent rape, torture, and murder of Iraqis (bad things, clearly) without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, it follows that the United States had an obligation to do so, which it duly discharged. What part of this does Singer reject? It seems a straightforward application of his principle.
After a year of somber reflection on the war, I have come to the sad conclusion that opposition to the war in Iraq is rooted in hatred--for President Bush. The reasoning of the war opponents goes as follows:
1. I hate President Bush (for whatever reason).
Therefore,
2. I oppose whatever President Bush does (and certainly whatever he does that increases his chance of reelection).
3. President Bush has taken the country to war (and thereby increased his chance of reelection).
Therefore,
4. I oppose the war.
There's also an element of hatred for the United States and what it stands for. I can understand why nonAmericans would feel this way. It's called envy. I cannot for a moment understand why Americans would feel this way. Okay, I can: self-loathing. This war may turn out to be a boon to psychotherapists. There appear to be many deeply conflicted, guilt-ridden, anxious people in this country--people who, instead of facing up to evil and accepting the moral burdens it imposes, tell themselves stories.
By the way, I'm not arguing that because opposition to the war is rooted in hatred, the war is justified. In other words, I'm not dismissing anti-war arguments because of facts about those who make them. That would be a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. I'm trying to explain opposition to the war. I'm puzzled by both the fact of opposition and the lamentably poor quality of the argumentation. I'm engaged in inference to the best explanation, which is a respectable philosophical technique."
Keith is not only an excellent philosophy professor, he is also an attorney -- and thus will understand the plagiarism which is condoned in the legal profession. On second thought, it isn't plagiarism if you put it in quotes and give attribution...anyway, excellent thought process.
Links to this post:
Non-Profit Corporation Guidelines from the Am. Bar Association.
Nonprofit Governance Library
To order, click
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/catalog/r5070392p.html or call (800)-285-2221.
7 x 10 Paperback Product Code: 5070392P
$99.95( 1-9 copies); $89.95 (10-25 copies
Three publications, Guidebook for the Directors of Nonprofit Corporations, Second Edition; Nonprofit Governance and Management; Nonprofit Resources: A Companion to Nonprofit Governance, offer legal guidance on directors' duties, rights, risks and obligations; practical how-to commentary; sample forms and letters; handy checklists; pointers for both nonprofit directors and staff; and a listing of publications, government resources, foundation reports, case and statutory citations, and Internet sites related to nonprofit governance.
The individual titles within the Library are described as follows:
Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations, Second Edition
By the Committee on Nonprofit Corporations
American Bar Association, Section of Business Law
2002 280 pages 7 x 10 Paperback
A new edition of the ABA's most popular title, this accessible guidebook is designed for directors and prospective directors of all types of nonprofit corporations. The Guidebook, written in plain-English commentary, addresses general legal principles and corporate governance issues to provide nonprofit directors with a comprehensive understanding of their roles. The new Second Edition adds full-length chapters covering today's political and legal environment for nonprofits; tax ramifications of for-profit and joint ventures; employee relationships, laws, and policies; duties of directors in special circumstances such as change-of-control events and bankruptcy.
Nonprofit Governance and Management
Edited by Victor Futter, Judith A.Cion and George W. Overton
Co-published by the American Bar Association, Section of Business Law and the American Society of Corporate Secretaries
2002 744 pages 7 x 10 Paperback
This updated edition of Nonprofit Governance--The Executive's Guide expands the scope of its popular predecessor to address issues relevant to both directors and managers of nonprofits. Drawing on the expertise of nonprofit executives, directors, lawyers, and other professionals experienced in organization and management, this new edition offers step-by-step guidelines, sample forms and letters, handy checklists and pointers to additional resources. Its 45 chapters cover accounting, board and committee operations, grant writing, Internet laws, liability, membership, mission statements, state regulations, and much more.
Nonprofit Resources: A Companion to Nonprofit Governance
Edited by Victor Futter
Co-published by the American Bar Association, Section of Business Law and the American Society of Corporate Secretaries
2002 80 pages 7 x 10 Paperback
A reference containing hundreds of helpful up-to-date listings of books, handbooks, professional journals, government publications, foundation reports, case and statutory cites, and Internet sites. Each entry includes complete bibliographic details to guide you straight to the information you need. Entries are arranged by topic for quick, convenient look-up.
Overnight delivery is available for an additional cost when orders are placed before 2:00 p.m.
Central Time. Please ask the service representative for details when you place your order.
American Bar Association, 541 North Fairbanks Court, Chicago, Illinois, 60611, 1-800-285-2221.
If you have any problem ordering these books, contact me to coordinate. They are highly recommended for any nonprofit organization.
Links to this post:
Insurance companies may come under Federal regulation after 150 years of "State" controls (or lack thereof)...The prospect that Washington will seize a role in the regulation of insurance is gaining momentum after more than 150 years of control by the states.
At a meeting that ended Tuesday in New York, state regulators were given an outline of proposed steps for federal oversight and several leading regulators suggested in interviews that while they preferred to remain fully independent, giving ground to Washington seemed inevitable.
The message, said Ernst Csiszar, the president of the state regulators' association, was unmistakable: "Either you do it, or we do it."
Over the weekend, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, spelled out plans for legislation later this year that would create a council of federal and state officials to oversee insurance nationally with a presidential appointee as its head.
Mr. Oxley's legislation, to be discussed at a hearing in Washington in late March, would force the states to adopt uniform standards and permit the market to determine insurance prices rather than have them determined by regulators as is generally the case now.
That is music to the ears of
many of the biggest insurers. Once content with sluggish state regulation as long as it remained relatively lax, they have been campaigning for a single federal regulator to replace those in each of the states as competition with banks and mutual fund companies has intensified." [more]
THE FOXES GUARDING THE HENHOUSE...
Links to this post:
March 12, 2004 http://
www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/opinion/12FRI2.html?th
Political Hot-Dogging in the House
Call it
legis-lite: ...the House still invested a day's debate in passing what is known as the
cheeseburger bill — a supersize sop to the fast-food industry. It's a gift that Republicans love doling out to their friends in big business, namely,
immunity from being sued.
At issue are lawsuits blaming fast-food chains and their marketing practices for obesity. Only a few such cases have been brought across the nation, and none have succeeded. Yet a Congressional majority rose up against this
phantom judicial crisis...
Proponents righteously heaped blame on individual overeaters in the debate, while once again indulging the G.O.P.'s obsession for curtailing Americans' basic right to go to court. The House performance was an exercise in special-interest pandering, not calorie counting.
"Suing your way to better health is not the answer," said the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, a
master of the simplistic debate in which trial lawyers were once more demonized while the majority ducked a truly complex public health problem.
Obesity could soon overtake smoking as the leading cause of preventable death, according to federal health officials. They estimated the social costs of the problem at $117 billion a year. Public awareness is growing. The fast-food industry has begun anxiously retreating from its supersize mania to market high-fat, high-calorie and sugary foods. School officials are trying to deal with the growing problem of obese students.
What to do? The House of Representatives' answer: first, kill all the lawyers.
The nation has a time-proven tort system that should not be tampered with to protect individual industries. The judiciary is capable of dismissing frivolous suits, and if any tort reform is needed, it should not be tailored to benefit any one class of defendants."
...
AT LEAST, KILL ALL THE FAT LAWYERS...
Links to this post:
An argument that practicing lawyers may be more honest than law professors (or at least more so than used car salesmen...)
The Buck Stops Here blog:
"...practicing lawyers [are] probably just as honest overall as are professors, even if only due to a higher risk of penalties."
Links to this post:
"BLACK MARK
Blacklist reflected poorly on the medical profession
A Web site designed to inform physicians whether a prospective patient had ever sued a doctor was mean-spirited and in poor taste and could have harmed the health of the patient. Now that the site has been shut down,
leaders of the medical profession ought to take a similar, more useful tack by providing patients with a real health service: an Internet directory of the profession's worst practitioners.
The defunct Web site, DoctorsKnow-.Us, offered its subscribers access to a database of plaintiffs who had filed medical malpractice lawsuits. The site's sponsors said in a message posted last week at the site's former Web address that, "Our hope is that this controversy will spark a serious discussion that results in changes that are equitable to both patients and physicians." That's quite an enlightened change of heart from the come-on potential clients got when the site was up and running: "They can sue, but they can't hide."
The real intention seems to have been to make it difficult for anyone who had ever sought legal redress for a doctor's negligence or incompetence to secure the services of another physician.
Any doctor would be understandably worried about taking a habitual litigant on as a patient, and the voters' passage last fall of caps on damages for malpractice claims shows the public is sympathetic to claims that lawsuit abuse has driven up malpractice insurance costs and driven doctors out of business. But
the DoctorsKnow-.Us Web site made no distinction between frivolous lawsuit filers and legitimate claimants.
There are places in this state, including in Houston, where it can be difficult for insured and uninsured alike to secure the services of a suitable physician. Rather than more barriers like DoctorsKnow.Us,
doctors ought to make greater efforts to help the public avoid the worst offenders in the practice of medicine.
The Web site of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners is a good resource for information about doctors' licensing, background and disciplinary actions. But many poorly skilled or negligent doctors are allowed to remain in the profession and never disciplined.
The more that's done to help Texans avoid bad doctors, the less likely patients will find the need to sue."
Links to this post:
MUTUAL FUNDS TO DEFEND GREEDY PRACTICES IN BALTIMORE COURTS
"Slammed for months by
late-trading and market timing scandals, embattled mutual fund representatives have been dragged before Senate panels and federal regulators as they try to defend industry practices that some say have
cost investors billions of dollars. Now, executives at several companies will have to go before federal judges in Baltimore in what one securities attorney said could be the "Olympics" of civil litigation surrounding the $7.5 trillion industry."
Links to this post:
"You can’t ever get everything you want. It is impossible. Luckily, there is another option: You can learn to control your mind, to step outside of this endless cycle of desire and aversion. You can learn not to want what you want, to recognize desires but not be controlled by them."
-Bhanta Henepola Gunaratana, "Mindfulness in Plain English"
Or as Steven Wright would say, You can't have everything -- where would you put it?
Links to this post:
Taking Religion to the Movies -- Again. Would you prefer Sex or Violence??
Tina Turner's Role Angers Hindus
Hindu groups claim the singer's sexy image is inappropriate for the role in Merchant Ivory movie "The Goddess."
World Entertainment News Network
March 8, 2004--Singer superstar Tina Turner has angered Hindus in England - by agreeing to play an Indian goddess in a new British film.
Hindu organizations claim the American singer's sexually-explosive image on stage is inappropriate for the role in Merchant Ivory movie "The Goddess."
And now religious leaders are threatening to picket cinemas that show the film. Hasmukh Shah, the chairman of Vishwa Hindu Parishad UK, a fundamentalist group, says, "These people would not dare to portray anything to do with Islam, but Hindus are easy targets for them.
"Our liberal attitude is taken for granted and our tolerance is exploited. But when pushed, Hindus will become intolerant.
"Why don't they get a rock star to portray the Prophet Mohammed and see the wrath of Muslims? They wouldn't dare.
"Casting Tina Turner is insensitive and we won't stand for it."
Another British-based Hindu organisation--Hindu Human Rights productions--is criticising the choice of Turner because of her reputation as a sex symbol.
The petition reads, "We have no quarrel with Ms Turner as such, but because of her reputation as a 'sex icon' it is improper to cast her."
Links to this post:
From the Late Show:
Top Ten Signs Hillary Clinton Wants To Be Vice President
10. The Washington, D.C. TJ Maxx has sold out of pantsuits.
9. She's practicing sitting around doing nothing.
8. Instead of pretending to be from New York, she's pretending to be from key battleground states Ohio, Florida and Michigan.
7. Bragged to reporters the next "Hillary-Gate" is going to be off the hizzook.
6. Says she wants to be the first female Vice President since Gore.
5. Just purchased a large amount of Halliburton stock.
4. Called Century 21 to ask about listings for undisclosed locations.
3. Well, there's the "Kerry/Clinton" tattoo.
2. Firing up the ol' paper shredder.
1. If it would help she'd have sex with Bill.
Links to this post:
Man Can't Sue Veterinarian for Emotional Damages
Kelly Cramer
Miami Daily Business Review
03-12-2004
{excerpt}
While acknowledging the bond between a pet and owner, a state appeals court in Florida has refused to allow Robert Bruns Kennedy to sue his basset hound's veterinarian for emotional damages.
See also the blog for
"Animal Ethics".
A dog may feel like family, but Florida law classifies canines as personal property, not kin, Chief Judge James R. Wolf wrote for the Tallahassee-based 1st District Court of Appeal in Kennedy v. Byas, d.b.a. Agape Animal Hospital.
Kennedy is limited to recovering $50 for the vet bill and $350 for the value of his furry friend, Fred, who died during treatment.
Links to this post:
March 11, 2004 Gongwer Report
VETERAN JUDGE FINDS LITTLE EVIDENCE OF ‘EXPLOSIVE JURY VERDICTS’ AS HOUSE OPENS SERIES OF HEARINGS ON OVERHAUL OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT SYSTEM
A common pleas judge told a House panel considering an overhaul of Ohio’s personal injury lawsuit system Thursday he had seen little evidence of huge jury verdicts for non-economic or punitive damages in his 12 years on the bench, a conclusion that appeared to contradict claims of those who want limits on the amounts that may be awarded in such cases.
Judge Alan Travis said he was sometimes surprised at the comparatively small amounts juries award to persons injured as a result of traffic accidents, medical malpractice or similar incidents. “There are times when I’m stunned that the jury was so tight-fisted,” he said.
Judge Travis joined two trial lawyers—plaintiff’s attorney Frank Ray and defense attorney Terry Miller—for a panel discussion as the House Judiciary Committee began a series of 18 hearings covering various aspects of pending legislation (SB 80) that would make sweeping changes in rules governing civil lawsuits on behalf of persons injured because of someone else’s negligence. The ensuing dialogue could have been titled “Torts 101” for non-lawyers on the panel, and continuing legal education for attorney-legislators.
Chairman Scott Oelslager (R-Canton) released a schedule that takes the committee through May 27th, with additional dates to be announced later. The series opened Thursday with the panel discussion arranged through the Ohio State Bar Association.
Judge Travis, one of 16 common pleas judges in Franklin County, said an examination of his records produced two product liability lawsuits that went to juries in the last 12 years. One involved an employee of a rural electric cooperative who was injured on the job, and a wrongful death action. In both cases, the jury found in favor of the defense and not the injured person.
As for the more numerous personal injury cases, ranging from slip and fall accidents to fatalities, he said individual awards were less than the public perceives, and noted the defense often wins. He cited as exceptions an $850,000 award in the case of a pizza delivery driver who struck three pedestrians, and a $5 million verdict in a wrongful death-medical malpractice case against a physician. In the latter, the evidence apparently was so overwhelming that the defense team did not even appeal the jury verdict. “There are no explosive verdicts that are unsupportable by the facts,” he said.
Judge Travis recalled only two cases in which punitive damages were awarded. One involved a breach of contract business dispute, and the other a truck driver with a history of accidents who was involved in a crash that left a motorcyclist dead.
Mr. Ray, president of the American Board of Trial Advocacy, said that in 125 jury trials, he had sought and obtained punitive damage awards in two cases. “Punitive damages are not a major player in the civil justice system,” he said. Mr. Miller said it was clear there has been “a tremendous push” in the civil justice system in recent years for alternative dispute resolution, voluntary mediation and similar approaches to avoid going to trial. He said the overwhelming majority of cases were resolved in such a manner.
Rep. Ed Jerse (D-Euclid), noting House approval Wednesday of legislation (HB 350) to protect the food industry from “obesity lawsuits,” questioned Judge Travis about the difficulties courts may experience in dismissing such claims out-of-hand. “I think it’s difficult to find ways of stopping the frivolous lawsuits from being filed,” the judge said, noting individuals initiated many actions without the assistance of an attorney. “That’s where I would say the bulk of the clearly ludicrous lawsuits come from,” he said.
Although court procedures preclude a judge from automatically tossing out such an action, they can decide whether there is merit to dismiss or proceed with them based on motions filed early in the litigation. “We weed out quite a few on summary judgment,” he said, a dismissal based on a judge’s conclusion that there is no issue for a jury to decide.
Mr. Ray cited a federal study of litigation in the nation’s 75 largest counties that reflected a sharp decline in the number of product liability lawsuits filed since 1985, and an average jury award of $30,500, despite the occasional multi-million dollar verdict.
Mr. Miller said there were few problems determining actual economic damages for an injured person such as lost wages and medical bills. Disputes arise, he said, in trying to determine amounts awarded for future medical care and related expenses over a person’s expected lifetime.
Legislation pending before the committee would:
--Restrict the amount of money juries may award for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering to maximums of $500,000 or $1 million per occurrence, depending on severity of the injury. There is no limit at present on the amount recoverable for non-economic loss.
--Limit punitive damages juries may award to $100,000 or the amount of economic damages, whichever is greater. For businesses with 500 or fewer employees, the limit is $100,000 or the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is less. There is no limit on the amount of punitive damages recoverable at present.
--Require product liability and lawsuit claims to be filed within 10 years from the date a product was delivered or the building design services were performed. There is no such statute of repose at present.
--Provide manufacturers with immunity from punitive damages so long as the company fully complied with all applicable government standards in a product’s development.
--Restrict the amount of money that attorneys for injured persons may receive in contingency fees based on a sliding scale of 35% to 15%, depending on the amount recovered on a claim. There is no such general cap at present. A medical malpractice insurance bill that took effect in 2003 (SB 281, 124th General Assembly) requires fees be submitted for probate court review if they exceed the amount of damages recovered for non-economic loss.
--Require a “Legal Consumer’s Bill of Rights” be attached to every written retainer agreement or contract for legal services.
--Establish more stringent standards regarding filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Chairman Oelslager said the committee would hear an overview of opposition to the bill on March 18th. The punitive damages section of the measure will be the subject of hearings March 25, April 22, April 29, and May 6th. Three hearings are set on the pain and suffering section: May 13, May 20, and May 27th.
To be announced are two weeks of hearings each on the subjects of statute of repose and product liability. Other topics to have individual hearings: collateral sources, seat belts, wrongful death, attorney fees, legal consumer bill of rights, and jury instructions.
Links to this post:
From "
The Texas Conservative":
"Kerry's "gutter politics"
Hugh Hewitt provides a
scathing commentary here about the media's lack of interest in Kerry's comments yesterday. He contrasts the media response to that regarding President Bush's open-mic comments of the 2000 campaign.
Some excerpts ...
"... On September 4, 2000, George W. Bush, unaware that a microphone was catching his comments, confided his opinion of New York Times reporter Adam Clymer to Dick Cheney. The vulgarity Bush employed was picked up by the microphones, and was instantly a front page story in the campaign. The Boston Globe, for example, ran a page one story the next day by Anne E. Kornblut and Glenn Johnson that began:
"George W. Bush yesterday urged voters to put 'plain-spoken Americans' in the White House, intending to contrast himself with Vice President Al Gore. Instead, his frankness created an embarrassment, after he uttered a vulgarity that was accidentally broadcast over loudspeakers to a crowd of hundreds."
The next day a Globe columnist blisted Bush's choice of words in a column, as did the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and scores of others. Clymer himself chipped in with a 1291 word special on Bush's off-the-record-on-the-record remark to The New York Times' "Week in Review."
What a difference a party identification makes. John Kerry's gutter politics yesterday, recounted in detail below, didn't warrant a headline in Kerry's hometown Globe, but showed up in paragraph two of a story titled "Kerry, Dean meet in party unity push." Glen Johnson, co-author of the 2000 story, is also co-author of this one.
The Globe is far from alone. The Los Angeles Times headlined the story "Off the Cuff and Into the Crossfire: Kerry remark about 'crooked' and 'lying' opponents draws angry retort from GOP. Comments may haunt the Democrat," and buried it on page 24. The first paragraph in Matea Gold's account begins "John F. Kerry leveled his harshest criticism yet at Republican critics Wednesday, accusing them of corrupt and deceitful behavior -- comments that some analysts warned could backfire on the presumed Democratic presidential nominee." The Times at least got that part of the quote it reproduced correct --perhaps the Globe should check the Times for accuracy of quotes-- but also ran a Kerry spin in paragraph five that "the senator was speaking about 'the Republican attack machine,' not President Bush personally." The Bush spokesman isn't quoted until paragraph 17, and there is no "expert" quoted as condemning the obvious persona; attack on the president' integrity. "
Tell me again that there is no "liberal bias" in the media !"
Links to this post:
Links to this post:
A magician's revenge on lawyers -- > a sucker (me) in the crowd at today's Salem Kiwanis meeting.Go to
http://www.christopherlive.com
click on the support tab
enter the venue page password magicbob (all lowercase)
If you would like to see a full corporate show for meetings, public
fundraisers, etc.:
Go to the video gallery page
http://www.christopherlive.com/videos.shtml
click the showcase password button
enter the showcase password liveandlaugh (all lowercase)
A very funny and talented young magician!
Links to this post:
Journalism Review Slams Newsweek
A "dart" goes to Newsweek magazine for its December cover article about how fear of litigation is "paralyzing" professions. The Columbia Review points out that the article did not disclose several important factors: the author's law firm, Covington & Burling, represents Newsweek; the law firm is a leader in "tort reform" efforts; and Newsweek and a related publication have had at least three discrimination lawsuits filed against them since 1999.
The article is only available in print through the Columbia Journalism Review. March-April 2004,
The Columbia Journalism Review 03/10/2004.
Links to this post:
"
This is not a blacklist. Many plaintiff claims are meritorious."
March 11, 2004
Texas Company Removes Web List of Malpractice Plaintiffs
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
OUSTON, March 10 — A doctors' Web site that compiled and posted the names of patients who have sued doctors for malpractice closed on Wednesday after complaints that it amounted to a blacklist.
The action was welcomed by patients who had been listed and a consumer advocacy group, Texas Watch, that called the five-month-old site "a mean-spirited database to deny access to medical care."
There was no notice of the shutdown, but a brief message on the suddenly blank site said, "We apologize, but the DoctorsKnow.Us Web site is no longer available."
On Wednesday evening, the site posted this message:
"DoctorsKnow.Us has permanently ceased operations as of 3/9/04. The controversy this site has ignited was unanticipated and has polarized opinions regarding the medical malpractice crisis. Our hope is that this controversy will spark a serious discussion that results in changes that are equitable to both patients and physicians. All charges that have been collected will be returned to members and trial members."
This week, after The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal had written about the site, it went blank for hours and then reappeared with a notice that said: "This is not a blacklist. Many plaintiff claims are meritorious."
John S. Jones, a Terrell radiologist who registered the DoctorsKnow.Us company in Austin in January 2003 and took it operational in November, did not respond to repeated messages left Wednesday and other days on his office answering machine.
The shutdown was praised by patients who had been listed and who were preparing to appear on television news programs like "Good Morning America."
"I think it's great," said Greg Dawson, the director of Emergency Preparedness for the North Central Texas Council of Governments who appeared on the list after having won an undisclosed settlement from doctors and a hospital in Fort Worth for their failing to detect his wife's advanced and fatal brain tumor.
Mr. Dawson said he had had trouble since then finding a doctor who would treat his 18-year-old son for a minor ailment. Mr. Dawson said that he had been preparing to appear on "Good Morning America" but that the segment was canceled after the program had been told that the Web site was closing.
On Sunday, Beth Longnecker of El Paso e-mailed a request to the site to consider listing physicians with high numbers of meritorious malpractice cases. A response on Tuesday used disparaging vulgar language.
Links to this post:
A cute commentary on "expressionless" John Kerry by
NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd...watch out for the live mikes, John.
Links to this post:
How do you tell if a "class action" is "frivolous"? This Miami Herald
article sets out some of the problems in distinguishing the good lawsuits from the bad.
Links to this post:
From The
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Lawsuit abuse: Crisis, or is state bending to business' political clout?
03/08/04
By T.C. Brown
Plain Dealer Bureau
Monday, March 8, 2004
Columbus - Business interests clamoring for relief from the yoke of costly lawsuits have managed to grab the attention of state lawmakers.
More than a dozen bills that expand employer immunity or limit jury awards have been introduced since the 125th Ohio General Assembly began a two-year session last year. The Republican-controlled House and Senate passed two bills and are considering 12 others.
The issues create a sharp division between the business community and trial lawyers who represent victims. Proponents, using terms like "jackpot justice," "lottery mentality" and "lawsuit abuse," say runaway jury awards and the costs to defend lawsuits are driving businesses out of Ohio. Critics say that no proof of abuse exists, and that the legislation will take away citizens' rights to a jury trial and further harm already traumatized victims.
Both sides serve up shocking anecdotes to bolster their positions, but finding solid evidence to prove that there is, or is not, a real crisis has been more challenging.
Unearthing that evidence is a key goal for Rep. Scott Oelslager, a Canton Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
The committee is examining Senate Bill 80, arguably the most comprehensive of all the measures, known as tort reform, that would limit jury awards and the types of cases that could be filed.
The committee will hear from a panel of two attorneys and a judge on Thursday.
Proponents of the bill, including Gov. Bob Taft, say that an explosion of frivolous lawsuits and out-of-control jury awards is causing business insurance rates to skyrocket and is making Ohio markets less competitive.
Oelslager has written to the governor, the Ohio Department of Insurance, the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State Bar Association and state law schools, seeking information to back these claims.
He has received scant evidence in terms of trial statistics, but he has incurred the wrath of the bill's sponsor, Sen. Steve Stivers, a Columbus Republican, who said Oelslager should get a badge for private investigating.
Oelslager wants a balanced and constitutional bill that is fair to business and protects an individual's right to a jury trial. There is no timetable for a vote, but he predicts at least 10 committee hearings.
"This debate is always driven by anecdotal stories, and they are true," Oelslager said. "I've always felt the one piece missing is the rational basis for discussion. Is there a rational debate as far as facts and figures are concerned?"
A separate bill, sponsored by Rep. John Willamowski, a Lima Republican, would require all clerks of courts to gather civil-trial statistics every year.
"We're trying to collect information that is relevant so we are not shooting in the dark," Willamowski said of House Bill 348. "When we see what the facts are, we need to bring everyone together and basically get a separation agreement everyone can live with."
The process isn't moving fast enough from a business standpoint, said David Hansen, chairman for the Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice.
"There is a lot of motion, but no particular accomplishment," Hansen said. The previous General Assembly did pass a bill in 2002 that limits jury awards for noneconomic damages for medical malpractice victims. That effort to get insurance premiums lowered has not yet born fruit.
Reform of the civil justice system would give Ohio businesses cost predictability, which would improve the business climate, said Chip McConville, political director for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
"If you can't predict what potential losses are going to be, it makes things a whole lot more difficult," McConville said.
The Ohio Supreme Court in 1997 rejected the General Assembly's last comprehensive reform of the civil justice system by saying the bill unconstitutionally contained more than one subject. That's one reason for the assortment of bills now, McConville said.
Richard Mason, executive director of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, said another reason is that business has the money to buy political clout.
"It's power and influence," Mason said. "Corporate and insurance lobbies have a great deal of influence in the Ohio General Assembly, and they are flexing their muscles trying to pass a broad range of bills that limit the rights of the people they hurt."
What everyone needs to do is slow down and take a deep breath, said William Weisenberg, director of government affairs for the Ohio State Bar Association.
"We need to diagnose what the problem is and then take a course of action," Weisenberg said.
The bar association and the Ohio State Medical Association, which could be at odds over tort reform issues, are working together on House Bill 215, legislation that would establish pretrial review panels on medical malpractice cases, Weisenberg said.
"We constantly hear, 'We've got to have quick action,' " Weisenberg said. "No one wants to talk about the problems and the extent of the problems and how to deal with it. They just want to pass something."
Links to this post:
More on "Passion" from the
Washingon Post:
"How would we (Gibson and all the rest of us) feel if a Hollywood producer (a Hollywood so notoriously populated by Jews) made a film, in the same "over the edge" spirit vaunted by Gibson, dramatizing another historical event -- the auto-da-fé in Spain in February 1481, for example, in which six men and six women conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity) were tortured and burned alive at the stake, while richly robed prelates triumphally presided over the scene? Such a film, taking its cue from Gibson, might utilize all the devices of violence, sadism and malignity that he has deployed so skillfully, here as in his other films. It might be even more credible, and therefore emotionally powerful, than his because the contemporary as well as scholarly sources are more reliable. The effect would be to make of the auto-da-fé a defining experience in the relations of Jews and Christians.
Or, another thought-experiment: a film of the First Crusade produced by a Muslim. The venerable 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes, in relatively sober terms, the month-long siege culminating in the capture of Jerusalem: "The slaughter was terrible; the blood of the conquered ran down the streets, until men splashed in blood as they rode. At nightfall, sobbing for excess of joy, the crusaders came to the Sepulchre from their treading of the winepress, and put their blood-stained hands together in prayer. So, on that day of July, the First Crusade came to an end." An "over the edge" depiction of this scene would surely be as riveting, bloody and unforgettable as the scene of the Crucifixion, or of the auto da fé or, for that matter, of all too many episodes in our all too bloody history.
What is sauce for the goose. . . ."
Links to this post:
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re "Bush Ad Campaign Ready to Kick Off an Expensive Effort" (front page, March 4):
My son was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11, leaving a young wife and three small children. It is with horror and intense anger that I today witnessed the television commercials with images from 9/11 used by President Bush and his campaign strategists. Using visual reminders of this terrible tragedy to get votes is disgraceful.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that the 9/11 commission is still investigating the United States intelligence efforts, or lack thereof, before the 9/11 attacks--during President Bush's watch.
The Bush ads use the 9/11 images to proclaim "leadership." What kind of leadership is this?
ELINOR STOUT
Watertown, Mass., March 5, 2004
To the Editor:
If it's O.K. for John Kerry to "wrap himself in the flag" about Vietnam, why is it wrong for President Bush to do the same about 9/11 (front page, March 4)?
CHRISTINE GOLDEN
Toledo, Ohio, March 5, 2004
posted by
Keith Burgess-Jackson 3/6/2004 07:41:34 PM
Links to this post:
The controversy over the Passion has me perplexed. The commentators I trust are uniformly against the show, and for seemingly good reason.
Here's a
blog with some commentary, with reference to Charles Krauthammer:
"THANK GOD FOR KRAUTHAMMER: Charles Krauthammer has never written a dumb column, to my knowledge. Even on emotional subjects such as civil marriage, he brings to the debate a calm reasoning that wins the respect of his opponents as well as his supporters. And that is also why his searing criticism of Mel Gibson's inflammatory and idiosyncratic version of the Passion is so helpful. I'm tired of people believing that Gibson is representing Catholicism. He isn't. He is a rebel against Catholicism, specifically the reformed, open, repentant Catholicism of the Second Vatican Council. Gibson doesn't recognize the authority of the current Pope; he doesn't recognize the current mass - the central ritual of Catholics across the world. People are mistaken in believing that he merely prefers the Latin mass; he doesn't. He favors the Tridentine mass, a relic. He believes that all non-Catholics are going to hell, another heresy. He is clearly and palpably anti-Semitic. His movie is an act of aggression against Jews, and, as such, is an act of aggression against Catholicism and the current Pope's heroic efforts to confront the shameful history of the Church with regard to the Jewish people. Charles notes how Satan walks and lives and breathes among the Jews in the movie. He doesn't mention that young Jewish children actually turn into demons at one point in the movie, a device that only students of medieval anti-Semitism would notice. In fact, one reason that today's viewers do not notice the hatred of Jews in the movie is because, mercifuly, they are not familiar with the medieval tropes that signal evil and that Gibson trafficks in. Gibson knows. And he knows how his movie will play in those parts of the world where anti-Semitic tropes are still recognized. Notice I am not accusing people of good faith who have found inspiration in the story portraayed in this movie of being anti-Semitic. I'm sure that many if not almost all of that devition is genuine and not motivated by anything but spiritual hope and reflection. But that cannot disguise the malice that lies beneath. And that Gibson would use the message of Christ to advance it is what makes it doubly unforgivable."
Krauthammer is an outstanding conservative columnist, and he has a
scathing review of Mel Gibson's motivation in the movie. Is it a valid artistic expression of the Biblical stories of Christ, or a propaganda vehicle for a slightly off-beat Catholic? What is the Catholic Church's official position on the movie? Or is anything that deals with Jesus Christ, no matter the artistic value of the movie, an unthinking rallying flag for "our" religion as better than the others??
Links to this post:
From the
AnalPhilosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. - a very interesting lawyer-philosopher (although he may reverse the listing):
Mind, n. A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. From the Latin mens, a fact unknown to that honest shoe-seller, who, observing that his learned competitor over the way had displayed the motto "Mens conscia recti," emblazoned his own shop front with the words "Men's, women's and children's conscia recti."
(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)
Links to this post:
Ohio has changed the long-standing statute on pre-judgment interest, from a flat 10%, to a floating rate. HB 212, legislation regarding changes in pre-judgment interest, was signed into law and is effective on June 1, 2004. You can access this bill at
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us and type in House Bill 212.
This is another part of the effort at so-called "tort reform", and guess what, it favors the insurance companies -- the 10% rate was probably the ONLY incentive recently to settle a case.
Links to this post:
In a decision that could benefit older workers and make it tougher for companies to cut costs, the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday changed the standard that courts use to decide whether to hear age discrimination lawsuits, the
Toledo Blade reports.
"Since 1983, "terminated’’ workers filing age discrimination lawsuits had to prove four elements for their case to move forward: they were 40 years old or older, had been fired, qualified for their job and replaced by someone under the age of 40, or fired so a person under 40 could keep their job.
But in a 4-3 decision released yesterday, the high court changed that standard to say that fired older workers can establish their case as long as the replacement worker is "substantially younger," which also could mean a replacement worker who is 40 years old or older.
For example, yesterday’s ruling opens the door for a lawsuit to reach trial if a 64-year-old worker files a case involving a replacement worker who is 40."
Links to this post:
Here's an interesting article on
tort reform hypocrites, including "Dubya". This excerpt refers specifically to the Ohio situation:
"Citizens for a Strong Ohio Advisory Board Member R. Emmett Boyle
In 1996, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce lobbied for a package of laws that made it more difficult or impossible for injured Ohio citizens to sue wrongdoers and be fairly compensated for their injuries. [23] On August 16, 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down this package of laws in its entirety, calling it “openly subversive of the separation of powers and, in particular, of the judicial system” established by the Ohio Constitution. State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 86 Ohio St.3d 451 (1999). During the 2000 elections, Citizens for a Strong Ohio, a group created by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, [24] spent an estimated $5 million to oust Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who wrote the Sheward decision.
Yet when it comes to his own company, Citizens for a Strong Ohio Advisory Board Member R. Emmett Boyle does not hesitate to sue. In 1995, Boyle’s company, Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation, sued Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, Employers Insurance of Wausau, Globe Indemnity Company and Home Indemnity Company, seeking coverage for environmental contamination at its Hannibal, Ohio reduction facility and remediation costs. After five years of litigation, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to throw the case out, finding that the company had known it was liable for the contamination yet waited 16 years before notifying its insurers.
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation v. Employers Insurance of Wausau et al., 88 Ohio St.3d 292 (2000)."
Links to this post:
Although I am not a vegetarian, I have to think long and hard about the practice after watching
this movie - and no, I don't hang around the "vegan vixens" -- but that too might convert a few...
Links to this post:
Excerpt from Texas "tort reform" article
(Houston Chronicle, 2/28/04):
Or, how the "good hands" people are not "on your side" --
"In 1994, the Texas Supreme Court restricted punitive damages in insurance cases through a ruling in Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel. The court ruled policyholders had to prove a company or individual knew their actions would harm others, and not just that one should have known.
In 1995, controversial tort reform legislation capped punitive damages to the greater of twice the economic damages or $200,000, and capped noneconomic damages at $750,000.
Also that year, a Texas Supreme Court ruling in State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Beaston set a higher standard for proving mental anguish, making it harder to win noneconomic damages.
Rather than just proving an insurer unfairly delayed a claim, the court ruled policyholders also had to prove the company knowingly delayed a claim, a difficult criterion to meet.
"It makes it hard to use the civil justice system to deter misconduct," said Phil Maxwell, an Austin attorney and former head of the Texas Attorney General's consumer protection division. "The incentives are all tilted in favor of delay."
Links to this post:
Action in a vacuum - let's get the facts - the leadership of the State Bar Association agrees - tone down the rhetoric, look at the reality.
Columbus Dispatch
Letter-to-the-Editor
Tort reform needs to be studied before action is taken
Saturday, February 28, 2004
In Gov. Bob Taft’s recent State of the State address, he called for action on tort reform and challenged the Ohio legislature to move quickly. Taft said, "Let’s enact comprehensive lawsuit reform, and let’s enact it now."
The question is, move quickly on what? The governor, some legislators, business interests and others are clamoring about a crisis. They say that frivolous lawsuits and large jury verdicts are driving up the cost of doing businesses in Ohio. But they have yet to provide facts to back up their assertions.
An examination of various components of the civil-justice system is in order, especially the high transactional costs that parties incur. What is needed in addition to fact-gathering is a conclave of interested parties and state leaders to discuss what reforms, if any, would be an improvement to the system. The system may not be perfect, so constructive recommendations for improvement are always in order.
A bill before the Ohio legislature may hold some hope for compiling important information in the future. Rep. John Willamowski, R-Lima, introduced legislation (House Bill 348) to require gathering data about tort actions filed in Ohio that could shed light on challenges in the system.
While the Ohio State Bar Association has not taken a position on this particular piece of legislation, it is the kind of affirmative step that is needed to ensure that our legislators have information before they make legislative decisions.
Right now, the facts simply are not there. While we applaud Taft’s interest in protecting Ohioans, we want to be sure that any actions taken are based on sound factual information.
The Ohio State Bar Association, whose membership includes lawyers in all segments of practice and in all areas of the state, has long called for the Ohio legislature to gather the necessary data to determine the cause and scope of the problem before taking action, and then to craft rational and responsible approaches to handling issues revealed through those facts.
Much of the needed data do not currently exist, so research needs to be commissioned to gather the necessary information. Ohio’s leading research institutions would be good places to undertake these studies. The OSBA continues to offer to assist in this effort.
KEITH ASHMUS
President
Ohio State Bar Association
Columbus
Links to this post:
