Report from Counsel

2007-01-24T13:12:00.000-05:00

Monday, January 22, 2007

Clutter misery http://ohioriverlife.blogspot.com/

by Liz Lundberg
I went back home to spend the New Year's Day and Dad's birthday with my parents. Normally I wouldn't write about the same stuff, but since I "broke the story" about finding an old copy of the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought I might follow up with a tale about cleaning my mother's closet.

First of all, you need to know that my mom is a clutter bug. I won't say she is the worst clutter bug in the world, because she has not died beneath her litter. But she's not dead yet, so time will tell. She sends five bucks to every charity that asks for money, and in order to keep her on the money pipeline, they send her note cards, calendars, address labels, envelope seals, rosaries, medallions, refrigerator photo frames, magnets, prayers and other assorted bric-a-brac.

Someday when the last hose is finally exhausted and the insurance company declares the house a total loss, my mother will heed our words about the firetrap she inhabits, but in the meantime, I offered to help her organize this mountain of clutter. She suggested we begin organizing the bathroom instead. Well, it's a start, I thought, so up we went to the loo.

We discovered a bottle of Wheat Germ Oil & Honey Shampoo from the seventies and a jar of Vaseline from the sixties. I was a teenager when it was new! I asked her if maybe we could try selling it on eBay with the suggestion that the form of the Virgin and child had been gouged into it and had remained unmolested for over twenty years. "Sure enough, there's her head, mom!" I exclaimed. She laughed and laughed. "OK, so toss?" "No, your father can use it to lubricate things." She set the petroleum aside.

There was a lot of used BIC razors, some of which we (I) tossed. "Most," directed mom, were "still good," so back they went into the pile of razors. There was a literal cornucopia of miniature motel shampoos and conditioners. Some were used. The bottles had many different shapes. The pettiest ones had pink fluid in them and were from the Grosvenor Hotel in the U.K., but they had been opened, and the fluid had turned off-pink to yellow around the upper edge. I said, "No good, toss." To which she countered, "But once they're empty we might need the bottles."

There had to be thirty bottles sitting in front of me. I don't think my 76-year-old mom and my 82-year-old dad can travel enough to get rid of all the bottles they have, much less need the empties anytime before they die. This fact never crossed her mind. Like the banker who tried to sell my grandmother a sixteen year CD when she was 92: What was he thinking?

We managed to separate the full bottles from the empty ones and place the full ones in a pretty box with some other attractive soaps and lotions—for when guests come. We agreed to place the used ones in a box to go to the rummage sale. Nobody will use the remaining soap in these bottles, but maybe they would empty them to use as travel bottles themselves. That way, I thought, they're at least almost out of the house. There were two other bottles that I admit I was hoping we'd keep. They contained, respectively, tincture of merthiolate and dose of castor oil. Both looked as though they might have been carried by Florence Nightingale.

This was merely the episode of the bottles. Over the course of this adventure together, we had numerous episodes and discussions about each and every item we pulled from under the sink and over the sink. We simplified the arrangement this junk, although most of the junk that would never be used again somehow survived. For example, there were pieces of soap so hard that they could repel water. We should have given those to dad to fix the roof with, but like mom says "soap is soap," and we had to keep every chip and chunk of that shale.

At the end of all the episodes—of the bottles, Band-Aids, gauze, sample packs, floss, thermometers (three more than have been used in the last ten years, even though we 'thought we only had one') eye drops, boric acid, Bacitracin (remember Bacitracin?) cream and assorted pain killers—we had reduced the volume by a whopping one tenth.

Had this been my project I would have shut my eyes and tossed all of it out except the Band-Aids, those two refugee bottles from Charlie Company, and the unopened hotel bottles. It's always easier to throw away somebody else's stuff, but by then I was contemplating burning down my own house and beginning anew—especially knowing that I carry the gene for clutter mania. The whole thing had ceased to be funny. It was now morbid.

Imagine going home only to discover that you can't sit next to your mother on the couch because three fourths of it is blanketed in newspapers, magazines, lists, date books, fiction, nonfiction, crossword puzzles, knitting needles, yarn, and a pair of socks with holes in the heels and toes. You might feel a bit unwelcome. I know it's not her intention, but the silent communication is: "You're welcome, but not welcome enough for me to actually make space for you here." My parents' house has more books, more fountains of wisdom than the Library of Congress, but there's literally no place to sit down and read. Needless to say, they rarely entertain.

Mom's computer is in her "shop"—a used book store that supplies major outlets like Abe Books and Amazon. This store, too, is packed six high and two deep with books. To use the computer you have to squeeze in between a Yertle the Turtle tower and a box. The tiny space hollowed out of the work area for the mouse is almost too small to fit your hand, let alone to move the mouse. The bookcases are stacked high with heavy hardbacks, and I fear someday having dig out my buried and broken mother from beneath these shelves. That she has osteoporosis improves the possibility.

There must be twenty of those two-handled tote bags lining the entryway when you walk in the front door of the bookshop. For a year mom couldn't find her digital camera. I moved one of the tote bags. It was underneath. This is what I'm talking about, but there is a great deal of emotion tied up in all of this stuff. For me it represents anger and hostility. We love mom and we hate her. There isn't anything we can do about it, but to hear my father say, "When she dies I'm having a bonfire," I wonder if it's a celebration he's secretly hoping for. I had always thought of my parents as an inseparable couple, a wonderful team perpetually in love. We never saw them angry at each other when we were kids. But in this one compulsion of Mom's I see the sinister destruction of their devotion.

The only truly thriving inhabitants of the house are the plants and the fruit flies that circle like a living carousel above a bowl of rotting fruit. This will not do for me. I cannot stand the feeling that my beautiful parents are going to be buried with animosity between them instead of tranquil earth, or that their ashes will cause toxic waste because of her contempt and his anger. I want to fix this before it's too late.

The pile-up is not all her fault. My father shoulders the burden of his own martyrdom. The end of every sentence is followed by a description of a limiting factor linked to the words "your mother." The truth is that she's not his limiting factor; he is.. But as long as he blames her, nothing can change. His beautiful house remains a fire trap and an obstacle course. And he remains the ineffectual patsy, unable (or unwilling) to save his wife for her own sake.

The psychological part comes from growing up in the Great Depression, she says. Their house was small. One had only a corner in which to place her precious few books, papers and toys. She loves the idea that she now has infinite space to put everything. She loves the infinite ownership, too. She's a clutter miser.

Why keep all this stuff? Why not give it all to the needy, like the good Christian she works so hard to be? Well, it might be worth something someday. Deep inside, her unwillingness to let go of this dubious wealth is a fear of not having enough, that someday this will be needed, like Judgment Day. You know it's coming, and must be prepared. But that's something beyond reality. Clutter is not good for the psyche. At some point, the psychological need to "unload" one's physical detritus (and all the emotions linked to it) should kick in against the defenses of clutter misery.

Mom isn't any different than smokers with respect to addiction, except it's a different type of coffin nail. I see her in myself clearly at times, so I know what I am talking about; it saps our life energy. It's only visible in her case if one visits the house. Instead, at her advanced age, she has remedied that by always going out and never having guests. She's off on her lay ministry, ministering to the locals with her lay minister friends, while dad stays home and watches the beast.

r guehl (robert.guehl@gmail.com) has sent you a news story from EurekAlert!

2006-11-29T12:44:00.000-05:00

"Tibetan chic: Why Buddhism is so hot right now"
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/ra-tcw041906.php

___________________________________________________________

This message was sent from EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS,
the science society.

Visit http://www.eurekalert.org for more breaking science,
health and technology news.

2006-09-19T22:49:00.000-04:00

FROM OpinionJournal:

The Washington Post's Anne Applebaum weighs in with a very sensible comment on the kerfuffle over the pope and Islam:

We can all unite in our support for freedom of speech--surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts--and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News--Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between.

True, these principles sound pretty elementary--"we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence"--but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus.

2006-03-24T17:24:00.000-05:00

from OpinionJournal -

Addendum: But They Support the Troops!
The Christian Peacemaker Teams, whose appallingly ungrateful statement about the military rescue of three of their colleagues in Iraq we noted yesterday, last night added a new section called "Addenda," which includes this:

We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. So we offer these paragraphs as the first of several addenda:

We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues.

Yesterday's Orlando Sentinel, published before the hostages' release, carried a letter to the editor from CPT's Kathleen Kern, which reinforces the argument we made yesterday, namely that CPT views America as the root of all evil:

I am writing as a grieving colleague of Tom Fox in response to Cal Thomas' March 14 column, "The Tom Fox tragedy."

We do not believe that "evil people will be nice to us if we are nice to them." We do believe that Jesus meant what he said when he told his followers, "But love your enemies, do good and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked." (Luke 6:35)

Christian Peacemaker Teams agrees with Cal Thomas when he says, "Evil cannot be accommodated. Evil must be defeated if peace on Earth is to exist."

We strive with all our might to fight the evil that says it is acceptable to bomb and torture people, that some lives are worth more than others, that we can ignore what Jesus said about treating "the least of these" as we would treat him.

But a reader who asks to remain anonymous says their theology can be more easily explained than we did:

It does not "equate America as the root of all evil and America's adversaries as Edenic creatures--innocents who know not good or evil and thus bear no culpability for their bad actions." Instead, it stems from the view that we are not morally responsible for our enemy's acts but for our own, and that the good Christian suffers all manner of evil (lest his love for his neighbor be stained) when it is that good Christian's own welfare that is at stake, but suffers no manner of evil to befall his neighbor when yet another neighbor would commit harm against him.

The application of this traditional Christian moral viewpoint leads to turning the other cheek in some purely self-regarding situations, and to the use of force in other-regarding situations. To the outsider, Christian "just war" theory is easily caricatured as an inconsistent waffling between "pacifism" and "bellicism," but in fact it is neither.

In the present case, the CPT seems to have concluded that Christian love requires turning the other cheek always. ("Just war pacifism" is not unknown in the history of Christian ethics.) This is a kind of rejection of responsibility for the neighbor who is unjustly harmed by yet another neighbor, or of the possibility that using force will prevent a greater evil. But it is not as strange as you make it out to be

2006-03-15T11:54:00.000-05:00

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here
in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be
treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or
origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an
American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an
American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have
room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we
have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American
people."

"Learn as if you were going to live forever. Live as if you were going to
die tomorrow." - Mahatma Gandhi

2006-03-15T07:44:00.000-05:00

Use of Implanted Patient-Data Chips Stirs Debate on Medicine vs. Privacy

By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A01

When Daniel Hickey's doctor suggested he have a microchip implanted under his skin to provide instant access to his computerized medical record, the 77-year-old retired naval officer immediately agreed.

"If you're unconscious and end up in the emergency room, they won't know anything about you," Hickey said. "With this, they can find out everything they need to know right away and treat you better

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031402039.html?referrer=email&referrer=email for full article

2006-03-14T17:18:00.000-05:00

Best of the Web Today - March 14, 2006 Opinion Journal - Wall Street Journal
editorial page
By JAMES TARANTO

Torturing the News--II
Yesterday we noted that the New York Times had published a page 1 story on
Abu Ghraib on the same day that it published a story on page 8 about the
murder of a hostage, who, as the Times reported the next day on page 10, was
apparently tortured before being slain. Today the Times reports its Abu
Ghraib story may have been fake:

The online magazine Salon is challenging the identity of a man profiled by
The New York Times in a front-page article on Saturday who says he is the
iconic hooded figure in a published photograph who was abused by Americans
at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.

Salon bases its challenge on an examination of a set of 280 Abu Ghraib
photographs it has been studying for several weeks and an interview with an
official of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, known as the C.I.D.,
who says the man identified by The Times is not the detainee in the
photograph.

On Monday, Chris Grey, chief spokesman for the investigations unit, asked
about the challenge, confirmed to The Times in an e-mail message: "We have
had several detainees claim they were the person depicted in the photograph
in question. Our investigation indicates that the person you have is not the
detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the
Abu Ghraib investigation.

The story raising doubts about the page 1 story appeared on page 17.

2006-03-08T16:46:00.000-05:00

Best of the Web Today - March 8, 2006 URL for this article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008061
By JAMES TARANTO

What's for Desert?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm
The U.S. military's desertion rate "has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks
in 2001," USA Today reports:

The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared
with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion
status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw
a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971--3.4% of the Army force. But there was a
draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.

Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.

Accompanying the story is a chart that shows Army desertions have declined
every year since 2001.

So how does USA package this good news for the military? As bad news: The
headline reads "8,000 Desert During Iraq War," and the first paragraph
begins:

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted
since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although . . .

Many in the press seem determined to follow their Iraq-as-Vietnam script,
whether or not it's consistent with the facts.

2006-03-08T15:49:00.000-05:00

[Editor's Note: Below are selected excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel's speech delivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18, 2006].

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted Allah Akbar! My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At 10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word "infidel."

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13 I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: "infidels."

Under the banner of Islam "la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.

Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn't buy protection. It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy's eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West.

America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don't take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamists deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must engage our terrorist enemies, that we must address their grievances. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.

If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, Americas learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

2006-03-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

insight from the Pinworm: http://mstewart1021.blogspot.com/

"One might say we have made great progress in the area of personal comfort
in the past 60 years. Now we expect excessive comfort everywhere we go.
Being cold in winter is considered abuse. Having a headache or slight
physical pain is immediately treated with pain-relieving drugs. Our vehicle
interiors are designed strictly for personal comfort. Our workstations are
ergonomically designed to prevent injuries caused by sitting too long.
Snacks and/or meals are everywhere, either dispensed by machines or drive-up
windows. Slight hunger pangs between meals demand immediate treatment.

Whether this modern obsession with comfort is a good or bad thing depends
upon your point of view, but one thing is certain: We are paying the price
for total comfort with epidemic obesity, heart disease, cancer, and a host
of other physical diseases and psychological disorders associated with
overeating and sedentary lifestyles. Ironically, our great advances in
medical science have made even routine health care so expensive that few can
afford it without subsidized insurance. We live longer than ever, but all we
can think to do with our elderly is put them in expensive nursing homes to
vegetate until the drugs and machinery can no longer keep their hearts
beating.

What, therefore, has modernity brought us? Fat kids who turn into fat, sick
adults? Bad food made out of processed plants and animals filled with
carcinogenic chemicals? An army of old people kept alive for no purpose
other than to provide jobs for those who care for them?

Perhaps we shouldn't worship comfort and convenience so much. But is it even
possible anymore to prepare and eat meals made with real fresh food
purchased daily at local markets? Is it possible to insist that our kids go
outside and play without risking accusations of child neglect? Do we dare
turn off the television and sit on our front porches in the evenings? Is it
possible to live without gadgets pumping sound, images, and commercials into
our brains at all times?

It could be that living in the sci-fi future didn't turn out so well after
all. It could be that a few carefully selected steps back toward a simpler,
less-comfortable and convenient existence could improve our lives. But
simplicity is hard to package and sell. Exercising outdoors isn't a product.
Preparing meals isn't sexy. Silence and conversation are free. Still, how
one lives remains a personal choice."

2006-02-28T11:44:00.000-05:00

Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:20:22 -0600

Fundamentalist Muslims told to "get out" of Australia

CANBERRA - Muslims who want to live under Islamic Fundamentalist Religious Law - known as "Sharia" - were recently told to, essentially, get out of Australia, as the Government begins targeting radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that radical Muslim clerics could be asked to leave the country "...if they do not accept that Australia is a secular state and its laws are made by Australia's Parliament, not Muhammed's Koran."

Mr. Costello was blunt: "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or any other kind theocratic state, then Australia is not for you." he said on national television.

"I'm saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia - one the Australian law and another, the Islamic law - that this is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and you have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said yes, that those with dual citizenship could be asked move to the other country. "And if they choose to remain in Australia and continue disseminating their radical message, they could be forcibly deported."

Education Minister Brendan Nelson also told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".

"Basically, these people don't want to be Australians. They don't want to understand or live by Australian values. Well then, they can basically clear off," he said.

Separately, Howard angered Australian Muslims by saying he supported spies monitoring the sermons in the nation's mosques.

2006-02-28T10:44:00.000-05:00

Excerpts from a speech by Commissioner of Internal Revenue The Honorable
Mark W. Everson
at the City Club of Cleveland in Cleveland, Ohio
On Friday, February 24, 2006

reported by the OSU Planned Giving Design Center

http://www.pgdc.com/osu/item/?itemID=338325

The IRS has set out four objectives designed to enhance tax law enforcement
from the years 2005 to 2009. One of these objectives directly addresses the
tax exempt sector. It is to deter abuse within tax-exempt and governmental
entities and misuse of such entities by third parties for tax avoidance and
other unintended purposes.

While the vast majority of tax exempt entities play by the rules, we see
increasing indications that the scourges of technical manipulation and
outright abuse that developed some years ago in the profit-making sector of
the economy are now spreading to parts of the tax-exempt sector.

Why is this important? There are two reasons. First, if individuals and
organizations that should be taxed masquerade as charities, over time there
will be an erosion of our nation's revenue base. And, equally important, if
Americans lose faith in charities because of abuses, they will stop giving
and those in need will suffer.

At the IRS we have stepped up our efforts and are vigorously enforcing the
law. There is growing congressional scrutiny of the sector. Fortunately, the
tax exempt community itself is addressing the issues at hand. Recently, an
important report on the problem areas -- and potential remedies -- was
issued by the Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, convened by Independent Sector
and supported by the Council on Foundations. We commend those in the tax
exempt sector for their responsible leadership.

2006-02-17T17:04:00.000-05:00

The German Hammer on media bias:

"[The Cheney shooting] was hardly an affair of state. And it was hardly
going to be kept secret. Arrogance? The media laying these charges are the
same media that just last week unilaterally decided that the public's right
to know did not extend to seeing cartoons that had aroused half the world,
burned a small part of it and deeply affected the American national
interest. Having arrogated to themselves the judgment of what a free people
should be allowed to see regarding an issue that is literally burning, they
then go ballistic over a few hours' delay in revealing an accident with only
the most trivial connection to the nation's interest or purpose. Cheney got
a judgment call wrong, for reasons that are entirely comprehensible. The
disproportionate, at times hysterical, response to that error is far less
comprehensible" -- Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer.

2006-02-15T21:21:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court Bulletin

The Ohio Supreme Court has sent a loud and clear message to "trust mills"
who prey on unsuspecting Ohioans by selling them living trusts: Don't come
to Ohio. The court recently issued a significant opinion that permanently
enjoined Sharp Estate Services, a Cleveland-based "trust mill" operation,
from any future marketing or sale of living trusts or similar instruments in
Ohio. The Court also imposed a civil penalty of more than $1 million. The
Court further ordered the company to turn over a list of all Ohio residents
to whom they have sold trust documents, so those consumers can be advised to
confer with an attorney to determine if the trusts they established are
valid and appropriate to their needs.

Unfortunately, in Ohio, and nationwide, some companies take unfair advantage
of citizens by selling them incomplete or even unnecessary trusts that can
cause more trouble than they avoid.

The Supreme Court decision in Sharp goes a long way to protect Ohioans from
unscrupulous trust mills, but consumers still must remain vigilant when
making important legal decisions. Do your homework. Ask lots of questions.
And take advantage of competent legal services from licensed, experienced
attorneys.

2006-02-15T16:24:00.000-05:00

Federal HIPAA law: The purpose of HIPAA is to allow a patient to have access
to his or her records.

"...an individual has a right of access to inspect and obtain a copy of
protected health information about the individual in a designated record
set, for as long as the protected health information is maintained in the
designated record set..."

If you are denied access to your medical records, ask the records custodian
to identify just what provision in HIPAA they claim prevents them from
providing copies of the records.

Roberts Murder Case - Civil Side

2006-01-20T08:03:00.000-05:00

Salem News 1/20/06

By MARY ANN GREIER/Salem News staff writer

LISBON - A civil case aimed at securing testimony for the estate of Wellsville murder victim Craig Roberts will be on hold until March 16.

Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judge C. Ashley Pike set a hearing for 1 p.m. that day to handle three motions filed by parties trying to stop the estate's petition, including county Prosecutor Robert Herron.

Last month, Pike granted the petition filed by attorney Robert Guehl which requested the ability to take depositions from named individuals for a possible future wrongful death lawsuit related to Roberts' murder.

The petition claimed the estate had not been able to move forward with action due to the failure of a criminal prosecution, which made evidence and witnesses inaccessible. No charges have been filed related to the 2002 death.

In separate motions filed this month, attorneys Dominic Frank and Charles C. Amato both sought to stop the deposition testimony ordered for Crystal Tice, also known as Crystal Plimpton, Larry Wells and Dana Chafins.

Herron also filed a protective order motion and motion to dismiss related to the petition. When the petition was first filed, he raised concerns about the possible effect on any criminal prosecution.

Pike's granting of the petition last month had been done at Guehl's request as a default order since the adverse parties hadn't filed answers.

The adverse parties included Tice of Wellsville, who had been involved with Roberts at the time of his death, Wells of New Philadelphia and Chafins of Lisbon.

Other individuals named in the petition to be questioned regarding the homicide and its investigation besides Tice, Wells and Chafins included: Frank, Amato, Herron, county Chief Assistant Prosecutor John Gamble, Wellsville Police Lt. Ed Wilson, Wellsville Police Chief Joe Scarabino, Douglas Jenkins, Ron Tice, Matt Stewart, Jason Jackson, Sparky Miller and R.L. Street.

Roberts was reported shot in the head Aug. 26, 2002, in his residence on Wells Hollow Road and died the next day.

Mary Ann Greier can be reached at mgreier@salemnews.net

2005-12-03T10:41:00.000-05:00

http://www.analphilosopher.com/ from Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD:

Happy Holidays
Excuse me if I don't understand the flap about Christmas. If I know that my
interlocutor is a Christian, I'll say "Merry Christmas" to him or her on (or
about) Christmas Day. This is true even though I'm not a Christian. I'm
wishing my interlocutor a merry Christmas. My interlocutor might reply by
wishing me a happy winter solstice, which is my atheistic "holiday." If I
know that my interlocutor is a Jew, I'll say "Happy Hanukkah" to him or her.
But what if I don't know whether my interlocutor is religious? What if I
suspect that my interlocutor is religious but don't know the religion to
which he or she adheres? It would be presumptuous of me to say "Merry
Christmas," for that would imply that the person is Christian. Odds may be
in my favor that this is so, but why take the chance of being wrong when I
can give a generic holiday greeting such as "Happy holidays" or "Season's
greetings"?

Suppose I'm an entrepreneur. I want to express season's greetings to all of
my customers, some of whom are religious and some of whom are not. Of those
who are religious, some are Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, some
Hindus, and so forth. Surely it would be imprudent of me, given my aim of
making money, to put signs up saying "Merry Christmas"-unless, of course, I
had signs for all religions. A prudent entrepreneur expresses holiday
greetings to all customers, not just to some of them. This is not a slap in
the face of Christians or an attempt to denigrate Christianity. It's common
sense. Do Christians want people (including entrepreneurs) to presume
Christianity? That's arrogant and unreasonable.

2005-12-03T08:29:00.000-05:00

From Writer's Almanac:

It's the birthday (Dec. 3rd) of Joseph Conrad, born Jozef Teodor Konrad Nalecz Korzeniowski in Berdyczew, Poland (1857). He wrote Heart of Darkness (1899), Lord Jim (1900), and Nostromo (1904). He was born and raised hundreds of miles from the ocean, and didn't see the Mediterranean until he was fifteen, but he made his way to France and shipped out for Martinique before he was twenty. When he was examined for his Master's Certificate in the British Merchant Marine, the examiner was so astonished at the thought of certifying a Polish sailor that the interview never made any real progress. He sailed to India, the Congo, Malaysia, and Borneo, most of which appeared later in his sea-faring novels, and he smuggled arms, survived shipwreck, and contracted malarial gout; most of which appeared later in his novels. His first novel, Almayer's Folly, wasn't published until he was 36. At about that time, his uncle left him a large fortune, and he married, moved to a farm in Kent, and devoted himself to writing. He never went to sea again.

Heart of Darkness is actually a short story, and one of my favorites.

2005-11-15T17:16:00.000-05:00

November 14, 2005, 9:05 a.m.
Two Roads Diverged...
Democrats should follow John Edwards's lead.

By Mark Goldblatt

President George W. Bush has begun to shove back at critics of his decision
to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Democrats have been hammering away for
months, accusing Bush of intentionally exaggerating the threat posed by
Saddam's regime. Finally, in a speech on Veterans Day, the president
signaled that he's had enough: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the
history of how the war began. More than 100 Democrats in the House and
Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam
Hussein from power."

John Kerry responded at once to Bush's words, charging, "This administration
misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the
truth beyond recognition."

The debate over the collection and organization of intelligence is
interminable, of course. Kerry is correct in a limited sense; the Bush
administration thought toppling Saddam was necessary and clearly sifted and
presented intelligence data to make the case for doing so as strong as
possible. But Bush is also correct that key Democrats believed, prior to the
invasion of Iraq, and prior even to Bush's election, that Saddam's weapons
program posed a significant threat to the region and ultimately to the
United States. To wit:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, 2/17/98.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." - National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, 2/18/98.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions . . . to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs." - excerpt from a letter to President Clinton, signed
by (among others) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, and John
Kerry 10/9/98.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Representative
Nancy Pelosi 12/16/98.

"Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Secretary of State Madeline
Albright, 10/10/99.

"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies." - letter to President Bush,
signed by Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
12/5/01.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
delivering them." - Senator Carl Levin, 9/19/02.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power. . . . We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country." - former Vice President Al Gore,
9/23/02.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." - Senator Ted Kennedy, 9/27/02.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." - Senator Robert Byrd, 10/3/02.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -
Senator Jay Rockefeller, 10/10/02.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members." - Senator Hillary Clinton, 10/10/02.

In the final analysis, of course, the crucial question is not who believed
what about Saddam's WMDs but whether the decision to invade Iraq was the
right thing to do. It's a question for the history books; a definitive
answer is likely a decade away. The more instructive question for the
present, the more courageous question to ask right now, is this: "If you
could turn back the clock, would you undo the invasion?" With an eye on a
run for the White House in 2008, John Edwards on Sunday became the first
serious contender for the Democratic nomination to tackle this question head
on, writing in a Washington Post op-ed: "It was a mistake to vote for this
war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

Edwards's position is therefore clear. Weighing the costs and benefits of
the war in Iraq, he would choose the road not taken. Consider, in that
light, the chart below:

The Road Taken vs. The Road Not Taken

1) Saddam is in prison, about to go on trial for crimes against the
Iraqi people and against humanity.

2) The prospect of a representative democracy, albeit one with an
Islamic character, founded on a constitution that guarantees individual
human rights.

3) The Oil-for-Food scandal is rapidly unraveling, the names of
prominent politicians, diplomats, and businessmen disgraced by their
involvement.

4) Over 2,000 American military personnel are killed in Iraq; over
15,000 are wounded.

5) Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed as a direct result of the
invasion of Iraq, most of the casualties coming from American bombing
campaigns - according to high-end estimates cited by Noam Chomsky. (The
actual number, it should be noted, is likely a fraction of this.)

1) Saddam continues to rule Iraq, jerking around United Nations
weapons inspectors, torturing and killing political opponents.

2) The prospect of reigns by Qusay and perhaps Uday Hussein, whose
previous forays into power politics include mass torture and genocidal
rampages.

3) The Oil-for Food program is ongoing, with prominent politicians,
diplomats, and businessmen enriching themselves while helping Iraq skirt
United Nations sanctions.

4) No American casualties are taken in Iraq; more military personnel
are free to search for Osama bin Laden.

5) Roughly 4,500 Iraqi children under the age of five are dying each
month as a result of U.N. sanctions - according to high-end estimates cited
by Noam Chomsky. (The actual number is likely a fraction of this.) By
Chomsky's figures, the total number of Iraqi children saved by the end of
sanctions since Saddam's regime fell in May 2003 is roughly 135,000. )

There you have it. The road taken and the road not taken. For the sake of
intellectual consistency, let every critic of the war embrace the road not
taken - as Edwards has. But no more "cherry-picking" (to echo John Kerry's
favorite phrase) outcomes. Reality isn't a take-out menu. You can't select
three from Column A and one from Column B.

- Mark Goldblatt's novel, Africa Speaks, is a satire of black hip-hop
culture.

2005-11-15T17:13:00.000-05:00

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications
that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out
above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an
immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now
been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in
getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been
refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike.
In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters
who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring
back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon
characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that
it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I
and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this
well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim,
to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has
grown commensurately dulled.

The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam
Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they
have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie"
that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one
hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent")
possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us or our
allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous
possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had
already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

This entire scenario of purported deceit was given a new lease on life by
the indictment in late October of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of
staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby stands accused of making
false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a
grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration
had "outed" Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador
Joseph C. Wilson IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified
information to the press was to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for having
"debunked" (in his words) "the lies that led to war."

Now, as it happens, Mr. Libby was not charged with having outed Ms. Plame
but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she
worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor
who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that
"this indictment is not about the war":

This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who
believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have
mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any
resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation
about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place
in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a
person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.

No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host
of other opponents of the war in insisting:

This case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about
how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order
to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to
challenge the president.
Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no
weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the
invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he
asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false.
But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the
truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.

How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director,
assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become
notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies
involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National
Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized,
one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is
continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear,
and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel
and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who
headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had
complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the
weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent
further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months
before the invasion:

The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker
at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much
publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must
have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not
have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged
iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points
to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted
for.
Mr. Blix now claims that he was only being "cautious" here, but if, as he
now also adds, the Bush administration "misled itself" in interpreting the
evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.

So, once again, did the British, the French and the Germans, all of whom
signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the
satellite photos he presented to the U.N. in the period leading up to the
invasion. Mr. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now
feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as secretary of state.
But Mr. Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the president, the
vice president, and the secretary of defense for getting us into Iraq) is
forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company
in interpreting the available evidence as it did:

I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought
that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N.
on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when
you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons
ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those
signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're
there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you
see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in
their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and
everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was
convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were
presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Mr. Wilkerson informs us
that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known
as INR, was convinced:

People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented
that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on.
They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated
in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about:

Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the
argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . .
INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as
centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson:

The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said,
we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this rpm, et
cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the
aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were
for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the
consensus of the intelligence community," as Mr. Wilkerson puts it, "was
overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam
definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear
capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in
1981.

Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who
served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring
of 2002," Pollack has written:

I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present
included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the
elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the
group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a
secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed
Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating
uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high
confidence" was that "Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year
once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material." (Hard as it is
to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C.
Wilson IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the
Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark:
"I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and
we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an
interest in nuclear weapons.")

But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own
administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton
administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at
the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983.
Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure
Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it
even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March
2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A
few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just
quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end
its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a
member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in
the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush
succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend
to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new
president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies.
Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr.
Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the
region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building
weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and
biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two
campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later
employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by
Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."

Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in
whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example,
throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in
the New York Times repeatedly insisted that "without further outside
intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants
within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the
arsenal again."

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was "hard
to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments
and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country's
salvation."

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W.
Bush in January 2001 with this admonition:

Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is
more dangerous--or more urgent--than the situation in Iraq. Over the last
year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling
attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to
isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its
weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a
dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . .
show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical
and biological weapons.

All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable
doubt that Mr. Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about
Saddam's stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Mr.
Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why
on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so
compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when
hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied
with the 16 resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of
his weapons of mass destruction?

Another fallback charge is that Mr. Bush, operating mainly through Mr.
Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet
in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while
criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or
faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that
administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure
analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's
weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission,
which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same
conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the
intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . .
. Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure
cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless
enough to use them, accused Mr. Bush of telling a different sort of lie by
characterizing the risk as "imminent." But this, too, is false: Mr. Bush
consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. Thus, in the
State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Mr.
Bush declared that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and
that he would "not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." Then, in a
speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: "If we
wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long." And as if
that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union
address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the
word "imminent" itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us
on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come
too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a
strategy, and it is not an option.
What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as
Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between
Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This
charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to
how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's
report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if
informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of
the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a
comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which
pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior
al-Qaeda operatives."

Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm
for the most disgraceful instance of all.

The story begins with the notorious 16 words inserted--after, be it noted,
much vetting by the CIA and the State Department--into Bush's 2003 State of
the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This is the "lie" Mr. Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent
by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to
that effect. Mr. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had
recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the
impression that choosing him had been the vice president's idea. But
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Mr. Wilson first
planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney
apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Mr.
Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Mr. Wilson himself, in
characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the
vice president sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed
nonrole in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to
her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger]
and the former minister of mines . . ., both of whom could possibly shed
light on this sort of activity.
More than a year after his return, with the help of Mr. Kristof, and also
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the
Times under his own name, Mr. Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest
dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation
about the 16 words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Mr.
Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to
justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the president's
statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union
address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served
to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally
unnecessary--for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the
16 words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had
tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger.
Furthermore--and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this
assurance has now been discredited--Britain's independent Butler commission
concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting
at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources
indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since
uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the
intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim
this.

As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Mr. Wilson himself, far
from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return
from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing),
actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate
Intelligence Committee report:

He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact
in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the
Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime
minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.
And again:

The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any
analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the
information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports
on the uranium deal.
This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research--which (as we have already seen) did not believe
that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in
Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be
willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler
report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to
buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by
Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.

The liar here, then, was not Mr. Bush but Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Wilson also
lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries
certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet
clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to
buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries;
but, according to the Butler report:

The forged documents were not available to the British government at the
time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not
undermine [that assessment].
More damning yet to Mr. Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered
that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Mr. Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a
Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was
that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and
the names were wrong.' " Committee staff asked how the former ambassador
could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names
were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of
what names and dates were in the reports.
To top all this off, just as Mr. Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of
Mr. Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Mr. Wilson
"confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his]
report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that
Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." Yet--the
mind reels--if Mr. Cheney had actually been briefed on Mr. Wilson's oral
report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have
been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake
uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much-acclaimed book whose
title alone--"The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and
Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity"--has set a new record for chutzpah.

But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Mr.
Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a
serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by
sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more
serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Mr. Wilson--who
has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to
Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon
his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as
having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the
whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they
are refuted, the more they keep being repeated--is himself an excellent
candidate for criminal prosecution.

And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we
begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we
then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the
larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East
safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used
distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral
a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is
proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and
a vindication of American ideals.

Mr. Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary and author of 10 books, most
recently "The Norman Podhoretz Reader," edited by Thomas L. Jeffers (Free
Press, 2004). This article will appear in Commentary's December issue.

2005-11-15T11:49:00.000-05:00

Word of the Day for Tuesday November 15, 2005
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2005/11/15.html

kobold \KOH-bold\, noun:
ÊIn German folklore, a haunting spirit, gnome, or goblin.

Witch, kobold, sprite. . . and imp of every kind.
--A. J. Symington

This world and the other, too, are always present to his mind, and there
in the corner is the little black kobold of a doubt making mouths at him.
--James Russell Lowell, Among My Books

The Kobolds were a species of gnomes, who haunted the dark and solitary
places, and were often seen in the mines.
--Sir Walter Scott, Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kobold comes from Middle High German kobolt, "goblin."

Trivia: Cobalt, the metal, "the goblin of the mines," was named by those who
had to work it after the kobold, since the ore contains arsenic, which made
the miners ill.

Columbiana County Muni Court Judgeship Race

2005-11-07T17:22:00.000-05:00

COMMENTARY ON POLL RESULTS:
11/7/2005 5:19:51 PM from IP# 63.147.249.248
Hmmm...why run the poll for so long, and so close to election? Attempt to influence? or to provide info?? A big hmmmm....

11/7/2005 5:23:03 PM from IP# 63.147.249.248
Ask Mr. Apple why he wanted 3 judgeships rather than 2, when the caseload only justified 2???

11/7/2005 5:27:34 PM from IP# 63.147.249.248
This is a bogus poll. I voted 4 times from different computers and different days. Sorry Don.

Morning Journal Muni Court poll results as of 11/7 @ 5:21 p.m.

Current Poll Results
Thanks for voting

If you are registered to vote, who will you be supporting for Columbiana County Municipal Court Judge?
Carol Robb	(32.5 %)
Brett Apple	(45.9 %)
Virginia Barborak	(15.4 %)
Don Humphrey	(6.2 %)

2005-11-07T17:14:00.000-05:00

Facts and Figures on Drug Trafficking
By The Associated Press Mon Nov 7,12:13 PM ET

Facts and figures on drugs and drug trafficking:

. 200 million, or 5 percent of the world's population - number of people
worldwide aged 15-64 who have used drugs at least once in the last 12
months.

. $13 billion - estimated value of global illicit drug market in 2003 at
production level.

. $94 billion - estimated value at the wholesale level.

. $322 billion - estimated value at retail level.

. $70.5 billion - estimated value of cocaine alone at retail level.

. $17 billion - value of exports worldwide of wine in 2003.

. $6 billion - value of exports worldwide of coffee.

. $65.2 million - 1972 Drug Enforcement Administration budget.

. 2,775 - 1972 number of DEA employees.

. $2.1 billion - 2005 DEA budget.

. 10,894 - 2005 number of DEA employees.

. 44 percent - North America's share of worldwide drug purchases.

. 33 percent - Europe's share of worldwide drug purchases.

. 76 percent - share of total drug profits generated in industrialized
countries.

. 1 percent - share of profits earned by producers of cocaine and heroin in
developing nations.

. 125,921 - number of emergency room visits in U.S. in second half of 2003
in which cocaine was a factor.

. Movie producer Don Simpson; actor River Phoenix; John Entwistle, bassist
for The Who; comedian John Belushi; comedian Chris Farley; Bobby Sheehan,
bassist for Blues Traveler; University of Maryland basketball star Len
Bias - celebrities who died from cocaine or cocaine mixed with other drugs.

. Sulfuric acid, gasoline or kerosene, ether, ammonia, acetone - substances
used to convert coca leaves into cocaine.

___

Sources: U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime; Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN);
DEA

2005-11-06T07:37:00.000-05:00

...Now we live strictly in a Wal-Mart/McDonalds world, where place means nothing. No matter where you go, people flock to the suburban chains for a completely nondescript, homogenous experience. They like it that way.

It strikes me that most people under 45 years old have no access to the time when downtown East Liverpool and Wellsville were bustling communities filled with unique, locally owned stores, shops and businesses. Imagine, if you can, a time when the stunning edifice at the corner of Broadway and Fifth (now the Ceramics Museum) served as the city post office. When the high schools were virtual cathedrals, when beautiful theaters with balconies and stages were around every corner, when you spent all week anticipating the Saturday bus ride to town where you could see a movie and have lunch for a dollar. Ah, nostalgia . . . .

Now what do we have? Cities nearly devoid of business and bustle, replaced by busy suburban shopping zones where people purchase Chinese goods and eat poison food-like substances at restaurants owned by corporations and run by teenagers. The weirdest part of it all is that the vast majority of Americans call this progress. They love Wal-Mart, and they enjoy making fun of the old cities trying to hang on.

Most blame the demise of our towns on the lack of jobs and too many poor people, but the reality is that most people have jobs, and there is as much or more cash flowing through our area as ever before. The difference is that it all gets spent in the suburbs and carted off to corporate bank accounts located elsewhere.

We no longer have any sense of place. It doesnt matter where we live; nearly everyone in the country shops at the same stores and eats at the same restaurants. We have become beings created in the image of corporate branding. We proudly wear clothes with the names of corporate sponsors emblazoned on the front. We are walking corporate advertisements, and we pay good money for the privilege

2005-11-04T18:46:00.000-05:00

Best of the Web Today - November 4, 2005 http://www.opinionjournal.com/

By JAMES TARANTO

Silver Anniversary
The assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, marked the end of an American political era: the age of confident liberalism. Lyndon B. Johnson carried forward JFK's legislative legacy, cutting taxes and pushing through landmark civil rights laws. But LBJ's overambitious wars in Vietnam and on poverty were damaging to America and shattering for liberalism. The late 1960s and the 1970s saw skyrocketing crime and illegitimacy, American humiliation in Vietnam, and the tragedy of Watergate.

Finally, with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the country hit rock bottom: malaise, gas lines, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Blessedly, 25 years ago today, it came to an end with the election of Ronald Reagan and the dawn of the age of confident conservatism. The ensuing two decades saw unprecedented economic growth, victory in the Cold War, and a gradual diminution of the timidity about employing U.S. military force overseas that is known as the "Vietnam syndrome." By the mid-1990s, a Democratic president was even undoing the worst excesses of LBJ's Great Society.

We're inclined to view the presidency of George W. Bush, and especially his muscular foreign policy, as a continuation of the Reagan era. There is an argument to be made on the other side: that conservatism is now in its LBJ phase, having produced swollen government at home and overextended America's capabilities abroad. The left, meanwhile, is as weak, angry and paranoid as the right was in the heyday of the John Birch society--but perhaps one day it will reconnect with reality and resurge politically.

History will reveal itself in due course, but for today let us remember how, on Nov. 4, 1980, America began to reverse its decline by electing a man who shared the country's faith in itself.

2005-11-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

Judging - from Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.
http://www.analphilosopher.com/
Conservatism is a disposition or temperament. It involves moving slowing
where change is concerned, being respectful of precedent and tradition, and
not arrogating to oneself the power to make decisions for others, especially
when those others have an epistemic advantage. Conservatives believe that
decisions should be left to those most affected by them. Judge Samuel Alito
is a conservative in this sense. It's unfortunate that the term
"conservative" has come to represent a set of positions on issues. Unlike
liberals, who have distinctive substantive commitments, conservatives are
concerned with the pace and source of change. As I've said many times,
conservatives are not opposed to change per se; they are opposed to abrupt
change (especially that which is irreversible) and to exogenous change. It's
as unfair to say that conservatives oppose change as it is to say that
liberals support change. Everything depends on the nature of the change, the
pace of the change, and the source of the change. Judging is inherently
conservative, for it requires that decisions be fitted to those already
made. Judges do not write on a blank slate. The assumption is that rules and
institutions that have stood the test of time embody reason. We can think of
this as the inherent or immanent rationality of the law. It's no accident
that political conservatives are drawn to the common law, which is
judge-made, while liberals are drawn to statutory law. Liberals want to
engineer society. Legislation is an effective means to this end, since it is
not beholden to precedent or tradition. Conservatives want to conserve what
has served us well. Liberals believe that their use of reason is superior to
that which is embodied in precedent and tradition. Conservatives view this
as a hubristic and dangerous attitude.

AUSTRALIA'S RESPONSE TO MUSLIM SEPARATISM

2005-10-28T07:24:00.000-04:00

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims:

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off."

Pig justice

2005-10-10T11:21:00.000-04:00

One of the most amusing cases of the trial of a domestic animal was that of a sow together with her six pigs at Savigny-sur-Etang, in Bourgogne, France, in January, 1457. The charge against her was murdering and partly devouring an infant. The sow was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging, though her offspring, partly because of their youth and innocence and the
fact that their mother had set them a bad example, but chiefly because proof of their complicity was not forthcoming, were pardoned.

(Walter Woodburn Hyde, "The Prosecution and Punishment of Animals and Lifeless Things in the Middle Ages and Modern Times," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 64 [1916]: 696-730, at 707 [footnote omitted])

Thanks to Dr. Keith Burgess-Jackson's blog @http://www.animalethics.com/

Billions

2005-08-02T07:38:00.000-04:00

Subject: A Billion

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases.

a.. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

b.. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

c.. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

d.. A billion days ago no-one walked on two feet on earth.

e.. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government spends it.

COLUMBIANA COUNTY MUNI COURT JUDGESHIP

2005-07-28T22:28:00.000-04:00

Judge Apple Quotes 1997

"I'm running on my record" -9/14/98 Salem News

"tremendous increase in the number of cases"-- Morning Journal, 8/8/98

."...he believes a system of full-time judges is needed..."Morning Journal, 9/15/98

"...citizens could be better served with a full-time judge because of the caseload ..." Salem News, 9/14/98

"...and the increasing complexity of some of the civil cases..." Salem News, 9/14/98

"The plan to expand the court wasn't his idea or something he sought out...." Salem News, 9/14/98

"...This is certainly not something I have pressed for," he said. Morning Journal, 9/15/98

"...neither in favor or opposed to the court restructuring plan..." Morning Journal, 10/3/98

"The figures don't lie..." Morning Journal 9/15/98

< "...while the statements may be legally accurate, they were misleading..." [quoting Bill Clinton in regard to other matters]

FACTS:

< '93 caseload was 49% below state average

< '97 caseload increased to 20% below average

< 80% of increase was in the Violations Bureau

< Court in session two days per week, with additional day for jury trials

< 4 jury trials in '97

< 80% of caseload was traffic-related

< 83% of caseload was uncontested

< caseload of all three county courts combined did not equal average of one municipal court - [remains the same today]

< judges given 22% payraise ($9,000) in '97 to compensate for increase in civil jurisdiction to

$15,000

< only 19% of 379 civil cases were contested, all in small claims

< 81% of civil cases dismissed, transferred, or default

< even if civil caseload doubled, the entire caseload would still be 4% below average

< Apples committee recommended 3 full-time Muni. Court Judges at $94,400 each [now $105,000/year]

< No objection to plan by Apple

QUOTES OF THE DAY

2005-07-22T17:03:00.000-04:00

Quote of the Day I

"Yes, our engagement in Iraq has increased the risk that we will be attacked but that fact in no way instructs us to get out of Iraq or the Middle East.
On the contrary it makes it more urgent than ever that we win there... The right way to tackle that view is not to indulge it, sympathise with it or nurse it, but to correct it. The right way to deal with anti-American and anti-British sentiment in the Muslim world is not to pull out our troops from Iraq and beg forgiveness, but to continue to fight there on behalf of the majority of good Muslims for the kind of country they need and deserve" -- London Times columnist Gerard Baker
(www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1703621,00.html).

Quote of the Day II

"The killers always allege particular gripes -- Australian troops in Iraq, Christian proselytizing, Hindu intolerance, occupation of the West Bank, theft of Arab petroleum, the Jews, attacks on the Taliban, the 15th-century reconquest of Spain, and, of course, the Crusades. But in most cases -- from Mohamed Atta, who crashed into the World Trade Center, to Ahmed Sheik, the former London School of Economics student who planned the beheading of Daniel Pearl, to Magdy Mahmoud Mustafa el-Nashar, the suspected
American-educated bomb-maker in London -- the common bond is not poverty, a lack of education or legitimate grievance. Instead it is blind hatred instilled by militant Islam" -- historian Victor Davis Hanson, writing in the Washington Times
(www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050721-093747-1994r.htm).

Religious warfare, plain and simple

2005-07-14T07:33:00.000-04:00

Best of the Web Today - July 13, 2005 http://www.opinionjournal.com/

By JAMES TARANTO

Why Do They Hate Us?
That's the question we've all grown sick and tired of hearing since Sept. 11, 2001. It's not that the query is inherently objectionable; understanding what motivates the enemy is obviously helpful in wartime. But the people who ask this question almost never genuinely seek to understand; rather, they have their own axes to grind against the U.S. or the West, and seek to use the prospect of terror attacks to scare the rest of us into supporting their views. This we have dubbed vicarious terrorism.

Now and then a terrorist actually takes the trouble to explain his motives. London's Daily Telegraph reports on the trial of the man who allegedly (and now confessedly) murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh:

Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." . . .

Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you becau

MED MAL INSURANCE COMPANIES - STUDY SHOWS GOUGING

2005-07-12T09:56:00.000-04:00

Center for Justice & Democracy - July 7, 2005 study

http://centerjd.org/

IV. Conclusion

The Annual Statement data for 2004 indicate that many of the leading malpractice insurers have increased their premiums substantially while (1) their actual claims payments decreased, (2) they reduced the amount they projected they would pay out in the future, and (3) their surplus increased substantially. Doctors are therefore paying more for malpractice coverage
than either actual payments in malpractice cases or estimated future payments in malpractice cases would justify.

“The numbers underscore the need for much tougher, more aggressive oversight to Prevent and punish profiteering,” Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. “Federal and state regulators should thoroughly scrutinize recent rate increases and take appropriate corrective action. Affordable medical malpractice insurance is critical to public health. Expensive insurance rates become a matter of life and death when they drive doctors out of business - as is happening in Connecticut and nationwide. Insurance company greed can be hazardous to our health.”

“The data in the Annual Statements filed under oath with state insurance departments, which this Report discloses, call into question much of what the medical malpractice insurance industry has been saying publicly during the past several years,” said Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon. “There is no excuse for malpractice insurers doubling their rates while their claims payments decrease.”

Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services Commissioner Linda A. Watters said, “We are definitely disturbed by the numbers in this report, which offers evidence that doctors may be paying excessive premiums. In the market competition study that we recently issued, we considered loss ratios below 50 percent as patently excessive. If these carriers truly have loss ratios that that are this low and yet they are still increasing rates, one has to wonder if they're gouging.”

Medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed in recent years even though, as this study now confirms, claim payments are down. These findings suggest that doctors have been price-gouged for several years as insurance industry profits have ballooned to unprecedented levels. AIG, under investigation by state and federal authorities for its business practices, and HCI, a subsidiary of HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain, are among the worst offenders.

HUCK FINN ON LYING

2005-06-01T08:17:00.000-04:00

Huck Finn analyzes the rightness, wrongness, and/or efficacy of lying:

I see I had spoke too sudden and said too much, and was in a close place. I asked her to let me think a minute; and she set there, very impatient and excited and handsome, but looking kind of happy and eased-up, like a person that's had a tooth pulled out. So I went to studying it out. I says to myself, I reckon a body that ups and tells the truth when he is in a tight place is taking considerable many resks, though I ain't had no experience, and can't say for certain; but it looks so to me, anyway; and yet here's a case where I'm blest if it don't look to me like the truth is better and actuly safer than a lie. I must lay it by in my mind, and think it over some time or other, it's so kind of strange and unregular. I never see nothing like it.

Fear Factories

2005-05-31T17:52:00.000-04:00

A compassionate conservative viewpoint on ethical treatment of animals, from a former Bush administration insider. http://www.cok.net/files/scully050523.pdf

THE DEMOCRATS' CLASS STRUGGLE

2005-05-28T08:44:00.000-04:00

By Dan Balz - Washington Post
Saturday, May 28, 2005; A05

This is the kind of headline Democrats have come to expect from their opponents: "Middle class Voters Reject Democrats at the Ballot Box." But this time, the charge comes from inside the party, in a new report issued by the centrist group known as Third Way.

The study represents a slap in the face at Democrats who pride themselves on being the party of working families and a challenge to party leaders as they prepare for next year's midterm lections and the 2008 presidential race.

"Rather than being the party of the middle class, Democrats face a crisis with middle-income voters," the study argues.

"The 45% of voters who make up the middle class -- those with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 -- delivered healthy victories to George Bush and House Republicans in 2004."

The study is based on Third Way's analysis of 2004 exit polls. Among the five principal findings are that white middle-income voters supported President Bush by 22 percentage points. The study concluded that the "economic tipping point -- the income level above which white voters were more likely to vote Republican than Democrat -- was $23,700."

Black voters supported the presidential candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and House Democrats by significant margins regardless of their income levels, but white middle-class voters tended to vote more like wealthy voters. "Democrats were not competitive at all among the white middle class," according to the study.

The report also contained alarming news for Democrats about Hispanic voters. The more Hispanics move into the middle class, the less they vote Democratic.

Based on the analysis of exit polls, Kerry's margin over Bush among Hispanics with household incomes below $30,000 was 21 percentage points, but among those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000, it was 10 points.

"Democrats talk and legislate a great deal about issues that they believe are of concern to the middle class, such as better schools, affordable health care and job security," the report concludes. "This has not translated into middle-class votes."

Wayne Pacelle on the Future of the Animal-Protection Movement

2005-05-25T06:50:00.000-04:00

"We are now at a new and strange juncture in human experience. Never has there been such massive exploitation of animals—from the puppy mills to the canned hunting ranches to the laboratories to the billions of animals raised on factory farms. At the same time, never have there been so many people determined to stop this exploitation. One force or the other has to prevail, and it is the goal of the animal protection movement to see the forces of kindness and mercy triumph over custom, complaisance, and selfishness, and to usher in a new era of respect and concern for animals.

The means of effecting these sweeping changes take many forms. There is enlightenment and education, and the personal transformation that occurs when people of conscience become aware of abuse and misconduct. There is direct care and relief, and the humane movement has spent the bulk of its resources during the last century and a half providing shelter, sanctuary, food and water, and other animal care services to creatures in need.

In a market-oriented economy—in which many animals are treated only as commodities—the humane movement must influence corporate practices and policies. We vote for or against animal cruelty with our dollars in the marketplace, and our ability to spur corporate policy changes has enormous implications for animals. When major corporations halted animal testing, or when fast food giants stipulated that producers had to observe basic welfare standards, these decisions affected the lives of millions of creatures.

And then there is the matter of the law. When it comes to animals, the law must speak, and set a standard in society for personal, corporate, and government conduct. Matters dealing with the treatment of animals cannot be left entirely to personal choice or conscience, since many people would knowingly flout society’s voluntary proscriptions. As elsewhere in the law, people must be held to clear standards of conduct, and those standards must be enforceable.
(Wayne Pacelle, “Law and Public Policy: Future Directions for the Animal Protection Movement,” Animal Law 11 [2005]: 1-6, at 1-2)

"Frivolous" lawsuits (?)

2005-05-19T15:20:00.000-04:00

The frivolous case for tort law change

Opponents of the legal system exaggerate its costs, ignore its benefits

by Lawrence Chimerine and Ross Eisenbrey

...This paper examines the major problems with [the] estimate of tort costs and challenges the assertions on the economic effects of the tort system ... and, in turn, [assertions] by the Council of Economic Advisers. It finds that CEA has presented no evidence that the tort system can properly be blamed for excessive liability insurance premiums, reduced wages or employment, lower corporate profits or productivity, reduced research and development, or a failure to introduce new products. Most important, it concludes that the tort law changes advocated by the president will not have any substantial positive effect on national employment, research and development, productivity, or job creation.

...

V. Conclusion

The economic case made by critics for changing the U.S. tort law system can only be called frivolous. They have claimed that there is a tort liability "crisis," when the facts show that the number of tort cases has declined steadily for years. They have grossly exaggerated the costs of the tort system, and have made unfounded claims about the tort system's impact on insurance premiums, corporate research and development funding, product innovation, productivity, wages and employment, and business profits. And they have claimed without any evidence whatsoever that changing the tort system will stimulate economic growth and produce jobs.

These economic claims have gone largely unchallenged despite the failure of the tort system's critics to substantiate them with credible evidence. With respect to job creation in particular, significant tort law change would be more likely to slow employment growth than to promote it. Endlessly repeating that so-called "tort reform" will create jobs does not make it true.

A one-sided focus on the costs of the tort system that excludes an examination of the potential effects of changes on the system's benefits is inherently dangerous. Professor Marc Galanter of the University of Wisconsin, a leading nonpartisan academic observer of the U.S. tort system, points out that changes to the U.S. tort liability system, even if undertaken for legitimate reasons, have the potential to reduce the rights of tort victims, leaving injured individuals, their families, and, ultimately, the taxpayers to cover losses that should be compensated by those who cause them. Galanter (1996) writes, "that it costs so much to effectuate [transfers of compensation from tortfeasor to victim] calls for remedy, but controlling these transaction costs should not be confounded with reducing the rights of claimants. Indeed, the potential exists to have the worst of both worlds by reducing the rights of the injured without significantly reducing the transaction costs of the system."

Economic Policy Institute -May 2005

HERE'S A TIP...

2005-04-22T15:01:00.000-04:00

Woman in Wendy's Finger Case Arrested
By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA
Associated Press Writer

10:12 AM PDT, April 22, 2005

LAS VEGAS - The woman who claimed she found a finger in her bowl of Wendy's chili last month has been arrested, the latest twist in a bizarre case about how the 1 1/2-inch finger tip ended up in a bowl of fast food.

Anna Ayala was taken into custody late Thursday at her Las Vegas home. She was arrested on a warrant alleging grand larceny and attempted grand larceny, Las Vegas Police Sgt. Chris Jones said.

Authorities said would not provide further details until a news conference Friday afternoon in San Jose, Calif. -- the city where Ayala claimed she bit down on the finger in a mouthful of her steamy stew.

Ayala's 18-year-old son, Guadalupe Reyes, said he had gone to the store around 9 p.m. when he got a phone call from a friend who was back at the Las Vegas home.

"We rushed back and she was already gone," Reyes said.

Reyes said he had no other details and was waiting to hear from his mother. A handwritten sign on the door of her home Friday morning instructed reporters not to knock, and telephone messages were not returned.

Ayala, 39, was held overnight at the Clark County jail in Las Vegas, where records showed she was being held without bail.

In Ohio, Wendy's officials praised the police's actions. "We're thrilled that an arrest has been made," Tom Mueller, president and chief operating officer of Wendy's North America, said in a statement.

Ayala's claim that she found the fingertip, complete with a well-manicured nail, on March 22 initially drew sympathy. But when police and health officials failed to find any missing digits among the workers involved in the restaurant's supply chain, suspicion fell on Ayala, and her story has become a late-night punch line.

Ayala hired a lawyer and filed a claim against the Wendy's franchise owner, Fresno-based JEM Management. But after police searched her home in Las Vegas and continued to question her family, she dropped the lawsuit threat, saying the whole situation was just too stressful.

As it turns out, Ayala has a litigious history. She has filed claims against several corporations, including a former employer and General Motors, though it is unclear from court records whether she received any money. She said she got $30,000 from El Pollo Loco after her 13-year-old daughter got sick at one of the chain's Las Vegas-area restaurants. But El Pollo Loco
spokeswoman Julie Weeks said last week that the company reviewed Ayala's February 2004 claim and paid her nothing.

Earlier Thursday, Wendy's International Inc. announced it had ended its internal investigation, saying it could find no credible link between the finger and the restaurant chain.

Sales have dropped at franchises in Northern California, forcing layoffs and reduced hours, the company said. Wendy's also has hired private investigators, set up a hot line for tips and offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who provides information leading to the finger's original owner.

TAX DAY

2005-04-15T13:24:00.000-04:00

From Garrison Keillor, Writer's Almanac:

It's is Tax Day, the day on which all of our federal tax returns are due in to the Internal Revenue Service.

Taxes have been a part of human civilization for almost as long as records have been kept. Egyptian pharaohs employed hundreds of clerks to keep track of all the property and income in every village, and more papyrus was used for tax records than for any other purpose. One Egyptian tax ledger, found by archeologists, covered a single village for about three years, and it was longer than The Iliad.

Taxes have had a significant impact on historical events over the years. Romans invented the census in order to more efficiently collect taxes from the entire empire, and according to the Gospel of Luke 2:1, "It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." The resulting census forced Mary and Joseph to return to their hometown of Bethlehem, where according to tradition, Jesus was born in a manger.

King Charles I of England lost his head in part because he was over-fond of taxing his subjects. Many of the people guillotined during the French Revolution were privately employed tax collectors. And of course, the American Revolution itself was inspired by taxation without representation.

Almost a hundred years passed before Americans first imposed an income tax on themselves, in 1861, to help pay for the Civil War. That income tax was supposedly abolished as soon as the war ended. But mysteriously, the Bureau of Internal Revenue never shut down. In 1893, congress passed the first income tax act during peacetime, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So congress amended the constitution. The 16th Amendment, authorizing the income tax, went into effect in 1913.

At first, only the very rich were taxed, about 1 percent of the population. As the government needed more money to pay for World War I and World War II, tax rates went up and the number of people paying income tax increased dramatically. Today, about 80 percent of Americans pay income tax, and the typical American pays about 27 percent of their income in taxes.

The first income tax code ever passed in Washington was 14 pages long. Today it fills 4 volumes, with 20 volumes of additional regulations and instructions. Americans spend more than 5.4 billion hours each year filling out their income tax forms, more hours than it takes to build all the cars that are produced each year in the United States.

Will Rogers said, "The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf." Ogden Nash wrote, "Indoors or out, no one relaxes / In March, that month of wind and taxes, / The wind will presently disappear, / The taxes last us all the year."

SCOTT TUROW - HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

2005-04-13T07:42:00.000-04:00

Scott Turow was born in Chicago (1949). He decided to be a writer when he was in high school, and started submitting short stories to literary magazines in college. But when he got into a creative writing program at Stanford, he realized that he wasn't cut out for the life of a starving artist.

Turow was newly married and living on food stamps. Money was so tight that he and his wife got into an argument about a $6 flowerpot she bought at the local art fair. All the other writers he knew in California were addicted to alcohol or drugs, and marriages were breaking up left and right.

On top of everything else, none of his classmates liked his writing. He wanted to write something that anybody could read, waiters and bus drivers and housewives, not just college professors. But everyone told him his wasn't literary enough. He said, "It finally dawned on me that I was not James Joyce. I wanted to be a genius, but I wasn't one."

So one day, he decided on a whim to take the Law School Admission Test, and he managed to score well enough to get into Harvard Law. To keep himself writing, he wrote a memoir about his experience as a first year law student, and the book One L (1977) became a cult classic among law students.

He found that he enjoyed practicing law because it was a lot like writing fiction. He said, "[A court lawyer}...really is an author. He's got different voices through different witnesses. He has to present a compelling narrative and there's got to be a moral to his story."

Turow got a job a prosecutor in Chicago, and he spent eight years writing his first novel on his train rides between work and home. He didn't think he'd ever finish the novel, but his wife finally persuaded him to take three months off and get it done. He did, and the result was Presumed Innocent (1987), about a prosecutor who is put on trial for the murder of his former mistress.

There had been novels about criminal trials before, but Turow was one of the first writers to describe the legal proceedings so accurately, and with so much attention to the flaws and the corruption within the legal system. Presumed Innocent became one of the best-selling novels of the 1980s. It spent 44 weeks on the best-seller list, and helped to launch the legal thriller genre.

Turow has gone on to write many more best-selling novels, but he continues to work as a lawyer. He says, "People ask me what I do. I certainly answer I am a lawyer. I don't say I'm a writer. I find that kind of a grandiose claim for somebody who spends 60 hours a week doing something else." His most recent book is Reversible Errors (2002).

Google This

2005-04-07T07:37:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Keith Burgess-Jackson for using and recommending a blawg Google search tool. Now let's see if I can get it to work here...

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-26T11:20:00.000-05:00

AN ENLIGHTENING COMMENTARY ON THE SCHIAVO MATTER:

Friday, 25 March 2005
Losing One’s Humanity
I keep hearing it said, by those who oppose the removal of Terri Schiavo’s hydration and nutrition tubes, that human life is valuable. (Often they go further and say that it’s intrinsically valuable.) Let’s think about this...http://analphilosopher.com

CATNAPPING

2005-03-26T09:07:00.000-05:00

From thisistrue.com :

CATNAP: Maggie Leonard discovered her cat was missing during her 11th birthday party. A neighbor, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., firefighter Christopher Cortes, 32, has been charged with theft after he allegedly admits stealing the cat, driving it about 40 miles to the Everglades, and dumping it there because it had scratched his truck. James Benjamin, Cortes' attorney, says his client did the cat a favor by dropping it off in a rural area, rather than taking it to the pound where it would probably have been killed. "He took it to a safe-looking place where there are a lot of mice," he offered. Nearly two weeks later, the cat arrived back home, having walked back on its own. (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) ...Cortes' truck is in real trouble now.

Insurance Co. Profits in 2004

2005-03-04T02:35:00.000-05:00

Insurance Journal

Weiss: Insurers Earn $28B in First Three Quarters of 2004
February 28, 2005

Despite a hurricane-ravaged third quarter, property/casualty insurers reported profits of $28.1 billion in the first nine months of 2004, representing a 22.4 percent increase over the $22.9 billion earned during the same period in 2003, according to Weiss Ratings Inc., an independent provider of ratings and analyses of financial services companies, mutual funds and stocks.

Insurers reporting the largest year-over-year increases in net income include: Continental Casualty in Chicago, Ill.; State Farm Mutual in Bloomington, Ill.; State Farm Fire & Casualty in Bloomington, Ill.; Allstate Insurance Co. in Northbrook, Ill.; and Continental Insurance Co. in Concord, N.H.

Meanwhile, insurers reporting the largest year-over-year decreases in net income include: State Farm Florida in Bloomington, Ill.; Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. in St. Petersburg, Fla.; Converium Reinsurance in Stamford, Conn.; US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. in St. Paul, Minn.; and Nationwide Indemnity in Columbus, Ohio.

Despite a Decline, Underwriting Profits Continue to Surpass 2003 Figures

The industry's impressive earnings reflect continued underwriting strength as insurers reported a $3.7 billion underwriting gain in the first three quarters of 2004, representing a 190.3 percent increase over the $4.0 billion underwriting loss reported during the same period in 2003. However, in reviewing the industry's underwriting performance, Weiss found that property/casualty insurers actually experienced a 60.3 percent decrease in net underwriting gain compared to the first two quarters of 2004, in which insurers reported a $9.2 billion profit.

"The reduced underwriting profit in the third quarter reflects the impact of four major hurricanes, although the long-term consequences appear to be negligible due to the industry's overwhelmingly strong financial position," commented Melissa Gannon, vice president of Weiss Ratings Inc. "Historically, the industry has operated at an underwriting loss, so the fact that insurers reported a profit during a claims intensive quarter is evidence of the industry's renewed strength."

Property and casualty insurers reporting the largest underwriting losses in the first three quarters of 2004 were: State Farm Florida Insurance Co. in Bloomington, Ill.; Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. in St. Petersburg, Fla.; US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. in St. Paul, Minn.; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. in St. Paul, Minn.; Nationwide Indemnity Co. in Columbus, Ohio.

Notable Upgrades and Downgrades

Among the 2,239 property/casualty insurers reviewed by Weiss, three companies were upgraded, while 28 were downgraded. Notable upgrades include:

-- Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie, Penn.) from B- to B

-- Lexington National Ins. Co. (Baltimore, Md.) from D+ to C

-- Camico Mutual Ins. Co. (Redwood City, Calif.) from C+ to B-

Notable downgrades include:

-- Progressive Casualty (Mayfield Village, Ohio) from B to C+

-- State Farm Floridian (Bloomington, Ill.) from B- to C

-- Nationwide Indemnity (Columbus, Ohio) from B- to C

ACADEMY AWARD WIENERS

2005-03-01T07:14:00.000-05:00

The Academy Awards

I have never watched the Academy Awards program; nor will I be watching this evening's version. It's a sickening display of affluence, fashion, and celebrity. No wonder people around the world hate Americans. We must seem excessively shallow and vain.

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson 2/27

BIOCENTRISM

2005-02-28T07:18:00.000-05:00

Paul W. Taylor on Biocentrism

When a life-centered view is taken, the obligations and responsibilities we have with respect to the wild animals and plants of the Earth are seen to arise from certain moral relations holding between ourselves and the natural world itself. The natural world is not there simply as an object to be exploited by us, nor are its living creatures to be regarded as nothing more than resources for our use and consumption. On the contrary, wild communities of life are understood to be deserving of our moral concern and consideration because they have a kind of value that belongs to them inherently. Just as we would think it inappropriate to ask, What is a human being good for? because such a question seems to assume that the value or worth of a person is merely a matter of being useful as a means to some end, so the question, What is a wilderness good for? is likewise considered inappropriate from the perspective of a biocentric outlook. The living things of the natural world have a worth that they possess simply in virtue of their being members of the Earths Community of Life. Such worth does not derive from their actual or possible usefulness to humans, or from the fact that humans find them enjoyable to look at or interesting to study.

(Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986], 12-3)

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson on 2/27/05

HONEST ABE

2005-02-25T05:24:00.000-05:00

Abraham Lincoln:

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

"Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

"Let no man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief -- resolve to be honest at all events, and if in your judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer."

MEDICAL MALPRACTRICE RATES

2005-02-22T14:40:00.000-05:00

The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/business/22insure.html?
February 22, 2005
Behind Those Medical Malpractice Rates
By JOSEPH B. TREASTER and JOEL BRINKLEY

Speaking before hundreds of doctors and medical workers in a St. Louis suburb last month, President Bush called attention to a neurosurgeon on stage with him in the small auditorium. The doctor, the president said, was paying $265,000 a year in premiums for insurance against malpractice claims.

Such high prices, "don't start in an examining room or an operating room," the president declared. "They start in a courtroom."

Indeed, at many recent appearances, Mr. Bush has complained about the "skyrocketing" costs of "junk lawsuits" against doctors and hospitals.

But for all the worry over higher medical expenses, legal costs do not seem to be at the root of the recent increase in malpractice insurance premiums. Government and industry data show only a modest rise in malpractice claims over the last decade. And last year, the trend in payments for malpractice claims against doctors and other medical professionals turned sharply downward, falling 8.9 percent, to a nationwide total of $4.6 billion, according to data compiled by the Health and Human Services Department.

"There is an underlying cost push," said J. Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, who is a former insurance regulator in Texas. "But there has not been an explosion of big jury verdicts or settlements. It's a constant drip, drip every year."

Lawsuits against doctors are just one of several factors that have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance, specialists say. Lately, the more important factors appear to be the declining investment earnings of insurance companies and the changing nature of competition in the industry.

The recent spike in premiums - which is now showing signs of steadying - says more about the insurance business than it does about the judicial system.

"You get these jolts in insurance prices periodically, and they attract a lot of attention," said Frank A. Sloan, a Duke University economist who has been following medical malpractice trends for nearly 20 years. "They're a result of a confluence of many things."

Data compiled by both the federal government and by insurance organizations show costs for the insurance companies climbing steadily over the last decade at an average annual rate of about 3 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Over most of that period, premiums for doctors rose modestly and sometimes even dropped as the insurance companies battled for market share in a scramble to collect more money to invest in strong bond and stock markets. But when the markets turned sour and the reserves of insurers shriveled, companies began to double and triple the costs for doctors.

"The insurers were catching up, getting to where they should have been," said Larry Smarr, the president of the Physician Insurers Association of America, a trade group of companies that provide more than 60 percent of the nation's medical malpractice insurance.

While acknowledging the impact of industry forces and practices on prices, Mr. Smarr and many others in the insurance industry still regard lawsuits as their biggest problem. Claims of medical malpractice are typically complex and are rarely paid without a lawsuit or the threat of
a lawsuit. If the insurance companies could find a way to limit payments for lawsuits, they say, they could significantly reduce their costs.

President Bush, supported by the insurance industry and the American Medical Association, is proposing a remedy: a national limit on what juries can award in medical malpractice cases. Such a limit, or cap, has often been cited by the president as an important part of what has been called tort reform - limiting what Mr. Bush calls costly and frivolous lawsuits.

The Bush administration is pushing for a $250,000 limit on jury awards to victims of medical mistakes and their families for pain and suffering. No limit would be placed on the more quantifiable payments for economic losses, including medical expenses and lost wages.

Introduction of legislation calling for such national medical malpractice limits - traditionally left to individual states - is at least a month away. Still, the administration has been bolstered by stronger Republican majorities in the House and Senate and by last week's signing into law of a measure that would move many class-action lawsuits to federal court, sharply limiting their potential spread.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who is a doctor, calls malpractice award limits "a majority priority." The House has passed similar proposals seven times in the last 10 years, most recently in 2003.

While this Congress might be the best opportunity yet for supporters of jury award limits, there will certainly be a fierce battle from Democrats, consumer groups and plaintiffs' lawyers.

Consumer advocates say such limits would mean that some of the most seriously hurt patients would not receive fair compensation. Also, they say, in the death of an infant, an elderly person or a homemaker, there would be little compensation because of the prevailing view that there could be no economic loss because no income was being earned.

Trial lawyers and consumer groups have been parading heart-wrenching victims of doctors' mistakes to make their argument. Among them, the American Trial Lawyers Association says, is Alice Lloyd of North Carolina. Doctors failed to treat her blood infection for so long that finally they had to amputate both legs above her knees, her left arm and all the fingers from her right hand. She still has her right thumb.

As the two sides dig in for a fight in Congress, 27 states have already adopted award limits, with caps ranging from $250,000 to $1 million. In some states, insurers have agreed to reduce, at least temporarily, premiums in exchange for limits on awards.

Insurers say that caps not only promise lower costs, but greater predictability on potential payouts. "It takes an unknown entity, which is the pain and suffering component, and makes it quantifiable and estimate-able," said Mr. Smarr of the Physician Insurers Association of America.

Insurers acknowledge that they consider several factors besides claims costs in setting prices for doctors. In the 1990's, even as their costs were rising, malpractice insurers held firm on prices, even lowering them in some years to hold or win a share of the market.

"You always try to say you're not chasing market share," said Donald J. Zuk, the chief executive of Scipie, a medical malpractice insurer that does business in about 30 states. "On the other hand, you have to have a certain market share, you have to show a certain amount of growth, or
you don't survive."

But by the late 1990's, some insurers discovered that they had dropped prices well below the cost of paying claims. Several went out of business. One of the biggest insurers, the St. Paul Companies, now Travelers St. Paul Companies, stopped offering medical malpractice coverage.

The surviving companies "had to raise prices or go out of business," Mr. Smarr said.

In 2000, about the same time that under-pricing and other market conditions began to push up prices in medical malpractice, the much larger world of commercial insurance was also going through a cycle of higher prices. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks cost insurers $40 billion and accelerated the upward pressure of the latest premium cycle.

Martin D. Weiss, the chairman of Weiss Ratings Inc., an independent financial rating agency, said the cyclical nature of the insurance business and a drop in insurers' investment earnings when markets fell had been among the strongest forces behind the rise in medical malpractice premiums.

Over the last year, insurance analysts say, prices for most lines of commercial insurance appear to have peaked and have begun to decline. While prices for medical malpractice coverage are not yet falling, they rose less steeply in 2004.

Costs for most doctors last year rose between 6.9 percent and 24.9 percent compared with increases of between 10 percent and 49 percent in 2003, according to The Medical Liability Monitor, a newsletter published in Chicago.

The most expensive place in the country is South Florida, where some obstetricians and general surgeons paid nearly $280,000 for coverage last year, according to The Monitor. Obstetricians in Illinois paid as much as $230,428, The Monitor said, while in Nebraska, the least expensive place in the country for malpractice insurance, obstetricians paid $16,194. Florida adopted a cap on awards of $500,000 to $1 million in 2003. Illinois has no cap and Nebraska has a cap of $500,000.

The recent jump in premiums shows little correlation to the rise in claims. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank of the Health and Human Services Department, the total paid out by insurance companies for claims against doctors and other medical professionals rose 3.1
percent annually, on average, between 1993 and 2003 and then declined last year.

The average payment in 2003 for malpractice, the data bank said, was $268,605, up from $197, 753 in 1993, after adjusting for inflation. In 2004, the average payment fell to $262,486 and the number of payments made for medical malpractice cases dropped to 17,696 from 18,996 the year before.

What may muddy the public picture is that while claims are rising at a measured pace, there have been more headline-grabbing big awards. Data compiled by the Physician Insurers Association of America show a distinct rise in payments of more than $1 million to victims of medical mistakes. In 1993, the organization said, 2.9 percent of the payments made by its companies exceeded $1 million. A decade later, 8.5 percent of the payments were for more than $1 million.

Many insurers regard the $250,000 limit in California as a model for Mr. Bush. They see it as largely responsible for California's shift from being one of the most expensive places for medical malpractice insurance to one of the least expensive. Consumer advocates, however, say the main reason costs for doctors have fallen in California has been a 1988 law that prohibits insurers from raising rates more than 15 percent a year without a public hearing.

And some researchers are skeptical that caps ultimately reduce costs for doctors. Mr. Weiss of Weiss Ratings and researchers at Dartmouth College, who separately studied data on premiums and payouts for medical mistakes in the 1990's and early 2000's, said they were unable to find a meaningful link between claims payments by insurers and the prices they charged doctors.

"We didn't see it," said Amitabh Chandra, an assistant professor of economics at Dartmouth. "Surprisingly, there appears to be a fairly weak relationship."

LETHAL FORCE

2005-02-21T07:34:00.000-05:00

G. E. M. Anscombe (1919-2001) on the Necessity of Lethal Force

Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation of this; and the other, that it is both necessary and right that there should be this exercise of power, that through it the world is much less of a jungle than it could possibly be without it, so that one should in principle be glad of the existence of such power, and only take exception to its unjust exercise.

It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercise of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are nowall this is so obvious, that probably only Tennysonian conceptions of progress enable people who do not wish to separate themselves from the world to think that nevertheless such violence is objectionable, that some day, in this present dispensation, we shall do without it, and that the pacifist is the man who sees and tries to follow the ideal course, which future civilization must one day pursue. It is an illusion, which would be fantastic if it were not so familiar.

In a peaceful and law abiding country such as England, it may not be immediately obvious that the rulers need to command violence to the point of fighting to the death those that would oppose it; but brief reflection shows that this is so. For those who oppose the force that backs law will not always stop short of fighting to the death and cannot always be put down short of fighting to the death.

(G. E. M. Anscombe, War and Murder, chap. 6 in her Ethics, Religion and Politics, vol. 3 of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981], 51-61, at 51 [essay first published in 1961])

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson on his blog http://analphilosopher.blogspot.com/

SMOKIN'

2005-02-19T08:07:00.000-05:00

www.thisistrue.com

WHERE THERE'S SMOKE: Four firefighters in Sacramento, Calif., have been

suspended after being caught ...um... engaged in "on-duty consensual

sexual misconduct," says Chief Julius Cherry. The four, a male station

captain, two male firefighters, and a female firefighter, would have

one of the men act as a "lookout" while the others had sex. However,

investigators say, the activities did not impair the squad's response

to emergency calls. (Sacramento Bee) ...Because most of the calls they

got were to report smoke coming out of the fire station's windows.

THERE'S FIRE: An investigation in Florida found that a group of

firefighters in Tampa ...uh... participated in a "photo shoot" with two

models at their station. Investigators say Capt. Al Suarez, 44,

organized the event, hiring strippers "Jamie" and "Heather" to pose on

fire trucks wearing, at most, firefighter pants, suspenders and high

heels, and usually much less. Suarez was fired, and four firefighters

were suspended without pay. (St. Petersburg Times) ...Firefighters are

always in heat.

CRIMINAL STUPIDITY

2005-02-19T07:54:00.000-05:00

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED: A gas station attendant in Euless, Texas,
reported that a man stepped in and made a small purchase. When the
clerk opened the cash register to get his change, the man sprayed him
in the face with pepper spray, grabbed $200 from the register, and then
fled. The robber left behind a bit of a clue, however: he left his
wallet on the counter. Police waited a few days and then called the
wallet's owner and told him someone had found it, and he could come by
the police station to claim it. When Joseph Fahnbulleh, 22, arrived for
his wallet, he was arrested. (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram) ...For assault,
robbery, and driving without his license.

TRY, TRY AGAIN: A robber who hit a grocery store in Minneapolis, Minn.,
made the mistake of putting his gun on the counter so he could use both
hands to scoop up the $2,000 in cash he got from the heist. As he was
stuffing the money into a shopping bag featuring a Smiley Face, the
clerk grabbed the gun, pointed it at the robber, and ordered him to
leave. The robber did, but came back a few minutes later asking for his
gun back. During the ensuing fight the robber's mask came off and he
fled a second time, again without his gun. Police arrived just as the
robber was leaving. They charged Dantzler L. Thomas, 24, with
aggravated robbery. Officers found a left glove in Thomas's car; it
matched a right glove left at the store. (Minneapolis Star Tribune)
...And I can't help but picture that glove as being still wrapped

around the gun

A GERMAN TAKE ON APPEASEMENT

2005-02-16T20:38:00.000-05:00

this article took guts for a German to write.

Subject: Assessment from a German

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice

THE HEART OF THE AMERICAN SOLDIER

2005-02-16T20:35:00.000-05:00

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26253&archive=true

Stars and Stripes has a great quote from an Iraqi soldier, Staff Sgt. Alaa Akram:

Ultimately, there is only so much the Americans can do, Akram said. The difference between his men and U.S. soldiers is something far more abstract than weapons or training.

"It's heart," Akram said. He'll know the Iraqi army is ready to take control from the Americans when his fellow soldiers quit joining for a paycheck, he said.

"When we're like the American soldier," Akram said. "He never worries about money. He's worried about his country."

UN OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL

2005-02-15T21:02:00.000-05:00

U.N. Oil-for-Food Chief Faces Fresh Charges
By JUDITH MILLER

Published: February 15, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/international/middleeast/15oil.html?th

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The Senate subcommittee on investigations says it has documents showing that the former head of the United Nations oil-for-food aid program may have made as much as $1.2 million personally from illegal oil shipments by Iraq.

BULL____

2005-02-15T13:35:00.000-05:00

The bull artist... cares nothing for truth or falsehood. The only thing that matters to him is "getting away with what he says," Mr. Frankfurt writes. An advertiser or a politician or talk show host given to [bull] "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it," he writes. "He pays no attention to it at all."

And this makes him, Mr. Frankfurt says, potentially more harmful than any liar, because any culture and he means this culture rife with [bull] is one in danger of rejecting "the possibility of knowing how things truly are." It follows that any form of political argument or intellectual analysis or commercial appeal is only as legitimate, and true, as it is persuasive. There is no other court of appeal.

The reader is left to imagine a culture in which institutions, leaders, events, ethics feel improvised and lacking in substance. "All that is solid," as Marx once wrote, "melts into air."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/books/14bull.html?incamp=article_popular_1

Ronald Reagan

2005-02-06T11:42:00.000-05:00

From Writer's Almanac 2-6-05

It's the birthday of the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, born in Tampico, Illinois (1911).

Reagan became a radio announcer for the Chicago Cubs after graduating from college. He was given only the bare bones of the game from a ticker, and relied on his natural gifts of storytelling and imagination to make the games lively and interesting. His abilities were put to the test when, in 1934, the ticker went dead in the ninth inning of a game between Chicago and St. Louis. Reagan improvised with a fictional broadcast until the ticker came back on line.

Reagan joined the Army as a reserve cavalry officer in 1935, and was activated after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Due to his poor eyesight, Reagan was assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit in the Army Air Force, which made training and education films. Reagan stayed in Hollywood throughout the war, becoming a captain, although he tried many times to go overseas for combat duty.

Also during this time, Reagan became a successful screen actor. The agent who signed Reagan to his first contract said, "I have another Robert Taylor sitting in my office." In 1940, Reagan gave the performance for which he would be best remembered as an actor, when he played George "The Gipper" Gipp in Knute Rockne, All American. The movie confirmed Reagan's status as an American icon, and earned him the nickname "Gipper."

Ronald Reagan actually began his political career as a Democrat, and he voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt the first time he voted for president. He gradually became more conservative, and he supported the campaigns of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon while he was still a registered Democrat. Reagan believed that Republicans were better suited to fight Communism, and this is a major reason why he left the Democrats. As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on Communist influence in Hollywood. He also reported any actors he considered suspicious to the FBI, and was given the code name "Agent T-10." He delivered a passionate speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign that is now called simply "The Speech" by some people. Because of this speech, Reagan was asked to run for governor of California, and after considering it for several sleepless nights, Reagan decided to run, and he won two terms as California governor.

Reagan tried twice for the Republican presidential nomination before winning it, and then the presidency in 1980. He ran on a platform of low taxes and strong national defense, which he called "Peace Through Strength." Also, Reagan openly supported anti-communist rebels in other countries, and so he funded and armed the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan, calling them "an inspiration to those who love freedom," as well as the Contras in Nicaragua, who he called "the moral equivalent to our founding fathers." Reagan also intervened in the long war between Iraq and Iran, throwing support to now-deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because he feared an Iranian victory would embolden extremist groups in that region. Reagan cut off Iran's access to weapons, and supplied intelligence and weapons to the Iraqi military.

Ronald Reagan said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." And he said, "I happen to believe government is not the solution to our problems - government is the problem."

Howard Dean's Effect on the Democrats

2005-02-05T08:54:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/opinion/5brooks.html?oref=login&th

David Brooks in today's NY Times:

"...Many Republicans are mystified as to why the Democrats, having lost another election, are about to name Howard Dean as party chairman and have allowed Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to emerge unchallenged as the loudest foreign policy voices.

The answer, as Mickey Kaus observes in Slate, is that the party is following the money. The energy and the dough are in the MoveOn.org wing, which is not even a wing of the party, but the head and the wallet. Only the most passionate and liberal voices can stir up this network of online donors from the educated class.

Howard Dean may not be as liberal as he appeared in the primaries, but in 1,001 ways - from his secularism to his stridency - he embodies the newly dominant educated class, which is large, self-contained and assertive.

Thanks to this newly dominant group, the Democrats are sure to carry Berkeley for decades to come."

Tom Friedman editorial, NY Times

2005-02-03T08:40:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/opinion/03friedman.html?th

Tom Friedman, editorial in NY Times, 2-3-05

"... this election has made it crystal clear that the Iraq war is not between fascist insurgents and America, but between the fascist insurgents and the Iraqi people. One hopes the French and Germans, whose newspapers often sound more like Al Jazeera than Al Jazeera, will wake up to this fact and throw their weight onto the right side of history.

It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. "

Legal Myths:Hardly the Truth

2005-01-31T14:37:00.000-05:00

USA Today
By Jonathan Turley

Have you heard about the guy who injured himself while using his lawn mower as a hedge clipper, and then won $500,000 in a lawsuit against the lawn mower company? How about the woman who threw a soft drink at her boyfriend, slipped on the wet floor, and then won $100,000 in a lawsuit against the restaurant? These are only two of the common examples of lawsuit abuses that are fueling the call for "litigation reform." They are also completely untrue - part of a growing collection of legal mythologies that are appearing widely in the national media.

Image is everything in tort reform, such as President Bush's visit earlier this month to a "judicial hellhole" in Illinois where tort cases supposedly flourish. He has made tort reform a priority of his second term and is expected to repeat these calls in his State of the Union address Wednesday. It is all part of a well-funded campaign to limit damages against companies and physicians across the country.

Horror stories offered by industry groups play to a weakness in the media for "you-are-not-going-to-believe-this" stories. Of course, it is not surprising that the stories are unbelievable - because many never occurred.

Take the ubiquitous hedge-clipper man story. It has appeared in print, on TV programs, in law school classrooms and in political speeches for decades. Former vice president Dan Quayle used it in his call for reform (though he reportedly referred to the man cutting his hair with a lawn mower). In reality, the story originated in an ad campaign by the insurance firm Crum & Forester, which later admitted that it knew of no such case. Yet, proving that facts should never stand in the way of a good story, it remains perhaps the most cited example of abuse - the best $500,000 that the insurance industry never paid.

Bad lawyering

Even true stories often prove not to be examples of bad law, but bad lawyering. Take the list of the "wackiest consumer warnings," released this month by the Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch to show the need for reform. Included are such things as a warning on a toilet brush that reads, "Do Not Use for Personal Hygiene" or a sign on a scooter that reads, "This product moves when used." These are not fabrications, but none of these warnings make any more legal sense than they do practical sense. No company has to warn consumers not to use a toilet brush on their teeth or hair.

Legal legends can be irresistible, even for the most respected newspapers, magazines and networks.

U.S. News & World Reportowner Mort Zuckerman used the story of the soft drink lady in Pennsylvania in an article denouncing lawsuit abuse. He is not alone. The tale of Amber Carlson and her soda has appeared in countless television and print sources. Zuckerman also cited the case of a woman who knocked her teeth out while sneaking through a nightclub's restroom window to avoid paying a $3.50 cover charge - and then won $12,000 from a jury. It is also false.

Both stories have been attributed to the Stella Awards, an annual listing of loony lawsuits. But the Stella Web site points out that they both are complete fabrications. Yet they continue to appear in print and on the Internet.

Other examples of fabricated "true cases of lawsuit abuse":

.Kathleen Robertson of Austin received $780,000 from a jury after she tripped over her own son in a furniture store.

.Carl Truman, a 19-year-old in Los Angeles, was awarded more than $74,000 when his hand was run over by a neighbor. The neighbor did not see Truman, who was in the process of stealing his hubcaps.

.Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa., was given a $500,000 award after he was inadvertently trapped in the garage of a house that he was burglarizing.

.A Mr. Grazinski won more than $1,750,000 and a new Winnebago after he put his new motor home on cruise control at 70 mph and then went into the back to fix himself some coffee - only to crash on the highway.

Merely legal legends

These are the legal versions of the urban legends about alligators living in the New York City sewers. Everyone knows that alligators brought back by kids as pets from Florida have been flushed down the toilets, only to thrive below the streets of New York City.

Legal legends fit the stereotype of litigation so well that their falsity becomes secondary. Of course, law is not alone in such fabrications. Consider my favorite story about Pia Zadora's dismal performance as the lead in The Diary of Anne Frank. Zadora was so bad that, during the scene where Nazis break into the house screaming, "Where is Anne Frank?" audience members screamed, "She's in the attic!" It is a brilliant story, but I was crushed to learn recently that it is also completely untrue: Zadora has never played Anne Frank, and there is no such scene in the play.

I loved the Zadora story for the same reason people such as Zuckerman loved the fabricated lawsuit stories: They capture a critical idea with an element of humor or absurdity. There is, however, a great difference between using urban legends to dish on some actress and using them to make massive changes in the law. So, as we begin this latest debate over tort reform, one small piece of advice: If you hear about a case that is almost too good to be true, it probably isn't.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has testified before Congress on tort reform. He is also a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

The vote in Baghdad and here...

2005-01-29T07:38:00.000-05:00

January 29, 2005

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR New York Times

The Long Road to a Vote

By BAKHTIAR DARGALI

Plano, Tex.

BY the time you read this, I'll have packed my suitcases into the car and will be headed for Nashville, Tenn., one of the five American cities where Iraqi exiles in this country are gathering to vote in the Iraqi national elections this weekend. In the past few weeks, I've been helping to organize trips to Nashville for some of the 5,000 Iraqi Kurds who live in the Dallas area and who are eager to vote, even if it means taking time off work and enduring a 24-hour round trip. But until recently, I wasn't so sure that I wanted to vote myself.

In 1976, when I was 15, my older brother and I left behind our parents, four brothers, three sisters, 500 cousins and our beloved village of Dargala, in the Kurdish part of Iraq, to come to the United States. We also left behind many bad memories: of hiding out in freezing caves in the mountains to escape the Baathists' bombardment of the Kurds, of seeing our uncle's family blown up by government planes.

What we didn't have was any memories of seeing anyone in our family vote. Saddam Hussein's candidates always won 100 percent of the vote, but the election booths in our section of Iraq were in the form of mass graves. There was no indelible ink to prevent fraud in elections, only the indelible pain of broken dreams and the loss of loved ones since our part of Kurdistan was annexed to Iraq in the 1920's.

When I voted in this country for the first time, I thought how lucky Americans were. A vote is taken for granted here, while back in Iraq people died (and are dying now) for it. I've voted in every election here since.

And on Sunday my large family in Iraq will all vote. For my 72-year-old father and my 70-year-old mother, it will be their first time. My mother told me that she would brave the current blizzard in the mountains of Kurdistan to go vote, even though she is very ill. My father, a Kurdish freedom fighter for two decades, looks forward to voting as eagerly as a child waiting to open his Christmas gifts.

They do not want America to fail in its effort to bring democracy to Iraq. Above all, they and the seven million other Kurds want to cast a vote for a new Iraq that will be based on the principles of freedom, federalism, and the recognition that any union between the Arab majority and the Kurdish minority is voluntary.

Nonetheless, when I heard about the plans for Iraqis in the United States to vote in the national elections, my initial reaction was not to participate. Although I feel a strong tie to my homeland, I am an American citizen, and my life is here now.

But then came the news that 31 marines died on Wednesday in western Iraq when their helicopter crashed as they were on what Gen. John Abizaid said was a "mission in support of the election." How can I ignore the sacrifices of these marines who died so my family can vote? The best way for me to honor their martyrdom is to vote myself.

That means that my wife, Allea, and I are driving to Nashville. Coming along with us will be our 7-year-old daughter, Connie. She will get to see something that I never got to see as a child: her parents voting for freedom in an Iraqi election.

Bakhtiar Dargali is a partner in an environmental consulting firm.

Legal Battles Far Less Likely to Go to Trial than During 1980's

2005-01-24T09:37:00.000-05:00

From the January 21, 2005 print edition - Cincinnati Business Courier
Risings costs, dispute resolution leading to more settlements
Kathy Robertson, Courier Contributor

The prevailing image of litigation involves a judge and jury, yet the number of civil trials in federal courts nationwide has dropped a whopping 60 percent since the early 1980s, a new study shows.

This turnabout comes as just about every other indicator of legal activity has increased. There are more lawyers, who file more cases that take longer and cost more than they used to, but there's been a sharp decline in criminal trials, bankruptcy trials and trials in state courts, too.
"The general reaction, both among lawyers and judges, is surprise when they see the numbers," said Marc Galanter, an author and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who wrote an article about the subject in the November edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Galanter was looking through legal literature when he noticed that the pattern holds true across criminal, civil and bankruptcy court systems.The number of civil trials in federal courts dropped almost 60 percent between 1982 and 2002. Civil trials in statecourts dropped 28 percent over the same time period. Yet the number of plaintiffs, motions, defenses and length of time consumed per case all increased.

The decline in trials owes something to mass settlements in tort cases and efforts to suppress prisoner petitions, the study shows. There's more "managing" from the bench, increased use of alternative dispute resolution -- and the time and money it takes to get to trial simply dissuades many from going that far. Still, on almost any other measure -- the number of lawyers, the amount spent on law and the size of legal literature --law has flourished, Galanter says in the study. There were 1.1 million lawyers in the nation in 2002, up from 617,320 in 1982.

"It seems curious, then, to find a contrary pattern in one central legal phenomenon, indeed one that lies at the very heart of our image of our system -- trials," he added.

Alternative dispute resolution is taking many cases out of the courtroom, said Joe Genshlea, a Sacramento, Calif., litigator. "There's been a much bigger effort in the last 20 years to settle cases," he said. Not early on, however. "Most still settle on the courthouse steps," he said.

Extravagance

2005-01-20T11:08:00.000-05:00

From Keith Burgess-Jackson: Count me among those who object to the extravagance of the presidential inauguration. I don't care whether the money comes from private sources.

This is my government. Celebrations should be kept to a minimum. If the Bush family wants to expend its resources on a private party in Kennebunkport or Crawford, so be it; but keep the government out of it. I'm not saying that the money should be used for other purposes (such as tsunami relief). Nor am I concerned (much) about the awkward symbolism of celebrating while American soldiers are dying in Iraq. I'm an Epicurean. I value frugality in my own life and in my government.

I concur. rlg

Allstate Ins. Co. - doing well financially

2005-01-18T17:12:00.000-05:00

Per Allstate's 2003 annual report:

$24,677,000,000 in premiums (property-liability only)

$17,432,000,000 paid out or held in reserves for claims for these premiums
collected. In the same year, the reported

$3.85 net revenue per share with 703,500,000 outstanding shares =
$2,708,475,000 dividends paid to shareholders if my math is right

Some insurance crisis.

Allstate's 2003 annual report is available at allstate.com. The profits
were nearly double in 2003 than in 2002 and 2001.

POSNER ON TORT REFORM

2005-01-18T08:47:00.000-05:00

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/01/tort_reformposn.html

There is a movement afoot, assisted by the strengthening of Republican control over Congress, to impose federal limits on tort litigation, particularly medical malpractice; premiums for malpractice insurance have soared in the last two years and physicians are protesting vigorously.

The costs of malpractice premiums are only about 1 percent of total U.S. health-care costs. Moreover, insofar as physicians are forced to swallow the cost of the premiums rather than being able to pass them on to their patients or their patients insurers in the form of higher prices, the premiums do not actually increase total health-care costs. There is an indirect effect, however, insofar as malpractice liability causes doctors to practice defensive medicine. But there may be offsetting benefits, to the extent that defensive medicine actually improves outcomes for patients; and surely it does for at least some. What is more, because malpractice insurance is not experience-rated physicians are not charged premiums based on their personal liability experience malpractice liability may have only a slight effect on physicians' methods or carefulness, except insofar as physicians are pressured by their insurers to change their methods in order to reduce the amount of malpractice litigation.

The relation between malpractice premiums and malpractice judgments is also uncertain. No doubt capping judgments, which is the principal reform that is advocated, has some tendency to reduce premiums, but perhaps not much, because there is evidence that premiums are strongly influenced by the performance of the insurance companies' investment portfolios.

A better reform would be to permit, encourage, or even require insurance companies to base malpractice premiums on the experience of the insured physician, much as automobile liability insurance is based on the drivers experience of accidents. That would make malpractice liability a better engine for deterring malpracticewhich in turn would reduce malpractice premiums by reducing the amount of malpractice. Capping judgments, in contrast, would reduce the incentive of insurance companies and their regulators to move to a system of experience-rated malpractice insurance.

It is always important to distinguish between financial and real costs. Insofar as malpractice liability merely transfers wealth from physicians to (some) patients, aggregate costs are unaffected. The real cost of malpractice liability is limited to the cost of the actual resources consumed by such liability, principally the time of lawyers and expert witnesses (roughly half the total amount awarded in judgments goes to pay lawyers and expert witnesses), unless defensive medicine is assumed to cost more than its benefits in improving treatment outcomes. The real benefit of malpractice liability is its effect if any in deterring medical negligence; reducing that benefit would impose a real cost. Hence it is simplistic to assume that the total annual malpractice premiums paid is a good index of the net social cost of malpractice liability, or that measures to reduce those premiums by capping malpractice liability would result in a net improvement in welfare. To repeat, part of the premiums represent simply a wealth transfer from physicians to the patients who receive malpractice judgments or settlements paid by insurers. The part (roughly half) that pays for lawyers and expert witnesses should be understood as the cost of maintaining a system for increasing medical safety; the efficacy of the system could be improved, I have argued, by experience rating, but not by capping judgments.

In any event, there is no compelling case for federal limitations on malpractice liability. The issue belongs at the state level, and as reported in a New York Times article last Friday, a number of states have adopted or are seriously considering adopting the kind of caps being advocated in Congress. Federal legislation would simply stifle state experimentation with different methods of regulating physicians and prevent us from learning which is best.

There is a stronger case for federal regulation of class actions, as in the case of suits against asbestos manufacturers. When the members of a plaintiff class are scattered across the country, the class lawyer has a wide range of places in which to sue, and there are certain counties in the United States in which judges and juries are disproportionately generous to tort plaintiffs. Most of the costs of a large judgment or settlement in such a case are exported to other states, while the benefits are concentrated in the locale where the suit was litigated, because of the business generated for local lawyers, as well as the judgments or settlements received by the members of the class in the locale. This is a formula for abuse, concretely for a tendency for such judgments and settlements to exceed an unbiased estimate of the true costs imposed on the class by the defendants misconduct. Malpractice litigation does not give rise to such an abuse to any very great extent, because patient and physician are usually in the same state, and a single plaintiff has only a limited choice of courts in which to sue. This is another reason not to make medical malpractice the principal object of federal tort reform.

We should be cautious about tort reform. It would be unfortunate if interest-group politics, and anecdotes concerning outlandish lawsuits (such as the suit against McDonald's by the customer who spilled hot coffee in her lap), were allowed to obscure the difficult policy issues.

Lawson - Ohio Supreme Court's Gift to the Insurance Industry

2005-01-15T22:55:00.000-05:00

NOVEMBER 2004
NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO WRITE OUT MADE WHOLE DOCTRINE IN OHIO

By a 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that it does not violate public policy for a provider of health benefits to enforce a clear and unambiguous reimbursement provision against an insured, regardless of whether the insured was made whole. See Northern Buckeye Education Council Grp. Health Benefits Plan v. Lawson (2004) 103 Ohio St. 3d 188.

In Lawson, the Northern Buckeye benefit plan paid $85,945.37 in medical expenses related to a motor vehicle accident after Lawson signed a separate subrogation and reimbursement agreement. After recovering $100,000.00 from the tortfeasor's carrier and $150,000.00 from her own underinsured motorist carrier, Lawson refused to reimburse the plan arguing that she was not made whole by her recovery. The Ohio Supreme Court followed Federal Court precedent out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a reimbursement provision that establishes both (1) that the insurer has a right to recover when there is a full or partial recovery and (2) that the insurer has priority over its insured, is an unambiguous and enforceable contract.

In doing so, the Court maintained Ohio's long held precedent of enforcing contracts as they are written, but ignored all case law on "adhesion contracts."

"Cases of contractual interpretation should not be decided on the basis of what is just or equitable. This concept is applicable even where a party has made a bad bargain, contracted away all his rights, and has been left in the position of doing the work while another may benefit from the work." Lawson, 103 Ohio St. 3d 188.

It remains to be seen whether courts will enforce reimbursement provisions which are not identical or strikingly similar to the language used in the Lawson benefit plan. Many health and accident plans had already amended their language to ensure that it was unambiguous based upon prior decisions out of the Federal Courts. Property and Casualty carriers will undoubtedly review the subrogation and reimbursement provisions in their policies (i.e. medical payments coverage) or separate subrogation and reimbursement agreements to ensure that they are unambiguous and enforceable.

This all begs the question -- these contracts are not"negotiated" -- they are "adhesion" contracts, that is, the insurance company says "take it or leave it".

2005-01-15T02:12:00.000-05:00

Hazelwood Award nominee:

McDonald's sues 'slow food' critic
McDonald's has labelled as "defamatory and offensive" an influential Italian
food critic, who poured scorn on the quality of the fast-food giant's
cuisine.
The corporation has sued Edoardo Raspelli, a critic and commentator for the
Italian newspaper La Stampa, after he compared its burgers to rubber and its
fries to cardboard, in an article last year.

McDonald's is seeking undisclosed damages, possibly as much as the 21m euros
(Â£15m; $25m) it spent on advertising in Italy last year.

Mr Raspelli has refused to back down, telling La Stampa earlier this week
that he found fast food "repellent".

"I defamed hamburgers... but I have not insulted anyone," he said.

Fast and slow

The case has aroused enormous interest in Italy, where a powerful
"slow-food" movement has emerged in recent years, dedicated to preserving a
respect for traditional culinary values.

Mr Raspelli said he had received hundreds of e-mails of support.

McDonald's is, however, hugely popular in the country, feeding 600,000
Italians each day in its 300 local restaurants.

The chain has made huge efforts to persuade customers of the quality of its
offerings, and uses many local products.

The court case is proceeding slowly - the judge this week asked Mr Raspelli
and McDonald's to seek ways to mend their differences.

"We trust this matter can be resolved out of court and in an amicable way,"
spokesman Mike Love said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/2951486.stm

Published: 2003/05/30 19:06:31 GMT

2005-01-14T09:25:00.000-05:00

Dr. David Vinson, Jr. From the May 21, 2003 Columbus Dispatch Section 01E:

An Ohio doctor accused of a trail of botched and unneeded surgeries,
including an elective procedure on an 86-year-old woman who subsequently
died, could permanently lose his license. The woman had heart trouble and
was not in good shape for surgery, but Vinson went ahead with an elective
surgery designed to alleviate chronic constipation, according to the report.
After surgery, Vinson wrote that the patient was awake and in satifactory
condition, according to medical records. But according to nurses, she never
awoke and was transferred to intesiveive care, where she subsequently died.

Other mistakes include:
-Leaving a 10 inch by 8 inch plastic retractor inside a 65 year old man
- injuring both ureters and the bladder of a 35 year old worman during a
hysterectomy
- removing too much of a 60 year old man's duedenum
- removing a 20 year old woman's appendix when the real problem was a kidney
stone
- unnecessarily removing the gallbladder of a 76 year old woman, who
suffered post operative complications
- improperly removing a 70 year old man's gallbladder and spleen when the
real problem was Chrohn's disease
- inserting a catheter in the wrong place on a 37 year old mastectomy
patient

According to the Dispatch, June 12, 2003, 07C, the medical board permanently
banned him.

Nominee for Hazelwood Award

2005-01-14T07:19:00.000-05:00

Another nomination for the Hazelwood Awards:

Dr. David Vinson, Jr.

From the May 21, 2003 Columbus Dispatch Section 01E:

An Ohio doctor accused of a trail of botched and unneeded surgeries, including an elective procedure on an 86-year-old woman who subsequently died, could permanently lose his license. The woman had heart trouble and was not in good shape for surgery, but Vinson went ahead with an elective surgery designed to alleviate chronic constipation, according to the report. After surgery, Vinson wrote that the patient was awake and in satifactory condition, according to medical records. But according to nurses, she never awoke and was transferred to intesiveive care, where she subsequently died.

Other mistakes include:
-Leaving a 10 inch by 8 inch plastic retractor inside a 65 year old man
- injuring both ureters and the bladder of a 35 year old worman during a hysterectomy
- removing too much of a 60 year old man's duedenum
- removing a 20 year old woman's appendix when the real problem was a kidney stone
- unnecessarily removing the gallbladder of a 76 year old woman, who suffered post operative complications
- improperly removing a 70 year old man's gallbladder and spleen when the real problem was Chrohn's disease
- inserting a catheter in the wrong place on a 37 year old mastectomy patient

According to the Dispatch, June 12, 2003, 07C, the medical board permanently banned him.

Insurance Industry TV Ad Budgets

2005-01-14T04:18:00.000-05:00

According to the January 8, 2005 Columbus Dispatch, the biggest 5 TV insurance ad budgets in 2004 were:

GEICO $205,400,000.00

Progressive $169,900,000.00

Allstate $144,800,000.00

State Farm $105,000,000.00

AFLAC $ 53,700,000.00

TOTAL OF TOP 5 TV BUDGETS FOR 2004: $678,800,000***

The Dispatch also reports that Nationwide will spend about $100,000,000.00 (give or take) in 2005 on marketing (not just TV).

2005-01-13T20:30:00.000-05:00

2005-01-13T20:26:00.000-05:00

Being sick to death of the Stella Awards and the recent list of most absurd product warnings, The Okey Law Firm is accepting nominations for the first annual Hazelwood Awards, named in honor of Joseph Hazelwood, renowned captain of the Exxon Valdez. The awards will be given for stunning achievements in negligence, malfeasance, and endangering others.

The first nominee:

Barberton Citizens Hospital, who blinded seven people Â in one day! Â by using the wrong eyewash during routine cataract surgery. (The hospital was fined a whopping $3,000 by the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy.)

2005-01-05T16:54:00.000-05:00

January 5, 2005 - NY TIMES

Panel Seeks Better Disciplining of Doctors

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 - Experts retained by the Bush administration said on Tuesday that more effective disciplining of incompetent doctors could significantly alleviate the problem of medical malpractice litigation.

As President Bush prepared to head to Illinois on Wednesday to campaign for limits on malpractice lawsuits, the experts said that states should first identify those doctors most likely to make mistakes that injure patients and lead to lawsuits.

The administration recently commissioned a study by the University of Iowa and the Urban Institute to help state boards of medical examiners in disciplining doctors.

"There's a need to protect the public from substandard performance by physicians," said Josephine Gittler, a law professor at Iowa who supervised part of the study. "If you had more aggressive policing of incompetent physicians and more effective disciplining of doctors who engage in substandard practice, that could decrease the type of negligence that leads to malpractice suits."

Randall R. Bovbjerg, a researcher at the Urban Institute, said, "If you take the worst performers out of practice, that will have an impact" on malpractice litigation. "Most doctors have few or no claims filed against them," he added. "But within any specialty, a few doctors have a high proportion of the claims."

The focus on doctor discipline is noteworthy because Mr. Bush, in numerous speeches, has sided with doctors against plaintiffs' lawyers.

Mr. Bovbjerg said several factors appeared to work against medical boards. The boards usually have small budgets and small numbers of employees to cope with thousands of complaints each year, he said. Moreover, he said, revoking an incompetent doctor's license can take months or years and cost a great deal, especially if the case goes to a full hearing before a board of examiners.

State medical boards took 5,230 disciplinary actions against doctors in 2003, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards, the national umbrella group for the state agencies. The total was up 7 percent from 2002 and up 41 percent from 1993.

Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a former member of the Ohio State Medical Board, said: "It is extraordinarily difficult to discipline a doctor based on incompetence. Everybody knows that some doctors are incompetent, but identifying them is a very difficult task."

Massachusetts has adopted an approach that experts say may provide a model for other states. Without waiting for a complaint to be filed, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine conducts a clinical review of any doctor who has made three or more malpractice payments to patients as a result of jury verdicts or settlements.

Nancy Achin Audesse, executive director of the board, said: "Three is a magic number. Doctors who have to make three or more payments are also more likely to be named in consumer complaints and to be subject to discipline by hospitals and the medical board."

In Massachusetts in the last 10 years, Ms. Audesse said, "one-fourth of 1 percent of all the doctors - 98 of the 37,369 doctors - accounted for more than 13 percent of all the malpractice payments, $134 million of the $1 billion in total payments."

On Wednesday, President Bush is to take his campaign to Collinsville, in southwestern Illinois. The city is in Madison County, where business groups say judges often favor plaintiffs in personal injury suits.

In December, the American Tort Reform Association, a coalition of business and professional groups that want to limit personal injury suits, called Madison County the nation's No. 1 "judicial hellhole."

Laws governing malpractice cases have historically been controlled by the states. But Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday, "It's a national problem that requires a national solution."

Mr. McClellan asserted that "unlimited and unpredictable liability awards raise the cost of health care for all Americans through higher premiums for their health insurance." And rising costs of malpractice insurance have forced some doctors to "close up shop," he said.

But Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said: "President Bush is offering a solution that is irrelevant to the problem. The insurance industry has repeatedly refused to say that it will lower rates even if caps are imposed."

The House has passed several bills that would set a $250,000 limit on payments for noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, but the measures have died in the Senate. White House officials said they hoped such legislation would sail through Congress this year because Republicans gained seats in the Senate.

Dr. James N. Thompson, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, said that most disciplinary actions had been taken because of criminal conduct, drug or alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct or other unprofessional behavior.

"But increasingly," Dr. Thompson said, "state boards are taking disciplinary action because of issues involving the quality of care. They are trying to identify doctors who provide marginal or substandard care, before the doctors put more patients at risk."

2005-01-04T17:24:00.000-05:00

Vioxx data publication OK'd

07:45 PM CST on Monday, January 3, 2005

Associated Press

WASHINGTON Â The Food and Drug Administration has given a whistle-blower scientist permission to publish data indicating that as many as 139,000 people had heart attacks that could be linked to Vioxx, the scientist's lawyer said Monday.

Dr. David Graham, who works in the FDA's drug safety office, has said he was not allowed to publish his data questioning the safety of Vioxx, a pain medication principally used for osteoarthritis.

Manufacturer Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx from the market in late September.

Dr. Graham testified in November before a Senate committee that the FDA fumbled in its handling of safety concerns around Vioxx. He contended that the FDA has an inherent conflict of interest that triggers "denial, rejection and heat" when product safety questions emerge.

The FDA denies the allegations, and controversy over the agency's role continues.

The FDA told Dr. Graham on Monday that he could publish his research, which shows that 88,000 to 139,000 people have had heart attacks that could be linked to Vioxx, with 30 percent to 40 percent of them fatal, said his attorney, Tom Devine.

The report will be resubmitted to the Lancet, a British medical journal, Mr. Devine said. Lancet editor Richard Horton has been sharply critical of the FDA as well.

Dr. Graham could not be reached for comment.

ELECTION COMMENTARY

2004-11-14T10:29:00.000-05:00

in moveon.org:
“Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know —— was it or wasn't it? If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and so we can prevent this from happening again. “

I observed the election here in Ohio, at the County Board of Elections from 6:30 a.m. until 11 p.m. While the concerns of moveon.org are certainly legitimate (wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all), they also do not address the issue of ballot-box stuffing, of individuals not registered to vote or voting more than once, in multiple jurisdictions. (In Chicago, it is traditional that every cemetery is allowed to vote.)

In my local Board of Elections, I personally saw mentally retarded individuals being brought to the voting booth and “helped” to vote, and many absentee ballots coming in from nursing homes. A friend (who happens to be Caucasian) served as an observer in a predominantly black, Democrat, precinct in Youngstown. He told me he was routinely pointed out (with a sneer) to voters coming in, as “he’s a Republican”. When unregistered individuals were challenged, the presiding judge (Democrat) routinely allowed them to vote, and not by provisional ballot. We also had the unfortunate recruiting of voter registrant solicitors, by payment of crack cocaine (discovered in Defiance County).

Certainly these could be isolated instances of individual misconduct, or they could be blown out of proportion and become the basis for a conspiracy theory alleging that Democrats attempted to steal the election. The middle way would seem to maintain some balance, to suspend judgment until and unless the empirical evidence shows otherwise. A forgotten source once said: “Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by ignorance.”

Culture wars - Who's Winning?

2004-11-14T09:06:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/14rich.html?oref=login&th

Frank Rich in today's NY Times:

"Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out. "

"Excess and vulgarity" = definition of politics??

From Garrison Keillor's "Writer's Almanac"

2004-11-11T07:17:00.000-05:00

Today is Veterans Day, honoring Americans who have served their country in the armed forces.

November 11 was originally called Armistice Day because it was on this day in 1918 that the First World War came to an end. The armistice was signed at 11:00 AM, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the year. After four years of brutal trench fighting, nine million soldiers had died and 21 million were wounded.

It was called "The War to End All Wars," because it was the bloodiest war in history up to that point, and it made many people so sick of war that they hoped no war would ever break out again.

Many intellectuals and artists were disillusioned by the war and thought it had been eaningless. But President Woodrow Wilson believed that the United States' participation in World War I was a great victory for idealism. He said, "The Americans who went to Europe to die are a unique breed. Never before have men crossed the seas to a foreign land to fight for a cause which they did not pretend was peculiarly their own, which they knew was the cause of humanity and mankind. These Americans gave the greatest of all gifts, the gift of life and the gift of spirit."

Thank a veteran today.

HOW TO ARGUE

2004-11-09T11:13:00.000-05:00

"...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. Note the implication. As an atheist, I can persuade a theist (a Christian, say) to change his or her beliefs. If the theist resists my conclusion on grounds that I, the critic, don't believe my own premises, I respond that I don't have to. "It's enough that you believe them," I say. "You are committed to changing your beliefs--if you care about consistency, at any rate."

I sometimes hear it said that I am "imposing" my values on others when I argue. This is risible. I'm imposing their values on them. I want my Christian friends to be the best Christians they can be. I want them to have consistent beliefs, to believe what they say, and to practice what they preach. Friendship, as Aristotle explained long ago, is a demanding relationship. This--promoting personal integrity--is one of its demands.
...
Arguing is hard, daunting work (although great fun). It requires not just logical skill, which, like any other skill, can be refined and honed, but substantive knowledge of various theories, doctrines, principles, ideologies, and worldviews. In order for me, an atheist, to persuade a Christian to believe this or that, I must know Christianity inside and out. If I were once a Christian, so much the better. In order for me, a deontologist, to persuade a consequentialist to believe that war in Iraq was justified, I must know consequentialism inside and out. 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. I want my Christian friends (yes, I have some) to have a coherent body of beliefs. If they care about me, they will want me to have a coherent body of beliefs--even if they also believe, as they probably do, that I will burn in hell forever. They might even try to show me that certain of my beliefs commit me to belief in God. I welcome the attempt. It respects me as a rational being. 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!

Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas at Arlington, where he teaches Logic on a regular basis. He is coauthor, with the late Irving M. Copi, of Informal Logic, 3d ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996). Years ago, someone asked his mother what he does for a living. She said he teaches philosophy at a university. When asked what philosophy is, she said, "I don't know, but it has something to do with arguing."

Definition

2004-11-03T09:40:00.000-05:00

Presidency, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics. (Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)

National Review article

2004-11-01T21:44:00.000-05:00

Excerpt from the National Review:

In short, the more sophisticated, the more technological, the more hyped and televised war becomes, the more pundits and strategists warn us about "fourth-generational," "asymmetrical," "irregular," and "new dimensional" conflict, the more we simply forget the unchanging requisite of the will to win that trumps all other considerations. John Kerry has no more secret a plan than George Bush - because there is no secret way to pacify Iraq other than to kill the killers, humiliate their cause through defeat, and give the credit of the victory, along with material aid and the promise of autonomous freedom, to moderate Iraqis. Victory on the battlefield - not the mysterious diplomacy of "wise men," or German and French sanction, or Arab League support - alone will allow Iraq an opportunity for humane government.

Meanwhile, we all vote. One candidate urges us to return to the mindset of pre-September 11 - law enforcement dealing with terrorists as nuisances. He claims the policies that have led to an absence of another attack at home, the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, idealistic efforts to extend freedom, and radical and positive changes in Pakistan, Libya, the West Bank, and the Gulf have made things worse. In contrast, the other reminds us that we are in a real war against horrific enemies and are no longer passive targets, but will fight the terrorists on their home turf, win, and leave behind humane government. No choice could be clearer. It is America's call.

Election Reflections by Keith Burgess-Jackson

2004-11-01T14:38:00.000-05:00

Election Reflections

1. Our criminal-justice system instantiates what the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls (in A Theory of Justice [1971; rev. ed. 1999]) called imperfect procedural justice. There is an independent standard by which to evaluate the outcome, viz., all and only the guilty are to be convicted, but no procedure to ensure it. Mistakes get made. Either some guilty individuals are not convicted or some innocent individuals are convicted. The best we can do is keep improving the procedures so as to minimize the number and magnitude of mistakes.

Voting instantiates what Rawls called pure procedural justice. Here, there is no independent standard by which to evaluate the outcome. Whatever outcome emerges from a fair application of the procedural rules is just. Let us hope that the rules for tomorrow’s presidential election are fairly applied. Ideally, all and only properly registered voters will vote.

2. Can we agree in advance that there will be no whining about the electoral college after the election? Both candidates went into the election with their eyes wide open. Both knew that the winner of the election is not the person with the most popular votes. Perhaps we should abolish the electoral college. We can debate that some other day. But not now. The system is in place. It will give us a winner. Let’s live with it without carping.

3. If John Kerry receives more electoral votes than President Bush, I will accept him as my president. I will respectfully disagree with those who voted for Kerry, but accept their judgment and the legitimacy of their choice. I hereby call upon others to make a similar vow. Let’s get behind whoever wins the election tomorrow. We’re at war. Much work remains to be done both in foreign affairs and in domestic policy. Let’s put the acrimony of the campaign behind us and work together as Americans for the common good.

posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson @Analphilosopher.blogspot.com

2004-11-01T08:02:00.000-05:00

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:Re "Cue the Woman in Pink" (editorial, Oct. 28):

The woman in pink (an image from an ad attacking a congresswoman) is a great metaphor for political strategists' efforts to stigmatize opponents.This, along with poisonous radio and TV talk, leaders who question the patriotism of their opponents, the failure of mainstream journalists to challenge lies and distortions with facts, a passive electorate that naïvely expects to learn about candidates from TV sound bites and staged "debates" and a culture that values simplification of complex problems and prizes candidates' personalities over their abilities, has created a crisis in American democracy, which, as you note, we want to export.

Democracy does not mean that any tactic that produces a vote is justified. I care a lot who wins the election, but I think it is more important that there be a clear winner and that we begin the process of restoring our fundamental values of fairness, openness and respect for the opinions of others.

Tom StewartAltamont, N.Y., Oct. 28, 2004

2004-10-26T15:06:00.000-04:00

http://www.whomovedmytruth.blogspot.com/ :
"I believe most conservatives, while disappointed, will behave responsibly
in light of a Kerry-election. I doubt the left will offer the same good
sportsmanship should the election favor Bush.

It is true though....we who demand honor must behave honorably. It may not
frequently work out to our benefit, but it will give us pride and
satisfaction in ourselves. I believe that is enough." Ally Eskin

U.S. BUSINESSES FILE FOUR TIMES MORE LAWSUITS THAN PRIVATE CITIZENS

2004-10-14T10:22:00.000-04:00

American businesses file four times as many lawsuits as do individuals represented by trial attorneys, and they are penalized by judges much more often for pursuing frivolous litigation, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.

The survey of case filings in two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) and two local jurisdictions (Cook County, Ill., and Philadelphia, Pa.) in 2001 found that businesses were 3.3 to 5.8 times more likely to file lawsuits than were individuals. This comes as businesses and politicians are campaigning to limit citizens' rights to sue over everything from malpractice damages to defective products. By way of comparison, the number of American consumers (281 million) outnumbers the number of businesses in America (7 million) 40 times.

2004-10-11T11:19:00.000-04:00

Doctors pay more despite new law

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/11/loc_doctor.day2.html

When Ohio lawmakers limited the amount of money that patients can collect for medical malpractice, they expected soaring malpractice insurance rates to fall.

Doctors would quit threatening to leave the state. Ohioans would get quality care at more reasonable costs.

But more than a year after the malpractice cap took effect, doctors are paying more for coverage than ever. Obstetrics doctors paid up to $89,000 last year; surgeons, $68,000. Some doctors are paying more than 25 percent of their gross incomes for malpractice insurance, they say.

Insurers say rates won't come down until the new law proves it can stand up in court.

"I cannot overemphasize the critical role the Ohio courts will play in this issue," says Paul Brutus, a top executive with the Medical Assurance Co., one of the state's five major malpractice insurers.

This is why doctors have launched an aggressive campaign to elect Ohio Supreme Court members who they hope will uphold the cap. Four seats on the seven-member court will be decided Nov. 2.

In April 2003, Ohio enacted a $350,000 cap on non-economic damages in most malpractice cases, such as awards for pain and suffering.

Having a damage cap was supposed to reduce insurance rates for doctors by allowing insurers to better predict their potential losses. But depending on their specialty and the insurer involved, doctors in Ohio have seen rate increases ranging from 10 percent to 87 percent or more in 2003 and 2004.

More rate increases are expected for 2005. And all these increases are for doctors who haven't been hit with a verdict or a settlement against them.

The financial sting caused by the rising insurance rates has generated deep, widely shared anger among physicians.

"We have some good legislation that has been passed, yet the rates haven't dropped," says Dr. Molly Katz, a former president of the Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati. "Many physicians are frustrated and impatient."

THE REPORT THAT NAILS SADDAM by David Brooks, NY Times

2004-10-09T09:07:00.000-04:00

October 9, 2004

Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.

They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means.

Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America.

But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.

It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.

France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.

But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.

But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.

We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.

HEALTH INSURER SAYS IT WON'T COVER MISTAKES

2004-10-08T17:23:00.000-04:00

Oct. 7, 2004, 6:08AM

AP MINNEAPOLIS - A Minnesota health insurer says it won't pay the bill when doctors make serious mistakes, apparently the first time an insurer has taken such a hard-line stand against medical errors.

HealthPartners, which has 630,000 customers, said its contracts won't allow the hospital to bill the patient for the unpaid amount.

HealthPartners, Minnesota's third-largest health insurer, said it's not trying to save money but wants to send a message to get doctors to take medical mistakes seriously.

"This is about reinforcing accountability. We want to make sure that no person that experiences one of these events, as terrible and tragic as they are, has to suffer additionally by being billed for them," said Dr. George Isham, HealthPartners medical director.

Some doctors didn't see it that way.
"He can say whatever he wants to say. What it really is about is HealthPartners not paying for medical care," said Dr. Michael Gonzalez-Campoy, president of the Minnesota Medical Association.

"To penalize financially individuals that, in his mind, are making mistakes is something that doesn't happen in any other industry," Gonzalez-Campoy said.

In a 1999 report, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die annually because of medical mistakes. Since then, Minnesota and Connecticut are the only two states that have adopted laws requiring hospitals to report serious mistakes.

IT HAS BEEN MY IMPRESSION THAT THE ENTIRE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE "PENALIZES FINANCIALLY INDIVIDUALS THAT...ARE MAKING MISTAKES."

WHAT I REALLY SAID ABOUT IRAQ - by Paul Bremer

2004-10-08T08:01:00.000-04:00

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.

L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

TOO FEW LAWSUITS?

2004-10-06T10:00:00.000-04:00

A well-balanced article from the LA Times on medical malpractice cases by Amitai Etzioni.

Excerpt: "...the truth is, there aren't too many civil lawsuits; there are too few. Take medical malpractice. The American Medical Assn. warns us that million-dollar jury awards and a flood of frivolous lawsuits are increasing the cost of doctors' insurance and creating a "full-blown liability crisis." But for every patient who sues, there are severalwho should but don't.

A 1990 Harvard University study found that only one out of eight patients who had a valid medical malpractice claim actually filed a suit. The study examined the records of more than 30,000 patients in New York — one of the nation's most litigious states — and discovered that in 1984 nearly 13,000 cases supported by "strong or certain evidence of negligence" were never pursued in court.

The Harvard study found that 3.7% of all patients suffered from complications caused by doctors. Later studies have found that number to be as high as 17.7%. Among the complications cited: the surgical removal of the wrong leg or kidney, brain damage to newborns and transplant procedures that didn't properly match donor and recipient.

In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine found that between 44,000 and 98,000 patients died every year because of mistakes made by doctors and other healthcare personnel."

The doctors are being financially squeezed by reduced payments from Medicare and other insurance, while at the same time their malpractice insurance premiums are rising drastically. Limiting the constitutional rights of injured parties is not the answer to those problems.

MERCK BRACES FOR WAVE OF VIOXX LAWSUITS

2004-10-04T09:52:00.000-04:00

The fallout over removing the drug will not be as bad as the fen-phen case, lawyers say.
The flood of phone calls to plaintiffs' lawyers began soon after pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. Inc. announced Thursday that it would withdraw its painkiller Vioxx from the market because of safety concerns.

But just how bad will the legal fallout get for the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drugmaker?

Merck is bracing for an onslaught of lawsuits, but some analysts - and even some lawyers who represent Vioxx patients - doubt that the company faces anything on the scale of the failed diet-drug combination known as fen-phen.

More than 100,000 lawsuits were filed by patients saying they were injured by fen-phen. The massive litigation has cost Madison, N.J.-based Wyeth $16.6 billion so far.

"Our preliminary estimate is that about 16,632 people may ultimately file a legitimate lawsuit" against Merck over Vioxx, analyst Tim Anderson wrote in a report issued yesterday by the Prudential Equity Group.

"We do not expect the liability to blossom into anything remotely close to fen-phen," he added.

Even before Merck's Vioxx withdrawal announcement, several hundred suits had been filed against the company by users of the arthritis pain medicine, including 175 in New Jersey.

"The number of cases will be growing exponentially," said Andy Birchfield, a Montgomery, Ala., lawyer who has filed 58 Vioxx suits. About half involve the families of people who died from heart attacks or strokes while on the arthritis pain medicine, Birchfield said.

"I think you will have a lot of people now going back and recognizing that, when I had my heart attack or when my mom or dad had a heart attack, they were taking Vioxx," he said. "We have received a tremendous number of calls" during the last two days.

Not 'as big as fen-phen'
Even so, some lawyers do not see Vioxx litigation growing to rival fen-phen, at least in number.

"I don't think it is as big as fen-phen," said Sol H. Weiss, a Philadelphia lawyer representing dozens of Vioxx users, including some who died while on the drug.

Weiss, who also represents fen-phen users, said there would likely be fewer Vioxx cases because the drug leaves the body relatively quickly and does not appear to cause lasting damage unless a patient suffers a heart attack or stroke while taking it.

"Right now, the science looks like if you are going to have a Vioxx event, it will occur while you are on the drug," said Christopher A. Seeger, a New York lawyer who represents more than 300 people who allegedly suffered a Vioxx-related heart attacks or strokes.

Shanin Specter, a Philadelphia lawyer involved in Vioxx cases, said that while there might be a more limited number of cases, the damages collected by successful plaintiffs will likely to be bigger than fen-phen.

"The vast bulk of fen-phen users had less significant injuries than a heart attack or a stroke," Specter said.

The first Vioxx cases could go to trial at the end of this year or early next year. It is too early to estimate the ultimate cost to the company in legal fees and potential damages. However, some lawyers say it could be similar to litigation faced by Bayer AG over its cholesterol-lowering Baycol, which cost that company more than $1 billion.

Merck: Not sure of liability
"It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the company's potential liability," said Merck spokesman Tony Plohoros in a statement yesterday. "A series of highly unfavorable outcomes... could have a material adverse effect on the company's financial position."

Plohoros and other company officials declined to disclose how much money Merck would put in reserve to cover potential losses.

Until Thursday, Merck had consistently defended Vioxx in the face of studies that suggested links with cardiovascular problems.

The company said it was withdrawing Vioxx from the market because a new study had revealed the drug doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients who took the drug daily for more than 18 months.

Despite the study's findings, plaintiffs' and defense lawyers agreed it was still necessary to show a link between the injury and use of the drug.

"There have been cases that we have evaluated and turned down where we could not find the strong connection between Vioxx and the heart attack," Birchfield, the Alabama lawyer, said.

About 20 million people have taken Vioxx since it was introduced in the United States in 1999, the company estimates. The company said it was unclear how many of those people had used the drug regularly for more than 18 months.

Vioxx generated $2.5 billion in worldwide sales a year - 11 percent of the company's total.

SEN. LIEBERMAN ON SEN. KERRY

2004-10-04T08:12:00.000-04:00

MR. RUSSERT [QUESTION TO JOHN KERRY ON MEET THE PRESS]: Joe Lieberman, your Democratic colleague, said it this way, Senator: "I thought that John Kerry’s statement in his announcement address, that he voted for the resolution just to threaten Saddam Hussein, was unbelievable. It was clearly an authorization for President Bush to use force against Saddam. We don’t need a waffler in charge of our country’s future."

KERRY ON IRAQ - JANUARY 04

2004-10-04T07:49:00.000-04:00

John Kerry’s position on Iraq, as told to Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: "You said this about Howard Dean, and this is, I think, at the core of your candidacy against Howard Dean. '...those who believe we are not safer with [Saddam Hussein's] capture don't have the judgment to be President - or the credibility to be elected President.' As we speak this Sunday morning, Senator, do you believe that Howard Dean does not have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president?"

SEN. KERRY: "I think the judgment of a nominee who doesn't understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why, Tim. Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn't just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba'athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq."
(NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/11/04)

MEDIA BIAS?

2004-10-04T07:45:00.000-04:00

The front page of today’s Salem News is a prime example of media bias in reporting "the news". The article should have been on the editorial page, not the front page, in light of the substantial commentary and editorial selectivity of the AP writer. My comments are in capital letters.

Lead paragraph:
"Sen. John Kerry campaigned Sunday for votes in this Democratic stronghold of Ohio [Austintown], where he is still struggling to break ahead [EDITORIAL ASSUMPTION: HE WILL OR SHOULD BREAK AHEAD?] despite massive job losses under President Bush. [AN EDITORIAL COMMENT STRAIGHT FROM THE KERRY PLAYBOOK, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION, AND JUXTAPOSED TO ATTRIBUTE ALL BLAME FOR ANY JOB LOSS ON BUSH.]
Second paragraph:
"Kerry has visited Ohio at least 18 times this year, more than any other state [MAY BE TRUE, BUT IMPLICATION THAT HE REALLY CARES ABOUT US], and he returned to Mahoning County to stake claim to what should be solid support." [POLITICAL ANALYSIS, NOT REPORTING]
Fifteen paragraphs into the story, the author (I won’t call him or her a reporter) quotes the Bush campaign statement that "all of Kerry’s promises will lead to higher taxes for all Americans."
The last paragraph is perhaps the most editorial:
"The latest polls of Ohio voters show Bush and Kerry are in a dead heat."[NEWSDAY COLUMNIST JIMMY BRESLIN HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT POLLS: "ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES THESE NATIONAL POLITICAL POLLS ARE GIVING YOU FACTS IS A GULLIBLE FOOL. ANY EDITORS OF NEWSPAPERS OR TELEVISION NEWS SHOWS WHO USE POLL RESULTS AS A STORY ARE BEYOND GULLIBLE. ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THEY PROFESS TO SERVE, THEY ARE INDOLENT SALESMEN OF FALSEHOODS." http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,5538561.column]

Continuing on with the article:
"Still, Ohio and Florida remain Kerry’s best opportunities to win electoral votes that went to Bush four years ago." [POLITICAL COMMENTARY, NOT REPORTING - PERHAPS A SUBTLE INDICATION OF THE WRITER’S WISH LIST?]

And the final editorial subtleness [local rather than Associated Press] is the placement of the entire article on the front page, rather than with the editorials.

Our schools are teaching our students to read with discernment; the least we as voters can do is the same.

ROBERT H. BORK ON THE POLITICIZATION OF THE COURTS

2004-09-30T11:36:00.000-04:00

Americans increasingly view the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, as political rather than legal institutions. Perhaps a lesson may be learned from another great institution: the press. The political coloration of news reporting is easier for the public to see than is that of judicial decision making, and, as the press has in fact become more political, it has lost legitimacy with large sections of that public. Something of the same thing may be happening to law, more slowly but perhaps as inexorably.

Conservatives, who now, by and large, want neutral judges, may decide to join the game and seek activist judges with conservative views. Should that come to pass, those who have tempted the courts to political judging will have gained nothing for themselves but will have destroyed a great and essential institution. "

(Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law [New York: The Free Press, 1990], 2

The 4-3 decision in the Ohio Supreme Court in Northern Buckeye Educ. Council v Lawson, decided 9/29/04, puts insurance companies ahead of injured parties on the basis of purported "agreement" between the insurer and the insured . Those who decried the Scott-Pontzer case may recognize some judicial imbalance, only in the other direction. Judge Bork's prediction seems to be coming true. Most of us only wish for a level playing field in the courts.

Let's take the political games out of the courtroom, and keep them over at CBS, where they belong...

Mindfulness in the Mainstream

2004-09-27T07:35:00.000-04:00

From bookshelves to the boardroom, 'mindfulness' is a hot spiritual trend.

By Susan Hogan/ AlbachThe Dallas Morning News Sept. 22--

Psychologist Henry Grayson says his book, "Mindful Loving," might not have been a bestseller if his publisher had stuck to a title he'd suggested: "The New Physics of Love."

Three months ago, Body & Soul magazine added the phrase, "The Natural Guide to Mindful Living" to its cover. Mindfulness - living consciously in the moment - has become "just that significant" in American culture, said editor-in-chief Seth Bauer.

Mindfulness books and tapes are frequent bestsellers. Mindfulness training is a staple at seminars, retreats and spas. Hospitals and psychologists are teaching mindfulness as a means to handle everything from chronic illness and addiction to stress and depression.

"There's a sense that what is missing in our lives is a real connection to what we do, what we think, how we relate to people and how we take care of ourselves," said Bauer. "Mindfulness brings all of those things together."

Even corporate America is on board. Some businesses now offer mindfulness workshops to improve concentration, employee relations and ethics. Last year, Spirituality & Health magazine featured an article titled, "Lessons from Mindful Corporations."

Spiritual trend watchers say mindfulness has become to the 2000s what angels were to the 1990s. Maybe bigger, though there may never be a TV show called "Touched by a Mindful Person."

"Most of the time, we're just going, going, going - operating on autopilot," said Gary Stuard of Dallas, a former Buddhist monk who teaches mindfulness meditation at the Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration.

"Mindfulness is about paying attention so you don't go about life absentmindedly." Experts say mindfulness is cultivated. The most common way is by sitting in quiet meditation and observing one's breath. Some people count breaths as they inhale and exhale. Others follow the rising and falling of the breath, or some other variation.

"The point of mindfulness meditation is not to zone out but to tune in," Stuard said. The challenge comes when the mind drifts. Each time that happens, people are told to take notice, then return to their breath without judging their thoughts and emotions as good or bad. "Your breath draws you into the here and now," said Dr. Grayson, the Mindful Loving author. "People are realizing that they spend so much of their lives worrying about the past or thinking about the future that they miss out on the present."

The point is to bring awareness to all aspects of life.

Iraq as the primary battleground against terrorism

2004-09-27T07:31:00.000-04:00

"Zarqawi was barely known outside Jordan until a year and a half ago, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell identified him as a "collaborator and associate" of bin Laden's. In a speech to the United Nations, Powell cited Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad as evidence that Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, had struck an alliance with al Qaeda, a claim that became a major part of the Bush administration's argument for going to war.

"He was and is the leading figure of al Qaeda in Iraq," said a Jordanian security official, who agreed to an interview on the condition of anonymity. "He is now the head of the pyramid of terrorism in Iraq, and he does have the ability and psychology to replace bin Laden."

Dan Blather shoulda known better...

2004-09-26T21:03:00.000-04:00

A website Dan Rather should have viewed before he accepted documents from the man --
http://michael-friedman.com/archives/000139.html - dated February 17, 2004:

Who is Bill Burkett?
Former Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett is the man who claims that Bush and the Texas National Guard cleaned out any damaging information in Bush's National Guard files in 1997.
As Kevin Drum explains in an exhaustively researched post, Burkett has a major axe to grind - he blames Bush for the military denying him medical care during an illness in 1998.
However, there is another reason to be skeptical about Burkett. Burkett has strongly held loony left political views. He has written numerous articles espousing his positions and clearly wishes to sway the electorate. This gives him another obvious motive to lie about Bush's National Guard files.

Word Play

2004-09-26T20:59:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post's Annual Style Invitational Championship asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here is a selection of winners:

Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

Bozone: The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

Cashtration: The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period.

Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease.

Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

Decafalon: The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

Glibido: All talk and no action.

Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

Arachnoleptic fit: The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

Beelzebug: Satan in the form of a mosquito that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

Caterpallor: The color you turn after finding half a grub in the fruit you're eating.

2004-09-22T17:11:00.000-04:00

A followup to OpinonJournal's quote: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

"here's what Colin Powell said to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003:

What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq."

MY COMMENTS: If Al Queda is the "enemy"; if Zarqawi is a major player in Al Queda; if Zarqawi previously operated out of Iraq, and is currently headquartered there; and if Al Queda foreign nationals (foreign to Iraq) are coming to Iraq to engage in the battle; then is there any question that Iraq is actually THE main battlefield with Al Queda terrorism?

2004-09-21T10:09:00.000-04:00

Phildelphia Enquirer Editorial | Tort Reform Weak case for barring
courthouse door

With a personal-injury lawyer as Democrat John Kerry's running mate, it
figures that Republican congressional leaders would suggest spending some of
their precious remaining days this session on lawyer-bashing.

So this week and in coming days, both House and Senate are rehashing
tort-reform issues that are neither new, nor wise.

These measures merely share a common virtue in being able to define the two
political parties' divergent outlook on citizens' access to the courts.

To which the Kerry camp should say, "Bring it on." Rein in class-action
lawsuits? That discredited proposal could get more air-time. But the net
effect of shifting most class-action lawsuits into already overburdened
federal courts would be to delay, or scuttle, legitimate claims. That means
many Americans with consumer, civil rights, environmental and public health
claims would not get their day in court.

Try to pull off such a legislative caper, and you'd want to label it the
"Class Action Fairness Act," right? Yet this proposal is opposed by the very
jurists who already have power to intervene and deal with acknowledged
problems with class-action suits - such as the need to moderate bloated
lawyer settlement fees.

How about another round of debate on the House-approved measures to limit
medical malpractice awards? That would be good for getting out the vote.

After all, doctors coast to coast have so hyped their own legitimate
concerns about rising medical malpractice premiums that they have millions
of Americans confused. These citizens mistakenly are convinced that lawsuits
are the driving factor in rising health-care costs - when they're actually
one of the smallest.

Already this week, the House approved yet another assault on the plaintiff's
bar - the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which would make sanctions against
attorneys who file "frivolous" lawsuits mandatory, rather than at a judge's
discretion.

Courts could even strike the licenses of repeat offenders. (Too bad there's
no similar penalty for repeated, frivolous legislative proposals.)

And then there's that old chestnut of the tort-reform set - "loser pays." It
may rear it's ugly head. This insidious notion that, say, victims of a toxic
chemical spill might have to pay a polluter's multimillion-dollar legal fees
should they lose a case against a major corporation is as repugnant as it is
un-American.

Targeting the plaintiff's bar may serve to undercut a significant source of
funding for Democratic candidates. One day, though, it may dawn on
tort-reform advocates that more voters are clients of lawyers. When everyday
citizens grasp the true effect of these tort-reform proposals - which is to
bar the courthouse doors to them - there will be many more votes to lose,
than gain.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/9694498.htm