Pal Glenn links to yet another John Stossel hatchet job on trial lawyers -- this time ripping John Edwards for being a good trial lawyer.  As usual, he's just dead wrong. 

"Every product you buy has a built-in cost to cover what lawyers make through lawsuits."  No -- lawsuits about defective or unreasonably dangerous products have made those products safer. 

First, let's call it what it is: people -- through their lawyers -- suing wrongdoers for for injuries caused by their misdeeds.  If it's so wrong that some lawyers make a lot of money taking enormous time and financial gambles on behalf of their clients, then I'd like to know how much ABC pays Stossel.  I'll bet he wants for nothing.  On the other hand, is Stossel jealous over how much Edwards has made in his career?

Why do we have airbags, headrests, even seat belts?  Because the auto industry, having been sued for its failure to make their products safer, finally did it.  A sad truth is that corporate america will not do anything unless it is in their financial interest to do so.  "Hit 'em in their pocket books" seems the only way to get them to make positive changes.  Now, that's not why we file lawsuits, but if one consequence of a case is that the defendant will act more responsibly in the future, that's OK with us.  Us, meaning the public.

A good example is water heater litigation, something I've had some direct contact with.  Did you know that the water heater industry has known since the late 1950s that its gas fired water heaters can ignite flammable vapors and cause a fire?  All they had to do to reduce the potential of this catastrophic occurence 90% would have been to sell their water heaters with an 18 inch high stand.  But that cost too much, so they slapped a 35 cent label on their water heaters, which they knew did not effectively warn the public, and continued to make gazillions of dollars.  All the while, a person a day on average was being burned or killed from a water heater fire.

In other words, they made a financial decision to absorb the costs from successful personal injury cases arising out of their defective water heaters, and did so for decades.  It was cheaper than making their product safer.  Only through the efforts of trial lawyers have they now finally developed new technology to eliminate the threat.

"But paying higher prices is not the biggest effect of what the lawyers do. What may be worse is what the fear of lawsuits do to medical care and innovation."  I think this is just crap.  I tell my doctor friends that all they have to do is their best.  Just like me, if they screw up, they might actually have to take responsibility for their actions.  How unfair!  And frankly, unless it's a pretty bad screw-up, they probably won't get sued anyway.

"Everybody is in mortal fear of being sued."  Good propaganda, but if it's true, it means we've got a lot of really lousy doctors out there.  I'll just say what I have said on this blog for the last year and a half: no decent lawyer will file a medical malpractice lawsuit unless he's damn sure he's got a case.  Example: I just reviewed a possible case involving a psychiatric hospital.  Seems the guy checked himself in because he was suicidal, and they zapped him with all sorts of central nervous system depressors, as well as 100mg of MS Contin [an opiate], twice a day.  Family reported him to be acting like a zombie.  After three days, he was found dead.  Cause of death: opiate toxicity.  The hospital proably killed the guy, but the consultant who reviewed it for us wasn't terribly excited about who was negligent and how.  So we turned down the case, because it wasn't clear cut enough. 

To invest three to five years and tens [or hundreds] of thousands of our dollars, it better be clear negligence, clear causation, and catastrophic damages.  Otherwise, it's too big a gamble.  And I would bet my bottom dollar that most, if not all, trial lawyers feel the same way.

Stossel plays cute, saying first that most doctors are being sued [note the tense] and then saying that 76% of U.S. obstetricians have been sued.  The one is not supported by the other.  Just because I may have been sued in the past doesn't mean that I am one of those lawyers who are being sued currently.   In other words, it's a false or misleading statistic.

Then Stossel takes Edwards to task for a cerebral palsy case he won.  Now, it's very hard to make a case that labor and delivery caused birth injury.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists will have us believe it never happens.  But it does.  I represented a little boy who was profoundly impaired becuase the idiot OB/GYN waited hours before a C-Section, when he should have known the baby was in serious trouble.  In other words, he was reluctant to do what Stossel syas most OB/GYNs do more often: C-Sections. 

I had an expert who did 90% of his work for the defense supporting me completely.  I never even had to disclose him to my opponents, because the case settled fairly early in the proceedings.  Even so, it still took three years and close to $20,000 to get there, and because the doctor had filed for bankruptcy, this child, who was going to require care that will cost $18 million over his lifetime, got much much less, limited to only the doctor's relatively low insurance coverage.  There's justice for you.  And if Stossel had his way, I guess we wouldn't even have been able to do that much for that poor child.

Stossel blames trial lawyers when hospitals cover up malpractice by failing to report it.  Shouldn't he be castigating those institutions for doing the Watergate thing?  For failing to insist that its doctors and staff perform medical services at least reasonably?  Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their misdeeds?

I'm fine with the concept of personal responsibility.  But consistency demands that we hold doctors, manufacturers, and hospitals responsible when their negligence causes injury.

Stossel says that "this kind of fear doesn't make Americans safer."  No, but the people, through their lawyers, holding manufacturers, doctors and others responsible for their negligence or defective products has made us safer. 

Oh and by the way, when the conservatives bitch about big media being liberal, take a look at Stossel and his bully pulpit.  He's touting the straight Republican tort reform -- and anti-Deocratic ticket -- line.

John Stossel: give me a break.

I don't care where you are on the ideological landscape.  You've got to check this out.   It's a hoot!

In the Techno-Geek category, here's a cautionary tale.

CompUSA was selling a DVD-Recorder for what seemed to be a very good price -- $199, after rebate. It was the Lite-On, model LVW-5001. I took a chance and bought one. I spent $50 extra [25% of the purchase price, mind you] to buy what the CompUSA folks said was a replacement policy. That is, if it breaks within the 2 year period, they will replace it with the same or like model.

I took it home and spent an hour putting it into my TV system. Dead on arrival.

Next day, I took it back. They said they had 3 in stock, but when they went to get a replacement, it turned out that 2 were also defective, and the only other one was a refurbished model. Did I ask for my money back? Did I run screaming from the store? No, and more fool I. I took the refurb.

This one worked, but had two funny characteristics. One, it overheated and failed on may functions. Checking the relevant message board, I found that thse models, unbelievably, do not have either a cooling fan or a heat sink! I also found that the color balance on recorded material was off. I had to adjust my hue and color depth to get a decent picture.

I went into the CompUSA store a week later, described the problems, and was advised to wait a couple of weeks, and then use my warranty plan to get a replacement. Because the 5001 was discontinued, I would get bumped up to the next Lite-On model, the 5005. OK.

I talked to the Tech Support gal a week later, just before my 14 day return window expired. She said to wait a week and then come in and get the replacement. OK.

Last Saturday, I unhooked the sumbitch and took it in. After waiting 45 minutes, I had the new model. And a cash register that said I owed them an additional $218! Turns out the replacement plan only applies my purchase price toward another unit, if that unit is more expensive. It appeared irrelevant that I had a deal with the Tech Suppor gal; besides, she denied having the arrangement with me to replace the 5001 with the 5005. I threw a fit, and after 15 more minutes, they refunded my money. So, I got my money back, but I've got a hole where a DVD-recorder ought to be.

Moral: beware of these replacement plans. They usually do not provide what the sales people say that they provide. Also, beware the bait and switch, because that's what I think was happening. They make the deal with you, and then make you wait, and then finally give you the new unit, and...surprise, it's more money! I'll not do business as CompUSA again, unfortunately.

I don't know Bill Hobbs, but his comment on my earlier post about the Bredesen sellout of Tennessee's workers is, shall we say, misguided. He is also insulting, by headlining the comment "A Lawyer's Whine." For the record, I'm not whining: I'm pissed! He says:

Cutting the high cost of worker's comp insurance in Tennessee will mean increased job creation. More jobs is good. More money flowing into trial lawyers's pockets doesn't create more jobs, just wealthier trial lawyers.

First, no worker's compensation carrier has said that it will cut the cost of comp insurance contingent upon passage of this legislation. History teaches us that that carrot is always dangled in front of us, and then it's yanked away when we lose interest, down the line. So, I have no doubts that the cost of comp premiums will go UP, and not down.

Second, I have been shown no data that the cost of comp coverage is costing Tennessee jobs. All I have seen is the unsupported, bald assertion made by the Bredesen Administration. Having worked with comp for 12 years, I can tell anyone willing to listen that Tennessee's benefits prior to this legislation were quite middle of the road, contrary to the line put out by the proponents of the change.

Third, where does Hobbs get off with the nonsense about "wealthier trial lawyers?" If I was "wealthy," I wouldn't care about the legislation, and I damn sure wouldn't handle worker's compensation cases. By statute, the maximum fee a lawyer may recover for representing a worker's compensation claimant is 20% of the recovery. Most worker's compensation claims are resolved for under $20,000. Thus, I will work a comp case for -- sometimes -- years, and maybe get a fee of $4,000. And don't forget that you sometimes lose. I represented the nicest fellow in the world for 9 1/2 YEARS, tried the case, and the judge ruled against us. You've got to factor in the losses and no recovery claims [i.e., those where there is no permanent injury and therefore no fee], which these knee-jerk tort reformers fail to account for.

Fourth, Hobbs may be right about a 40% cut in revenue. But he fails to understand how the drop comes about, and what it really means. There will likely be a cut in claims made, because the new law reduces potential comp recoveries so low that many lawyers will not be able to afford to take the case. Put another way, Joe Lawyer is not going to take on a case if he's going to lose money on it even if he wins the case! So, there is a two-fold agenda at work here: (1) Big Insurance and the Chambers of Commerce get rid of those pesky employees who had the bad taste to get hurt on the job, and (2) those trial lawyers who operate at or near the profitability line may be forced out of business, which means even fewer claims to worry about. At bottom, this legislation repesents a very cynical approach to protecting our citizenry. Remember, an employee hurt on the job may make a comp claim, and ONLY a comp claim, against his employer. It's the exclusive remedy. The translation of all this, for the uninitiated, is: Bend over, grab your ankles, and....

What really gets me and those like me is that our Governor, who ran a campaign designed to engender trial lawyer and regular folks support, just spat in our faces -- and our clients as well -- by forcing this legislation down our throats. Hobbs's argument is a mirage; it looks real good till you stare closely at it. Then it dissolves.

Spam sucks. While I'm not in the league of some friends of mine [Read Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds], I'm getting 30-40 pure crap emails per day. It seems like I get one every 5 minutes or so. What a pain.

Speaking of Glenn, he's a real sweetheart. He's posted an ad for my firm's web site on his blog ads. This is my great experiment: can an Internet presence generate new cases for a predominantly plaitiff's personal injury firm? Five years ago, I was convinced that the answer was "No." Now, I'm not sure. I figured that the exposure from the mega-hits that Glenn gets is one not terribly scientific way of finding out. If I get hits on the firm's site, then I'll know.

The verdict so far? Not great. I've had like 1 hit all day. Well, I'll give it time. Life is long....

Apparently I'm not the only one who is scratching his head at the lack of attention given to Al Gore's speech yesterday. I watched most of it on C-Span last night. Boy, he was pissed. And after actually listening to what he said, as opposed, apparently, to folks like these, he made good sense.

Has not our credibility in the eyes of the world suffered due to the prisoner abuse scandal? Aren't the torture tactics used on these prisoners reminiscent of Stalinist gulags and the Gestapo? Aren't we, as Americans, sickened and disgusted by the obvious conclusion that torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is a top-down policy of this Administration, and not the aberrant acts of "a few bad apples"? Don't we expect reasonable and humane treatment of our prisoners, just as we would expect the same if our people are taken prisoner by an enemy in the future?
I'm just as mad as Gore was.

Look, I'd like to believe that what happened in the Iraq prison and what may be happening in Guantanamo is off the reservation, and that the Bush Administration did not intend to treat our prisoners this way. But then I look at reports that the president's own Office of Legal Counsel has called the prisoner treatment provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete," and that strikes me as a rationale for treating prisoners the way I would expect the KGB or the Nazis to have done. As Wilford Brimley's character said in the movie Absence of Malice, "It ain't legal, and by God, it ain't right!"

Yeah, it IS politics, because Bush is running for office, and so is his opponent. But my rant has nothing to do with politics. We're Americans. We don't do the things that we apparently ARE doing, as dictated by policy from the White House. We have always seen ourselves as the guys in the white hats. This policy changes that for a lot of people.

Frankly, it was refreshing to see a professional politician speak his own mind, without thinking too much of the consequences. If Gore had done stuff like this 3 1/2 years ago, he'd be president now.

In my absence, Tennessee's Democratic governor, whom all us trial lawyers supported, sold us down the river, by pushing forward a worker's compensation "reform" package that is execrable, to say the least. To find out how I really feel, check out my proto-blog post on my new web site, with links.

I've been off the radar screen for a while now. Lately, I can blame my absence on getting my firm's new web site up and running. The only thing I've had real trouble with is figuring out how to update the copyright and date last modified items in the footer. The site is written in Dreamweaver. Any mavens want to give me a hand and tell me how to change that?

I just got a cool email from my mother, forwarding one of Dennis Miller's rants, this time on Palestinians. It's online here, and here, but I've got to put it in here, 'cause it's great:

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention.

Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David.

But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and he world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . ooh that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

While I often disagree with Miller, he's dead right here. What's interesting is that he seems to have changed positions, in that he ranted about the Middle East back in May 2002, concluding that "if I can forgive that motherfucker Sinbad for beating me on Star Search, than Israel and Palestine can certainly get their shit together." He also had some wicked one-liners. Example: "On the other side of the sandbags, you have Ariel Sharon. Now, Ariel Sharon has never been a guy who knows verses 3 through 5 of 'Kumbaya.' But this recent intifada has hardened him like a dead guy on Viagra."

Miller's May 2002 proposal for the Palestinians:

Give the Palestinians CASINOS! It worked here in the U.S. for our Native Americans. Look, all religion has done is to jump-start a grudge war over it's individual beliefs and at least in casinos everyone can get along, have a few drinks, play a little Black Jack and forget their problems. You don't even have to build a lot of new buildings because they already have a thousand-year-old Holy Land theme going on over there. "C'mon, seven. Baby Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!"

He must be wise, because I think casinos are the way to solve a lot of problems, including Tennessee's ongoing fiscal woes.

From Anne...Straight From the Hip comes a great link to an extraordinary photo journal of a motorcycle trip through present-day Chernobyl, now a ghost town, taken by a woman from Ukraine who writes great English, and has lots more guts than me. Apparently, this is her idea of fun. Regardless of motive, it is a powerful set of photos, not to be missed. Check it out.

At some point on our glorious and expensive dive vacation, Glenn speculated that Donald Trump was deliberately looking for a lot of positive exposure with "The Apprentice" because his business must be in trouble. I don't know how he does it, but Glenn is right again [transcribed from the NPR audio broadcast]:

Real estate titan Donald Trump, known as a consummate dealmaker, desperately needs a deal to avoid losing his gambling empire to bankruptcy. . . . Donald Trump needs $400 million, and he needs it fast.

I heard on NBC that he owns half the show and gets $375,000 per episode, but I don't think he'll be getting bailed out from "The Apprentice." According to the radio report, he is trying to restructure his debt, which will involve him having to give up control of the casino hotels business.

UPDATE: As usual, I'm behind the times. USA Today reported on Trump's gambling operations' dreadful performance 3 weeks ago.

Musicians? We don't need no stinkin' musicians!

It's official: Bush has changed his running mate! Someone named Orwell....

And the nostalgia goes on. Glenn's reader Scott Kent thought my 1979 Etc. photo made me look like Pete Townshend, and Glenn invoked St. Keith Moon. Funnily enough, my drum teacher, Doug Klein told me around that time that I played like Keith Moon.

What I didn't know was that -- I think -- he meant my out of control over the top style. Over time, I have, hopefully, developed a more tasteful style. It's not the years, it's the mileage.

God, I loved those Rainbow, Robin Williams, Mork and Mindy suspenders....

Last week, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds outed an earlier me, circa 1980. Yes, he took the photo, it was outside my parents' house in Knoxville, and if I look sombre, it's because I was 24 hours post my first root canal. Turn about being fair play, here's a VERY young looking Glenn, also from the halcyon days of Etc. [the band]. Ah, we used to draw a real crowd in those days. Note the woman center background. She's apparently about to fall asleep. Must have been during a break?

Mary Littleton at the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association was kind enough to send me a copy of The General Assmebly's Joint Tort Reform Subcommittee Report, which I can't find online. However, the salient conclusions are quoted as follows:

1. The Committee finds that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are and have been a consideration in the decisions of physicians to continue their practice or maintain the same level and type of services. However, there was no evidence that access is being eopardized throughout the state, tlut there was some evidence that specialties in rural areas have been impacted (thought the degree was uncertain and unquantifiable) and might tend to be adversely impacted first.

2. The Committee finds that Tennessee does not really regulate medical malpractice insurance premiums, unlike some other states, but the committee was not able to determine from the limited testimony what the impact on premium regulation would have on premium stability or availability of coverage.

3. The committee has determined that medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians have increased in the last two or three years at rates greater than in previous years. However, it cannot at this point in time reach any definitive conclusions as to the cause of those increases without further information.

4. The committee acknowledges that there is evidence tending to show a correlation between the imposition of limitations on damages in medical malpractice cases and stability in medical malpractice insurance premiums, but the committee also finds that the correlation was not absolute or quantifiable and that other reforms and factors may contribute more directly and timely to market stability.

5. No testimony was provided by any presenters regarding the need for or the effect of any kind of reforms other than a limitation on damages, some of which other reforms Tennessee has already adopted into law. The committee desires to have more information on how these other reforms are working in other states and what combination of factors or reforms may be keeping medical malpractice insurance costs stable in those states with the greatest premium stability.

6. The committee desires to have more detailed claim and court case information reported and would recommend for passage legislation that would provide the committee with a clearer picture of the litigation and claim trends in Tennessee, the impact of litigation (and claims) on medical malprac;tice insurance premiums, and those actions that might best lead to premium stability.

In other words, there was no proof submitted to the Joint Committee to justify tort "reform" whatsoever. Quite interestingly, the various witnesses before this Joint Committee were ALL from the hospital, doctor and insurance (i.e., pro tort limitation) side of the issue.
Guess what? The emperor has no clothes!

"The next big challenge is to return pieces of Mars to Earth," says Jim Garvin, a Mars scientist at NASA. So let's pile some astronauts in a ship and go GET them! We have the technological capability right now, but do we have the will?

Looks like she blew it....

I just got a cold call from the Republican National Congressional Committee. Apparently, they got the idea that I'm a Republican, and gave me the honor of listening to a tape recorded message from some congressman exhorting me to join an advisory council [read: give money]. Here's the pertinent part of the message, verbatim:

As a former business owner, I understand the crippling effects overtaxation, government regulation, and red tape has on your business. That's why I'm asking you to serve as an honorary chairman of the Business Advisory Council, an organization of America's top business leaders that was formed in 1995. As an honorary chairman, you'll have the opportunity to meet with and provide input to members of Congress, business experts, and the movers and shakers in Washington at periodical [sic] meetings in the nation's capital. And I'll be sending you an invitaiton to join me, as my honored guest, at the annual black tie President's dinner. It is always the event of the year in D.C.

Then a young woman came on the line and this colloquoy took place:

HER: The latest numbers do show that the President's economic plan is starting to take effect.
ME: Could have fooled me.
HER: Oh, you don't think it's starting to take effect, sir?
ME: Nope.
HER: I'm sorry [pause]. So I take it you are not interested in this call.
ME: Probably not, no.

Hee, hee. So where did they get MY name, anyway?

Anybody else get their message? Money buys access, access buys influence. And by the way, the black tie dinner referred to? I lived in D.C for 9 years and I've never heard of it.

UPDATE: It's all a telemarketing scheme. And, the RNCC/NRCC has been busted before for illegal contributions from foreign nationals. And, "NBC’s Lisa Myers recently not[ed] that awardees 'have included a convicted sex offender and a maker of drug paraphernalia....' "

ANOTHER UPDATE: It wasn't some congressman. Apparently the recorded voice was NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds. This "Business Advisory Council" is a real thing, albeit a fundraising device.

Glenn reports that Hugh Hewitt has given John Edwards a golden opportunity:

Memo to John Edwards and his campaign staff: I know you aren't in the habit of sitting down with center-right radio hosts, even those with a long PBS resume, but my radio program is open to you, each and every day between now and March 2, for all three hours if you'd like. It is aired in drive time in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, the Inland Empire and Sacramento as well as in numerous other Super Tuesday markets, and word has it you are low on cash. Send me an e-mail at hhewitt@hughhewitt.com, and I'd be glad to have you as my co-host for the next ten broadcast days. Why? Just because I like a good race.

Hewitt broadcasts in several at-play states: Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland and Cinncy. I agreed with Glenn that Edwards would be crazy not to grab hold of that kind of free publicity, especially in the morning drive time. I even sent an email to Edwards's national office as well as all his field offices, urging them to get the candidate on the air with Hewitt soonest. No response, either to me or apparently to Hewitt. Why?

Clearly, Kerry is getting the bulk of the free media coverage, especially with him hitting the Vietnam and veteran issues hard. A canny short term strategy to keep Edwards out of the spotlight, but in the long term, I think the last successful presidential candidate who ran primarily as a war hero was Eisenhower. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Kerry is no Eisenhower.

Meanwhile what flummoxes me is this perception that Kerry is more electible than Edwards. Again, why? Perception is everything, in the stock market and in national politics. Kerry inevitably must be perceived as a northeastern liberal Kennedy democrat. I don't care how many hare-brained electoral strategies the pundits come up with, the presidential election for the democratic candidate comes down to whether he can win at least one state in the south. I simply don't believe that Kerry can do it.

Edwards, on the other hand, is demonstrably southern. He is a better campaigner than Kerry, who is stiff and stand-offish, to my eyes. It is more likely that Edwards is going to take one or more southern states than Kerry. In the bedrock democratic states, the democratic nominee, whoever he is, is going to win. It's the fringe states, and the fringe voters [independents, libertarians, etc.], who are going to make the difference for either candidate. My sense is that if Kerry is the nominee, those on the fence are going to analyze it like this: Kerry flip flops, he might be too liberal for my taste, we are in the middle of a war situation, and I don't want to take the chance on changing horses in the middle of the stream. I'll vote for the democratic nominee, probably, whoever he is, simply because I think Bush is bad for the country, both domestically and in foreign policy. But I feel in my gut that Edwards will be competitive, while Kerry will probably lose handily to Bush.

What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard.

What's interesting is that they have not even paid attention to Edwards. That's because the only thing they can say about him is that he used to be a very good trial lawyer who represented regular people. If Edwards gets the nomination, I HOPE that the republicans try that argument. I think they'll get their collective head handed to them. The bottom line, however, is that unless Edwards does something significant, like get on Hewitt's morning drive time show in at least 3 at play markets, then it'll be tough for him to catch up, much less win.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds appears perturbed that the organizers of the Boston Democratic National Convention are considering establishing a "free speech zone" in a disadvantageous location. Well, they just learned it from the Bushies:

The dissidents were confined to a specific site - a "protest zone" or "First Amendment zone," depending on one's interpretation - across the street.

Besides, Mr. Bush couldn't have seen the crowd, or the signs, even if he had ducked out of the $1,000-a-plate festivities taking place inside the hall and strolled to one of the east-facing windows for a gander.

That's because a wall of KAT buses and Knoxville fire engines had been strategically positioned outside, completely surrounding the Henley Street side of the building. His only view of the immediate area would have been end-to-end panels of orange, blue and red sheet metal.

I would agree that in each case, we see a "crushing of dissent." But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to castigate one, then we should castigate both.

War of words: Ann Coulter -- she's cute and smart, but nuts -- lambasted Democrats and former Senator Max Cleland for questioning Bush II's National Guard Service. Molly Ivins took gleeful exception to Coulter's remarks:

But for sheer, vicious nastiness, no one cam compete with Ann Coulter, whose latest error-riddled effusion is an attack on former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who has been critical of the Bush administration. Apparently in an effort to make George W.'s incomplete in the National Guard look better, Coulter wrote a column distributed by the Heritage Foundation saying Cleland, a triple amputee, had showed "no bravery" in Vietnam, "didn't give his limbs for his country," is not a war hero. My favorite sentence is, "Luckily for Cleland ... he happened (to lose his limbs) while in Vietnam," her point being that if he had been injured at Fort Dix, he wouldn't be a hero.

He also wouldn't have been under enemy fire at Fort Dix. She says he lost his legs in "a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends." Actually, Cleland lost his limbs when a grenade detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.

As for not being a war hero, Cleland earned the Silver Star in a separate incident just four days before he was injured. The citation reads, "during heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland disregarded his own safety, exposed himself to rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted them in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United Sates Army."

How lucky for Cleland ...

Not knowing when to shut up, Coulter responds, quoting Jill Zuckman in the Boston Globe:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

And, here's the pot calling the kettle black: "They [liberals] ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte."

Who's right and who's wrong? Probably both are both, somewhat. Context, accuracy of quotation, and spin are key in these disputes. However, Coulter loses credibility with me, at least, in that she seems to think I'm a traitor.... ["Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason"] [click "Next Page 9 times to get to the quote].

The sharks are starting to feed on themselves:

For example, Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter, had this to say on Sunday in opinionjournal.com about Mr. Bush's "Meet the Press" interview: "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse."

George Will, the conservative columnist, wrote in his syndicated column on Sunday, "It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the `waste' that he has included and that they have hitherto funded."

While most conservatives remain squarely behind Mr. Bush, the united front has not been quite as united.

Columnists like Robert Novak, conservative television hosts like Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and others on local radio and the Internet have raised questions about Mr. Bush.

"It's a critical departure," said J. David Hoeveler, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who said last week that he believed that his local conservative radio host, Charlie Sykes, had begun sounding less exuberant about Mr. Bush. "Generally it's been whole-heartedly Republican," Mr. Hoeveler said of the tenor of the conservative media. "It would suggest that those who would call themselves Republicans are quite possibly breaking ranks."

This dovetails with a lot of on-the-street evidence I've seen that even bedrock Republicans want Bush out of the White House.

Bush: we don't need your stinkin' jobs!

[No] Tennis, anyone?

I seem to have misunderstood the results from last week's primaries.

According to a CBS-supported campaign blog, Edwards beats Elvis in Memphis: "There was also an Elvis impersonator that was trying to attract a lot of attention, but much to his dismay, the focus this morning was on Edwards and not Elvis." It also reports that Edwards is in the best financial shape it's been in, and that he "will fight to the very end." Scroll down about 3/4 of the way to see the Edwards blog.

It looks like the races in Virginia and Tennessee are tightening, albeit probably too late for Edwards. CBS reports that

Kerry led an American Research Group poll of 600 Tennessee voters by 32 percent to Edwards 21 percent and Clark's 20 percent. Dean had 8 percent.

In Virginia, an ARG survey of 600 voters had 35 percent for Kerry, 22 percent for Edwards and 17 percent for Clark. Dean was at 9 percent.

Yesterday, it was 45-21 Kerry in Tennessee. What this shows is the unreliability of small sample polling, but even more dangerously, the tremendous effect the polls have on voter preferences/turnout. It's rainy here in Knoxville. Does that mean a light turnout, which probably doesn't help Edwards?

Edwards doesn't have to win in Tennessee and Virginia to carry on. This assertion was confirmed to me yesterday by an Edwards campaign worker, who advised that the Edwards campaign still had plenty of money.

OK, who's put up this anti-Kerry blog? I'm betting it's not a democrat....

Yep, it's true; I am related to Trevor Rabin. Also true that I am related, by marriage to the Kennedys [Rory married my cousin Mark Bailey; that was the wedding that didn't happen when JFK Jr. augered in]. Here's an interesting musical family tree for Trevor. I was hoping to find my name in there, as I play drums, but alas, it was not to be; I never played with T.R. [sigh]. Since leaving Yes about 10 years ago, Trevor has become one of the big movie music guys. For a graphic scroll of the movies he's scored, check this out [also, an annoying loop comes along with it]. Here's a refreshingly in-depth interview with Trevor from 2002, which details his movie work. Interestingly, his son, Ryan, is a working drummer in L.A.

I went to see John Edwards Friday night here in Knoxville. Overflow crowd. Standard stump speech, which is to say, awfully good. I tried to get Glenn Instapundit Reynolds to go with me, and even tried to get the candidate for an Instapundit bloggerview [I just made that up; pretty good, huh?], but we couldn't get it set up on short notice. Glenn then decided to veg out instead.

What I like about Edwards is (a) his message, which promotes hope for the future and the democratic concept of helping those that need a helping hand; (b) his positioning, which is as close to Clinton 1992 as any candidate in this race; and (c) his electibility, which is the strongest in the field. I also think it's cool that he plays Creedence Clearwater Revival/John Fogerty out of his tour bus.

Unfortunately, the tracking numbers don't look good for Edwards, who could really use a win here in Tennessee or in Virginia. On the other hand, Edwards has been endorsed by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees, 500,000 strong.

Interestingly, it's all perception. In terms of delegate count, Kerry has about 400, and Edwards has 116:

Going into Maine's caucuses, Kerry had captured 409 delegates, compared with 174 for Dean, 116 for Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, 82 for retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, 12 for New York civil rights activist Al Sharpton and two for Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,161 delegates

Not an insurmountable lead, especially with 75% of the delegates yet to be chosen. Question: why is the media portraying this as a done deal for Kerry? Don't they know that when they say it, that makes it true? And, it doesn't make sense; it's a much better story if the nomination continues to be contested. Example: "Each needs a primary victory in Virginia or in neighboring Tennessee to slow the Kerry juggernaut, reports CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen. " Since when is Joie Chen the last word on electoral politics?

This is kinda cool. Check out the underwater conditions in Bonaire with their constantly updated underwater Webcam. They've got other webcams around the island, too.

Raucous caucus: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby polls it as Kerry: 25%, Dean: 22%, Edwards: 21% and Gephardt: 18% Undecided: 9%. Meanwhile, Kucinich and Edwards have agreed that if either looks to get less than 15%, they will throw their votes to the other. Dean, in a shameless Clinton 1992 ripoff, is calling himself the "ultimate comeback kid." How silly: Dean has faced none of the adversity Clinton faced in the days leading up to New Hampshire in 1992. All that has happened to Dean is that the Iowa voters are recognizing that (a) he is unlikely, at best, to win a general election against Bush, and (b) the one candidate in a realistic position to take some of the South is Edwards. This, of course, is why Edwards is surging. In fact, if any one candidate resembles the Clinton 1992 model, it would be Edwards, with his modest background and his geographic advantages.

In related news, Kerry is practicing from the get negative and then apologize school. I cry foul -- you can't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, anybody else think that Kerry is looking more and more like a basset hound?

Not to toot my own horn [you are anyway! -- ed.], I modestly note that I was an early booster of Edwards.

UPDATE: Dean apparently is desparate. His wife, who previously had better things to do, came "halfway across the country" to kiss him publicly. Sounds to me like Howard thinks Iowa is off the beaten path. NOT the way to encourage voters....

Ugh. I just looked at my previous post from 1/9. The basketball vols are a terror at home, but can't hit the side of a barn on the road. On the other hand, they have had he bad luck to run into two teams -- South Carolina and Florida -- that shot lights out against the Vols. Do we have a team? Tomorrow tells the tale, when Tennessee goes up against Kentucky in Knoxville.

On the brighter side, it looks like Tennessee may have a basketball team this year. These guys, who are playing ball with each other for the first time, look like they're veterans. And, they beat Georgia handily. Georgia just recently beat the number 3 team in the country, Georgia Tech.

The $64 question is whether the B-Ball Vols can play consistently as well against what must be one of the toughest conference schedules ever: Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc. Whew.

Stay tuned.

As anyone who knows me will confirm, I am a big Tennessee football fan. I'm the one who caught the Flu -- and then pneumonia -- because I had to sit in the rain to see Tennessee whip Ohio State in the 1996 Citrus Bowl [driving rain that day, ugh]. I'm the one who has sat through the losses and the wins since 1970. I have been to the top of the mountain, and to the depths of the valley with my Volunteers. Being something of a student of this team through the years, I feel mildly qualified to comment on the team's status now, with the 2003 campaign ending not like a lion, but like a lamb.

The uninitiated must understand that most Tennessee fans are (a) educated as to the game, (b) vociferous in their desire to achieve the pinnacle of college football, and (c) not afraid to let anyone know what they think. I'm like that. So it will come as no shock to learn that I am, to say the least, dissatisfied with where the football program is, and has been, since we achieved the ultimate [national championship] in 1998. Evidence of unacceptable results from the 2003 season is found here , here, and here, as well as the "flop" in the Peach Bowl last week, linked above. Even when we did win, it felt like we lost. Evidence: needing overtime to beat an eventual 5-7 South Carolina, or 5 overtimes to beat an outmanned and outmatched 4-9 Alabama.

OFFENSE: our offensive production has declined every year since the 1998 season. The offense often doesn't know who's supposed to be on the field at a given moment. Penalties are endemic. We are not playing our best personnel. Playcalling is predictable and stale. We appear to be afraid to throw the ball downfield, between the zone. Execution is glaringly inconsistent. In the past, when we had a good play, we, well, expected it. Now, when we have a good play, we breathe a sigh of relief because a minor miracle has occurred to allow us the good fortune. We no longer know inherently how to do what it takes to win. If we get behind, we more often than not lose the game. If we get several touchdowns behind, as against Georgia, we quit. And anybody who sat through the debacle of the Tennessee-Georgia second half knows that I do not overstate the case. In fact, I read published reports from the coaches that they in fact intentionally quit, so as not to get players injured [I couldn't find links]. What message does that send your players, when the COACHES give it up -- and admit it -- with a quarter and a half remaining in the game?

I refuse to believe, as the pundits will declare, that these shortcomings are a result of a lack of talent. Aside from last year's class, Tennessee has had top 5 recruiting classes every year at least over the last 7 or 8 years. I make the assumption therefore that our talent is at least as good as any other top program in the country. It is at least as good as USC's or LSU's talent.

If our lack of success is not as a result of lack of raw talent, then where does the blame lay? I refuse to blame the players, who have come here to learn how to win at the highest level. The blame must fall at the feet of the coaches, who have taken the Manning years, and the record-setting Tee Martin offense, and run it into the ground, through lack of player development, lack of adequate preparation lack of creative game planning, lack of motivation to execute, and ultimately, lack of success at the only goal meaningful: the winning of championships. Let's look just at a couple of offensive areas as examples.

Quarterback: Casey Clausen should have been a Heisman candidate -- or at least Maxwell Trophy. He's got the talent and the intelligence to have exceeded even Peyton Manning at the quarterback position. Why did he not? He wasn't developed properly. I truly believe that if Clausen had been brough along by David Cutcliffe instead of Randy Sanders, Clausen would have broken all the reocrds in the book, and would be a top round draft pick for the NFL. As it is, it will be lucky if he gets drafted at all.

Instead of decrying Clausen's lack of development by his coach [Randy Sanders], the pundits started making up statistics to make him look good, like the one early this season when it was crowed that Clausen was undefeated in regular season games on the road. Never heard that one before. Anyway, it didn't last, because we promptly lost at Auburn, despite Clausen's heroic effort. It was a stupid statistic, especially in light of our embarassment in the 2001 SEC championship to LSU, and expecially in the 2003 Peach Bowl loss to Maryland, 30-3.

Offensive Line: Tennessee has long been known as a team that turns out top offensive linemen by the bushel. Phillip Fulmer is a linemen and former line coach. We have top blue chip talent in the offensive line. Why then can't those guys make a hole for a running game? Answer: coaching. The offensive coaches took outstanding potential, and turned out mediocre linemen. Replacing the offensive line coach after the 2002 season did little or no good; we had less than 50 yards rushing in the last game.

Of course, one has to consider the running backs, as well. We are loaded with talent, with Cedric Houston, Jabari Davis [who clearly gained a step in 2003], Gerald Riggs, Corey Larkins and Derek Tinsley. Each has a different style, and none was successful rushing the football this year. Why? Neither they nor their linemen have been developed to pay at the high level demanded of them by the Tennessee football community. It's not their fault; it's the coaches' fault.

Does anyone honestly believe Jay Graham was such a better back than these kids currently on the roster. I don't. I thought Graham, who played in the mid 1990s, was a fine back, but he benefited from better training as a running back, as well as his linemen being better trained. Remember, we're the team that, in the 1996 Citrus Bowl, made Graham the showcase back, instead of an outplayed Eddie George. Fast forward to January 2, 2004, when the unknown backs from the unranked Clemson looked like stars, while our running backs looked like wimps. What's the difference? Coaching.

DEFENSE: I don't comment a lot on defense, because I think John Chavis is one of the best 5 defensive coordinators in football today. I have for years had a problem with our philosophy of secondary coverage, which emphasizes playing off the receiver instead of looking for the ball. This style of play probably explains why Tennessee does not intercept the ball more often.

In general, however, the defense over the last several years has made more with less than any defense I can remember. Especially 2002. That year, the defense literally was decimated with injuries. Yet, if you take away opponents' scores caused by offensive miscues, and look solely at scores allowed by the defense, I believe the Tennessee defense led the nation in least amount of points scored. Game in and game out, the defense plays well enough for us to win; it's the offense that blows it. A notable execption is the win at Miami this season, 10-6. Again, offensive production was minimal, but the defense played its heart out, and held the 'Canes to only two field goals. Essentially, we won in spite of our offense, and because of our defense.

So what's answer? Obviously -- at least to this observer -- a revamping of the offensive coaching staff is in order, nay, desperately needed. Sure, we went 10-3 this year, but so what? We did not compete for any championship, and had we played LSU -- a team in disarray four years ago -- we would probably have gotten spanked but good. Let's face it: most of us breathed a sigh of relief when we didn't have to play in the SEC Chamionship. Our talent is still outstanding, but other teams are improving in their talent -- and more to the point, in their coaching. See for example what Georgia has done with Mark Richt, and of course national champion LSU under Nick Saban.

At the end of the 2002 season, I said that Phillip Fulmer was not at risk in his job, If he took fundamental steps to fix the ongoing problems on offense. He failed to do so, and having suffered through another boring, mediocre, and unsatisfying Tennessee football season, I have to now say that another season without seeing the improvements in coaching, preparation, motivation, execution, and ultimately contending for a championship will very possibly mean his job will be on the line in Knoxville.

How far the mighty have fallen. . . .

The Administration wants to go back to the Moon. That's good. Apparently, however, the Administration, in doing so, will at least temporarily eliminate our manned space flight capability, end investment in the space station, keep the project controlled completely in-house through NASA, and use an Apollo Plus methadology in doing so. That strikes me as very, very bad.

Consider the difficulties in getting federal appropriations for such an increased effort, in light of the ongoing problems funding the space station, and the consistent lowering of the NASA budget. Why would we cut off our nose to spite our face by leaving the space station out in the cold, when it could be a Moon/Mars staging point. Also, the current NASA ethic strikes me as incompatible with the spirit of exploration ncessary for this concept, which is literally the "Wagon Train to the Stars" idea. Furthermore, to make such a massive effort workable, it seems to me that business and industry, i.e., the private players, have to have an incentive to invest in the effort; there's just not enough government money available, and the national mindset may not be as supportive of a Moon shot now as it was 40 years ago (race to space, beat the Russians, and so forth). Many decades ago, Robert Heinlein wrote about "The Man Who Sold the Moon." If manned space exploration is to succeed on any kind of reasonable basis, we must sell it as a society to our society, and not as another insular government agency raison d'etre.

Is this initiative the Administration's way to get NASA's juices flowing again? If so, it's like going to England to get to California: taking the wrong direction.

(Thanks to Instapundit and Rand Simberg)

Last week, I blogged about a pro-tort reform editorial/article from Newsweek. This week, Newsweek has allowed a response, from a woman who had a double mastectomy because the doctors accidentally switched her biopsy slides. Her conclusion:

I also know that if all those who want to restrict the legal rights of ordinary citizens have their way, I wouldn't have waited seven months for an apology from the doctors, which I got only after my story became public. I would have waited forever.

I had a thought, in the category of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If victims of negligence should be limited in their legal rights, why shouldn't doctors guilty of negligence be limited in their legal rights? I suspect doctors, or any other tortfeasors, would object mightily to such a limitation, which is why plaintiffs object just as vociferously.

I think I've finally smoked it: all this stuff from The Onion is...a joke! Well, except for the following:

NASHVILLE, TN—After more than 40 years of absorbing vast quantities of hard alcohol, George Jones' liver finally fled the famed country singer's body Tuesday. "I can't take it anymore," the liver said. "A liver can only process so many toxins before it says to hell with it." Jones' liver absorbed its final drink early Tuesday morning, a bourbon and branch water that Jones had with some eggs for breakfast. Until it can find a place of its own, Jones' liver plans to share an apartment with Merle Haggard's liver and Hank Williams Jr.'s lungs.

Or

CALCUTTA—More than 12,000 mourners were treated to a performance of "The Bitch Is Back" by Elton John at Mother Teresa's funeral Saturday. The delighted mourners, clapping their hands and swaying from side-to-side in time with the song's pounding, rollicking barrelhouse piano, joined John in singing the song's refrain, "Bitch, bitch / The bitch is back," dozens of times. "This is the perfect tribute to Mother Teresa," said Sister Nirmala, Mother Teresa's successor as leader of the Missionaries of Charity Order. "The bitch is indeed back with God."

This stuff has gotta be true.

Hee Hee. I guess we can blame this on Bush, too [Note: strong language in the post].

I've been too critical of doctors; they really do have it rough:

HOUSTON—Dr. Martin Kenneth Rinjipur, a neurosurgeon at Methodist Hospital, was heckled from the observation deck Monday after removing a cancerous tumor from a patient's occipital lobe. "You call that closing an incision?" the unidentified man shouted. "I could make a cleaner suture with 15 centimeters of frayed chromic gut and a pair of barbecue tongs. Go back to Johns Hopkins." Rinjipur did his best to act like he had not heard the comments.

Who was that masked man?

According to The Onion, Bill Clinton is (a) Googling, and (b) bored.

You think you've got problems? Fred Durst is REALLY in bad trouble!

Ralph Nader for president again???!! Maybe this time, he'll be the spoiler for the incumbent. On the other hand, if Dean is the nominee, maybe I want him to be the spoiler for him....

On the other hand, with the likes of Susan Sarandon endorsing him, Nader could...win! (hee hee)

You want info? I've got info! How 'bout the discovery of the largest known prime number? On the other hand, "a neat accomplishment, but it really doesn't have any applicability," says the guy who discovered the number.

Maybe I should change the top of this post to: You want useless ino? I've got useless info!

If California is going to prosecute Michael Jackson with this report lurking in the background, they've got problems. It begs the question: what do they know NOW as opposed to February 2003?

Tyco's rats are turning on each other. Good. Remember the old saying: dogs make money, cats make money, pigs get slaughtered. I hope it's ham for dinner soon.

Israel: not the Riviera in France. Thank goodness.

If only I had these when I was a teenager. Life would have been much clearer, at least.

And you thought only those mean "plaintiffs" were the only ones filing stupid lawsuits? Think again.

Newsweek is out to get YOU. A compendium -- dare I say, fisking -- of this story's inaccuracies is here.

UPDATE: This Newsweek story is not hard news; its author admits his articles are opinion:

He has long admitted that his work is opinion and not news, saying, "I left the New York Times in 1988 and it's been no secret that virtually everything I've written since then has contained commentary--that is, opinions growing out of reporting and analysis." (LA Times, 4/23/98). In the past, his opinions have been strong enough to have him removed as a guest commentator on PBS, and even caused his friends to worry that he might be "tarnishing his hard-won reputation as a dispassionate legal analyst." (Washington Post, 3/11/98). His column's effusive praise of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr resulted in Taylor having to apologize for a conflict of interest when it was revealed that he had been simultaneously contemplating Starr's offer of a job on the investigation.

He also used to work for a well known pro-tort reform law firm.

My 6 year old wants a GameCube for Hanukah. Anyone know where I can find one cheap? Uh, cheaper?

Wish list: that Josiah Bartlett was real, that he wasn't such a gun control nut, and that he really could be our president. Too bad Martin Sheen seems to be a would-be assassin: "In an apparent bid to become the undisputed leader of the Hollywood-Actor-Activist set, Martin Sheen stands accused of hatching a plot to assassinate his main rival, actor Mike Farrell."

Hmm. Mike Farrell. Justifiable homicide? Irresistable impulse? Nah.

Gore endorses Dean. (a) Who cares. Gore is as politically dead as, say, Jimmy Carter. (b) Isn't that a kiss of death for Dean? If you care about the various statements, here is the text from the Dean blog.

My take on it was that Gore looked rusty and out of practice. Dean's remarks after Gore finished showed me that he doesn't have the gravitas that one would expect of a candidate and presidential would-be. I admit it. As a democrat, I don't much like Dean. My gut says that absent a Bush self-destruct, Dean could be the McGovern for the millenium. On the other hand, what do I know?

Joe Lieberman was caught out by the endorsement [thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link]. I must say that pundit opinions that the Dean candidacy is an extension of a Gore move to the left in the 2000 general election campaign have the ring of verity. Extemism in any form is no good, from the left or the right. I believe Dean is a far left liberal in moderate's clothing, and despite all the alleged fear from the Bush camp, they are fairly salivating over running against McGover--uh, Dean in the general.

I still like John Edwards. Hope he makes a move. Unfortunately, his headline today is . . . well, he really doesn't have a headline today.

After only four months, Instalawyer is back on the blogosphere. Unfortunately, with some sad news. Former Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois has died at age 75. Here's a Chicago video stream, with comment by Illinois' Lt. Governor. Sorry about the ad preceding the news report; I don't know how to get rid of it. Here's a print story.

I have personally fond memories of Sen. Simon. In my third year of law school, I interned for Simon's Senate Judiciary subcommittee staff. One day, because my boss was throwing up in the bathroom, I had to staff the Senator at a subcommittee meeting featuring the Secretary of Commerce [Malcolm Baldridge] and the head of the Antitrust Division [Doug Ginsburg]. I was ready to go, as I had done the entire briefing book anyway. Naturally, the Senator's first question to me was (a) not in the book, and (b) a question to which I did not know the answer! After a sprint to the nearest library [1 floor down and, it seemed, a half a mile away], I had an answer. Aside from that, all was fine, and I must say that during that hearing and at other times when I had interaction with him, he was incredibly gracious, especially to an unpaid intern who was not even a constituent.

Another memory of my service in his office was when I saw the Challenger blow up, live and in color, from a TV in his personal office in the Dirksen building. Everything came to a halt in the normal kicked-over beehive of activity that was his senate office. I don't recall a peep from the room for about 30 minutes.

The reports are that he dies after having single bypass and heart valve replacement yesterday. That doesn't sound too onerous. I hope nobody screwed up. We've lost another of the Old Guard.

Weasel words from NASA hierarchy:

Could anything have been done to save the astronauts, if not the shuttle, had the problem been identified earlier?
If you look realistically at where [the shuttle] was it didn’t have many options going for it: a very limited duration, few consumables, no ability to go to the [space] station or do repair and limited ability to even do any type of inspection. We would have had to rush to launch the other vehicle [shuttle] on the ground and that would have been a risk for that vehicle. Even if you knew for sure that you had damage on the first that made it not recoverable—and I’m not sure how you would do that even with all the imagery you thought you could get—it would still be a very tough management decision to launch a second vehicle with exactly the same kind of external tank and the same likelihood of that kind of problem. So it made for a very difficult decision. Conceivably could something have been done if we’d known such-and-such information on such-and-such a date? Well, yes, but when you look at all the things that would have had to happen to make that possible the chances of it making a difference is remote in my opinion.

There has been plenty of reporting that NASA staffers suspected strongly that the foam caused the problem. If the NASA mindset had been proactive instead of staid and apparently discouraging of dissent in the ranks, a rescue mission could have been mounted that might have saved the astronouts and Columbia. Had that happened, NASA would have been seen as heroes a la the NASA of Apollo 13 days. Instead, they sat on their thumbs, ignored the problem and hoped it would go away, and are grounded, maybe for another year, maybe forever.

Gene Kranz, well-known former flight director, responded to the following question as follows:

Q: After a while, the public came to see the success of the space program as inevitable, but you paint a different picture of facing constant risk and danger. How did we get through the program without more disasters? What were the guiding principles?

Good question, one that is difficult to answer briefly. The "human factor" was the key when all of our glittering technology broke down. It was people working with the knowledge and very primitive technology at hand that controlled the risks of our work. We knew there would never be a second chance, so our personal readiness was extensive. The spacecraft and the technologies were fresh from the laboratories. There were no books on our jobs, no manuals on the systems we would fly. We learned our job and then taught the rest of our teammates. We were engineers and scientists flying a spacecraft that moved five miles a second, with a communications system that dated back to the Old West and the pony express. We succeeded because we were a team. If one of us did not have the answer, we searched for the teammate that had one. The cumulative experience of our training and our missions was additive, and with each successful escape we gained the confidence to walk closer and straighter on the edge. We became a team, experienced and unafraid to make time-critical risk judgements in front of the entire world.
The principles of flight control were often simply expressed: "If you don't know what to do, don't do anything! Learn to say I don't know, then go find an answer! Dammit, there are no books; use your judgment! You better be right the first time; you don't have a second chance." We got through the flight program because of the human factor. We were a brotherhood and when times got tough and our equipment broke down, we stood together. When we won it was everyone's victory.

My sense is that this esprit de corps, or cameraderie, that was prevalent in Apollo days doesn't exist any more at NASA. Look at that last paragraph; nobody running the show said that during Columbia's last mission. Without that team spirit, that brotherhood, manned space flight is that much more dangerous. As Apollo 13 [the mission and the movie] exemplified, the real stars at NASA were the guys on the ground, who refused to consider failure as an option.

George W. really hates plaintiffs. Even when they are POWs and even when the defendant is Saddam's Iraq, and even when the judgment by default has already become final. Says one of the affected former POWs: ""It's a sorry situation when our government puts more value on the former government of Iraq than the people who went there to fight that government." Even Repubs are disturbed by the Administration's action: "Sen. George Allen, R-Va., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has signaled his concern over Bush's position. '[Allen] has a hard time understanding how pending lawsuits and judgments can simply be erased,' says Michael Waldron, the senator's communications director, adding that Allen supports the use of Iraqi assets for paying American victims' claims."

Which reminds me of one of the conclusions drawn from the recent PBS Watergate special: Even the President of the United State is not above the law.

100 of our friends and family will die today in hospitals due to patient injuries from their care, and not from their diseases. And tomorrow, and the next day. But that'll stop if we limit or bar lawsuits against those responsible. Oh yeah.

From the subscription-only A.M. Best BestWire, on July 29:

Three weeks ago, a handful of congressmen asked the General Accounting Office to find out why medical malpractice premiums were kyrocketing. Its conclusion? There's not enough data to say for sure. The GAO made no recommendation for any executive action based on its report, which was produced at the request of 10 Democrats led by U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Michigan. The report did say Congress "may wish to consider encouraging" the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and state insurance regulators to gather more data to better understand of the market.

Rep. John Conyers said in a prepared press release:

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. issued the following statement concerning the GAO Report on medical malpractice: "Today's report makes it clear that extreme, anti-victim tort 'reform' of the type proposed by the Republicans and President Bush will not resolve the insurance crisis but will simply serve to inflict greater harm on the victims of medical malpractice and wrongdoing by HMOs and drug companies." Among the information included in the GAO Report:
* There is no correlation between losses paid by medical malpractice insurers and limitations on non-economic damages. Minnesota, which had no caps on non-economic damages, had the smallest increase in losses paid by insurers during the period covered (1992-2002), while Florida, which has among the most severe caps on non-economic damages in the country, experienced the greatest increases in insurance losses.
* Lack of competition had an important impact on medical malpractice rates. "Because fewer insurers are offering [medical malpractice] insurance, there is less price competition." "When a large insurer leaves a state insurance market [as St. Paul did in 2002], the supply of medical malpractice insurance decreases, and the remaining insurers may not need to compete as much on the basis of price."
* Reduced investment income by the medical malpractice insurance industry also had an impact on the insurance market. "The approximately 1.6% percentage drop in the return on investments these insurers experienced from 2000 through 2002 would have resulted in an increase in premium rates of around 7.2% over the same two year period."
* The terrorist attacks of September 11 and the cyclical nature of the medical malpractice insurance business further contributed to premium spikes. "Reinsurance rates overall have increased as a result of reinsurers losses related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." "Cycles in the medical malpractice market tend to be more extreme than in other insurance markets because of the longer period of time required to resolve medical malpractice claims and factors such as changes in investment income and reduced competition."
* The GAO has no idea as to what contributes to increased insurance pay outs, and concluded that what's needed most is greater information. Possibilities leading to insurance company losses include "a sicker, older population," "a reduced quality of care," "the breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship owing, for example, to factors such as the increasing prevalence of managed care organizations," and other potential factors. "While we could not analyze such potential causes for increased losses, understanding them would be useful in developing strategies to address increasing medical malpractice premium rates." Conyers concluded, "The Republican approach of capping non-economic and punitive damages, capping attorneys fees, and insulating HMO's and drug companies from liabilities clearly misses the mark. The Democratic alternative of limiting frivolous actions, subjecting medical malpractice insurance companies to the antitrust laws, requiring that savings from legal reforms are passed on to consumers, and giving Congress greater information to assess the root causes of the insurance crisis is clearly more in tune with the GAO's findings."

"Political Malpractice" -- that's what a Florida legislator recently called attempts to use unsupported findings of fact in consideration of a tort limitations bill:

Summing it up, Rules Chairman Tom Lee said the Senate would have to rewrite the findings of "fact" that went into its bill last week. "We're not going to put legislative findings in a bill that can't be sustained by the evidence," he said. "That's malpractice."

As the editorial correctly states, the big question is not what limitations to impose, but whether limitations are needed at all.

I changed my blog template. I like it OK, I think.

Ugh. Serious Ugh.

Ever bemoan the lack of a cold [emphasis on "cold"] frosty one when you need it? Here's the solution!

Now I know how to be a better blogger.

The RIAA is out to get YOU. Here's a link to a list of names and ISPs the recording industry outfit is targeting.

UPDATE: Here's how not to get sued by the RIAA

Larry Flynt for Governor! Courtesy of No Watermelons Allowed, and via C-Log.

Marriage between two people bad, polygamy good?

Dennis Prager says that the U.S. is a Judeo-Christian country governed by a secular government. He doesn't much care for the ACLU, either:

That the ACLU would write a letter protesting three little plaques at the Grand Canyon with verses from the book of Psalms provides a clear example of how intent the organization is on destroying the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of this society. This, after all, is the same ACLU that went to court in Florida to protect a Muslim woman's right to be photographed for her driver's license ID wearing a veil! If it ain't Judeo-Christian, the ACLU is a big fan of religion.

For what it's worth, I always thought the U.S was a nation with moral and historical underpinnings based on Judeo-Christian concepts. I'm sure my hindu, arab, buddhist, etc. friends might agree with me there. Also, Prager misses the point in the quoted material above. The religious placques are assertedly a violation of the constitutional Establishment Clause to the first amendment. Allowing the moslem woman to wear her veil is consistent with the Free Exercise Clause to the first amendment.

Sgt. Stryker posts about the Hiroshima bombing anniversary, and comments on the revisionist theory that dropping the A-Bombs were unnecessary.

I ran into the same revisionist thinking when I was in college over 20 years ago. I was taking a History of WWII course, and it was straight revisionism, from start to finish. As I already knew a fair amount about that war, I was shocked and offended that the 2 teachers of the course would sell their revisionism as established historical fact. In fact, I refused to spout back their theories, and my grade in the course suffered. My dad liked my stand, but my GPA didn't. These were also the types of teachers that completely believed that there was no way to be objective in reporting history; one must always approach the research with one's personal outlook, so one better have the right outlook. Really, they tried to teach me that. Contrary bastard that I am, I resisted.

Incidentally, every WWII veteran I have ever spoken to is convinced that the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 (1) shortened the war, (2) saved in the neighborhood of 2 million american lives by making an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and (3) probably saved their lives, as well.

Had I been Truman in the moment, with the information I had about the planned home island operations and anticipated casualties, and without any of the [now justified] fears about nuclear weapons that have developed over the last half century, I would have used the bombs, too.

Any home studio enthusiasts out there? I'm playing with a bunch of new software using Cubase/Nuendo and various VST instruments. I've got 2 MIDI keyboards, and I want to be able to record or play back both MIDI from the keyboard and VST instruments. After hours fussing with it, I still can't get it to work right. Any emailed suggestions or web sites pertinent to the subject would be gratefully appreciated.

"Is Democrat Howard Dean President Bush's biggest competition?" I'm sure the Bush folks hope so, because Dean is a real lame-o, in my opinion. Not surprisingly, these guys don't much care for Dean either. Uh Oh. Rush Limbaugh is after the guy, too.

I think that Bush wants to run against someone at least generally perceived to be far to the left [it doesn't matter what he really is; perception is everything in politics]. Dean is that candidate. Personally, my gut just doesn't like the guy; maybe it's his excessive opportunism leading up to the Iraq war.

What the Repubs fear, I would think, is a centrist democrat who can get traction with the current Administration's shockingly cavalier attention to the economy. Foreign policy is fine, but I'm betting that people will be asking themselves the penultimate question at election time: "Am I better off now than I was four years ago?" There are a lot of folks out there who decidedly are not. Say what you will about his taste in women, Clinton's attention to domestic affairs -- and his track record in that area -- beats Bush's, hands down.

Now, I was a supporter of war in Iraq, based on two factors, mostly. First was the Administration claim of WMD. Second was the realization that the Administration's sabre-rattling had put us in a no-back-down situation; we couldn't gear down without losing complete credibility at home and in the world community. So, I said, let's go clear Saddam out, because of the WMD threat and because we have backed ourselves in a corner. Now, months after combat ops have ended, there is nothing more than a hint, if that, of WMDs in place at the time the war began. Bloggers are relegated posting to stories about finding detritus back in 1995

If it turns out that we led down a garden path to war and military occupation by misstatements and -- dare I say it -- lies by our government, then God hel George W. Bush. To paraphrase the famous Nixon line, "You're entitled to know whether your president is a liar. Well, I'm not a liar." Well, Nixon was a crook, and Bush may well be a . . . .

While there is some level of mistruth in a lot of political statements, lying to push us into war -- no matter how desirable it was to oust Saddam -- is simply unacceptable, especially given the result in U.S. lives and depletion of treasury.

From the "He Oughtta Get An Award for This Piece of Idiocy" Department, Mike Tyson is filing for bankruptcy.

Why don't I ever get the chance to spend that kind of dough?

An interesting email from a Drexel med student, which says in part: "We are taught that the only thing we can do to
decrease malpractice suits is to develop a better rapport with patients. I think getting doctors to try and improve their empathic skills is great, and is the only possible benefit to the malpractice mess we are in now."

This guy hits the nail on the head. I can't tell you how many times I've head a client say something like "I never would have considered making a claim if he had just apologized." Often, especially in my part of the world, people just want (a) forthrightness and (b) common human decency. Unfortunately, so many doctors have that well-known arrogance, which translates into either apparent contempt for their customers [patients], and/or the absolute certainty that they have NEVER screwed up a case.

As I have said previously, it takes a special set of facts to justify the time, risk and expense of a medical malpractice case. How many cases would never be contemplated if the doc just said, "my bad. Send me the bills and I'll take care of it." Not all, but a lot.

My old school chum, back on April 22, kindly emailed me the result in that Tommy Lee wrongful death lawsuit over that little boy who drowned in Lee's pool. My off the cuff opinion is that the jury reached the correct conclusion. One of the jurors even laid the blame where it should have been -- at the feet of the babysitter who was supposed to be watching the child. It is noted that the parents are an actress and a TV producer. It begs the question: where were they? As the parents of a six and a three year old, I know that I can't let them out of my sight, especially when a swimming pool is involved.

Email from "doclevittMD" on April 24. How sweet:

This business of 50% of the malpractice cases coming from 5% of the doctors is incomplete and poorly described. If those 5% are neurosurgeons, obstetricians and orthopedists it becomes quite understandable . A bad result (not bad medicine) in those fields leads to the most devastating damages. If you can find liability you guys have it made! The next time you quote that 50/5 thing you should check your sources and the specialists involved. You would get rid of most of the neurosurgeons in the state of Florida if insurance rates matched payouts. The average neurosurgeon in the state has 3 pending suits. Are they bunglers? No they are the most highly trained physicians of all and most come from the top third of their medical school class. Most lawyers, even the ones involved in medmal haven't a clue of what it's like to be a practicing physician. The complexity of it is astounding and it takes a lifetime to master all of it. Ever see a doctor say "I'm not sure what the medicine is on that subject but I can research it and get back to you" and then bill for looking up information that should have been on the tips of his fingers? You people can take years second guessing what a surgeon had to decide in a split second to try and save a patient's life in an operating room. And I'll let you in on a little secret: despite taking that oath to tell the truth lots of plaintiffs expert witnesses lie in court. Our professional societies are just catching up with such prostitutes. Sanctions against neurosurgeons who bear false witness against their brethren for profit have been held up in Federal Appeals Court.

It is simplistic to assume that the insurance companies and doctors are evil or fools and therefore won't jump at obvious simple solutions. Patients need to be cared for. Most of them get very good care. Let's hope it's always available for our families, Counselor.

Gee, doctors have it so tough. They're crying all the way to the bank, after which they're off to their multi-million dollar homes, etc. I recently read in the newspaper that an OB/GYN that I know just sold his house [he moved out of town] for well over a million bucks. And I thought that all the OB/GYNs had gone out of business.

Checking my long-ignored email, I found that my ship has come in, care of Mr. Udenta Chukwu:

I am Mr.Udenta Chukwu, the manager of bill and exchange at the foreign Remittance department of African Development Bank, A.D.B. I am writing to you following the impressive information about you i got in a business attachee from your embassy here through my private search for a reliable and God fearing someone in your country that will help
me to achieve this laudable aim.

The information assured me of your capability and reliability to champion this business Opportunity together. In my department, we discovered an abandoned sum of $38m (THIRTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS) in an account that belongs to one of our foreign customer that died in A Concord plane crash in the year 2000 in Paris that took the whole lives of passengers on board. Since we got the information about his death, we have been expecting his next Of kin to come over and claim his money because we cannot release it unless somebody applies for it as the next of kin or a relation to the deceased as Indicated in our banking guidelines. But unfortunately, we discovered that his supposed next of kin or relation Died along with him in the Plane crash, leaving nobody behind for the claim.

It is therefore upon this discovery that I and other officials in my department now decided to make this business proposal to you and release this money to you as the next of kin or a relation to the deceased for safety and subsequent disbursement, since nobody is coming for it and we don’t want this money to go into the Banks treasury as unclaimed Bill, for the Banking law and guideline here Stipulates that if such money remains unclaimed after four to five years, the money will be transferred into the Banks treasury account as unclaimed fund.

The request of foreigner as next of kin in this business is occasioned by the fact that the customer was a foreigner and a witin the African country cannot stand as next of Kin to a foreigner. We agreed that 25% of this money will be for you as a foreign partner in respect to the provision of a foreign account, 10% will be set aside for expenses incurred during the course of this business, and 65% will go for me and my colleagues. Thereafter, my colleagues and I will visit your country for disbursement according to the percentages indicated. Therefore, to enable the immediate transfer of this fund to you as arranged, You must apply first to the Bank as relations or next of kin to the deceased, Indicating your Banking particulars, your private telephone and Fax numbers for easy and effective communication and location where the money will be remitted. Upon receipt of your reply, I will send to you by email the text of Application.

I will not fail to bring to your notice that this transaction is a hitch free and that you should not entertain any atom of fear as all required arrangements have been made for the transfer. You should contact me immediately as soon as you receive this letter. Trusting to hear from you immediately.
Yours Faithfully,

MR.Udenta Chukka.
BILL AND EXCHANGE MANAGER.
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK.
N.B.My intention of writing you through email is
Because I believe it is very confidential.

PLEASE FOR THE SAFETY OF THIS TRANSACTION, kindly REPLY Through MY
ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS:
ubowel@lawyer.com
THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING

Oops. I missed that confidential thing. Everybody just ignore this post....

I'm back......

I've now gone, like, four months without blogging even once. I've got excuses, if anyone cares [one partner had heart surgery; the other partner just had prostrate cancer surgery -- they're dropping like flies!]. And, as sage friends have said, you have to be in the mood to do this sort of thing.

Also, I was getting bored by blogging just about tort limitations. And depressed. When you have a doctor masquerading as Senate Majority Leader, and there are questions as to his motivations, then you just have to wonder why you should beat your head against the wall any more. Ultimately, it's not a question of right or wrong, as much as it is the usual naked grab for power.

The original thrust of this blog was to ameliorate that power to some extent, by countering the big propaganda machine with my modest effort. Some of you were listeninging, and some were hearing without listening. That's what's cool about blogs. I'll still post news and fun facts/rumors [lies, damn lies, and...what's the rest of it?] on the tort limitation debate, but I thought I'd weigh in on other sundries, as well.