The Trials and Tribulations of Buying From Dell [grrr], by Instalawyer:

OK, so I had some extra cash, and/or needed a deduction, and my none too reliable Sony Vaio finally bit the dust with a motherboard glitch that crashed the computer anytime I physically moved it. After weeks of dithering as to what type replacement laptop to get, I finally decided at the end of March to go with the Dell XPS-M140, a relatively light and compact notebook that I could load up with features. Interestingly -- and of some concern to me -- Dell's web site no longer seems to contain a link to the XPS-M140. Have they taken it off the market already?

Anyway, I elected to get the full 1 GB of RAM, the fastest processor available for the unit, Bluetooth, even though I currently have no Bluetooth devices [you never know in the future], the longer life [9 cell?] battery, and the three year on-site service deal. Finally, I got the Windows Media Center Edition 2005 [MCE] operating system and the bundled "TV tuner" [make and model unspecified by Dell], with the goal of using the new computer as a quasi-do-it-yourself personal video recorder and video capture device.

In this latter respect, I would be able to record items off the cable TV [for work purposes, of course -- news stories and such related to cases], as well as take items on VHS video and convert them to digital editable form. You see, with my TIVO, I can do this conversion, but TIVO's digital file format is not susceptible of editing. Why would I need to edit? Well, to remove commercials, to redact deposition testimony that I don't need, that sort of thing.

After a couple of weeks, I finally received the computer. The computer itself seemed fine: appropriately speedy and compact, but with a wide-format screen big enough that I didn't have to squint to see, and a well-sized keyboard for typing.

However, no TV tuner was included. I called Dell, and the heavily accented overseas customer service person [Indian?] told me that the TV tuner was not included with what I ordered. Now, this makes no sense, because there's really no reason for me to get MCE unless I have PVR capability, for which I would need that TV tuner. I made some noise about this , and the Dell person generously agreed to ship me a TV tuner for free. OK, great, I thought to myself. Problem solved.

After another week or so, I got the tuner. It was an ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0 model. I took it home and thereupon spent about four hours trying to install it. For some reason, the install program off the CD-ROM kept failing at the outset. I did kluge an install once, but then the device wouldn't see the cable TV signal. I was stymied, but because it was Friday night, I couldn't get any customer support from ATI until Monday, during business hours.

The following Monday, I got ATI on the phone [their support rep was in California], and while on hold, I found semi-hidden documentation on the ATI web site that this particular device only worked with Windows XP. In other words, Dell's idiots had sent me a TV tuner device for my MCE computer that was incompatible with my MCE computer!

So I called Dell again. This call was the second or third to Dell, not counting their "inadvertent" hang-ups. The new overseas Dell person i spoke with needed some convincing that the ATI device was incompatible with an MCE computer, but finally agreed to take the return and then ship me a new device. Dell's accessories page showed a few devices that allegedly worked with MCE 2005. The top contenders in my my mind were the Hauppage WinTV-PVR-USB2 Personal Video Recorder and the Adaptec AVC-3610.

I suggested to the rep that Dell send me the Adaptec device, because it was a dual tuner device, so [at least] theoretically, I could attach one signal input from my cable converter box, and the other from direct cable/VCR. That way, without any recabling, I could record signal off cable, as well as using the device for VHS conversion to editable digital format. Also, if I wanted, the dual tuner capability would allow me to record two different signals simultaneously. That's pretty cool. To my surprise, the Dell rep said they would send the Adaptec device. Standard delay time: three to five days to ship. Great, I said, we're finally straightened out, I said. Little did I know....

Two weeks later, I still didn't have my TV tuner. I called Dell again, and the overseas rep [apparently, Dell uses no one in the U.S. for customer support] stunned me by asserting that the Adaptec AVC-3610 is not available from Dell!. While this person was saying this, I was punching up that very item on Dell's web site. While looking at Dell's page for the AVC-3610, I told this person, in [ahem] exasperated tones that he was flatly wrong, and that it was available from Dell. The person put me on hold for a few minutes. When he/she came back on the line, lo and behold, the AVC-3610 was available. He/she agreed to send the device, using the exact same language as had been used two weeks previously. I could have bitched more, but it would have served no purpose. I was just going to have to wait and see whether Dell actually made good on its [second] promise to ship me this item.

Finally, finally, I received the Adaptec device. Total time elapsed from when I received the computer to when I received the TV tuner: six weeks. Am I happy with Dell? Not a bit. The computer works fine. The large battery I got is great -- I used the computer at depositions this past Friday. I turned the computer on at 9:00, and when we finished at 2:30, I still had an hour and a half of battery time left. That's great. Dell's customer service leaves a lot to be desired, however. I estimate that between the phone calls, the time spent on trying to install the ATI device and the general tsouris of it all, I spent about five hours dealing with what should have come with the computer originally. I bill my time at $225 per hour. In the words of Paul Newman in Absence of Malice: "Who do I see about that?"

Instapundit and Power Line are clearly better proofreaders than CBS viv-a-vis miscategorizing Rep. Jefferson as a Republican. CBS has now corrected its online news story to identify him as a Democrat.

Scary, and not surprising:

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

One commenter to the piece asserts that the Nazis didn't start such practices, Muslims did: "Anyone who knew the rules applied to dhimmi would not be in he slightest shocked by news of its implementation. Any more than the marriage age being lowered to 9 for girls by the Ayatollah. Most think it was the Nazi's idea, it wasn't, it was Mohammed's."

For years, people looked at the Nazi atrocities and said, "it could never happen again. It will never happen here." I suspect a lot fewer people are saying that these days.

ATLA reports that, in a new book entitled "The Medical Malpractice Myth,"Tom Baker, Connecticut Mutual Professor of Law and director of the Insurance Center at the University of Connecticut, uses empirical evidence to dismantle the myths that permeate the national debate over medical malpractice and liability insurance costs. A couple of excerpts:

. . . except for auto accidents and the occasional “mass tort” situation like asbestos, Agent Orange, or breast implants, Americans actually do not bring tort claims all that often, especially compared to the number of accidents and injuries there are. We now have two decades of solid research documenting this fact. What is more, the rate of auto lawsuits—the most frequent kind of tort lawsuit—is going down. And, despite the media focus on mass torts, products liability, and medical malpractice, those kinds of cases are far less important in dollar terms than either auto accidents or workers’ compensation.

And:

Where Americans do excel in litigation is in the area of business lawsuits. If you read the business section of the newspaper, you know that B2B—business-to-business—sales are hot. So is B2B litigation. Some of the business executives who complain about the litigation explosion must be thinking about their own behavior. In one indication, the proportion of lawyers who bring personal-injury lawsuits has remained steady since 1975, while the share of lawyers involved in business litigation has more than tripled.

Read the whole excerpt I posted to, but the conclusion this author reaches is that "Built on a foundation of urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies, and repeated so often that even the mythmakers forget the exaggeration, half truth, and outright misinformation employed in the service of their greater good, the medical malpractice myth has filled doctors, patients, legislators, and voters with the kind of fear that short circuits critical thinking."

Here's a summary of Baker's findings. Interestingly, Baker cautions Big Insurance to be careful what it wishes for. If injured victims of negligence are denied access to the courts, then businesses, doctors, and individuals have no need for insurance. They could win the battle for "tort reform," and lose the war by putting themselves out of business.

President Bush: He talks the talk, but he don't walk the walk.

Instapundit has posted to Tim Blair's disparagement of Howard Stern. Contrary to Tim Blair's bald assertion, Sirius Satellite Radio had about 600,000 subscribers when Howard announced his move. The tally stands now at 4,000,000. Howard's take:

It's a big universe. But I have proven myself in that universe. And I'm not sure many other people could bring the millions of people to satellite so quickly. When I signed on [in October 2004], Sirius had 600,000 subscribers. Now it has 4 million. Maybe that's the crowning achievement. Compared to terrestrial it's still small, but I think about it and go, ''Well, that's still more than Imus has.'' On satellite I do worry that we're like the Shree Rajneesh, off with our cult. [But it] excites me that it's our world. There's nobody interfering. We can give the fans anything they want. It's liberating.

As to critical complaints relative to the plethora of naked girls, Howard responds: "It's funny, if I never had another naked woman on, I'd be fine with it. Or another guest. I could care less. I believe the rapport between Robin, myself, Fred, Artie, and the characters is really the substance of the show."

Not surprisingly, he's absolutely right. Recently, Howard riffed for over half an hour about his sidekick Artie's vending machine proclivities, even quizzing him on what food item was in, say, E2 [Artie knew, of course!]

I listened to the Stern show when I lived in the D.C. area -- 1988 through 1992 -- but have not heard the show regularly since moving home to Tennessee. I was one of the terrestrial radio types who shelled out, specifically for the Stern show. I haven't regretted it. Most of howard's most vociferous critics have never heard his show. More often than not, I drive to work with a smile on my face. For me, that's well nigh a miracle!

UPDATE: Bear Sterns is bullish on Sirius!

Disney's Mission to Mars [at EPCOT] was quite a ride, although I think the kids enjoy it more. All the adults in my group were somewhat more than vaguely nauseous when it was over. I now thank the stars [pun intended] that nauseous is all we were.

ATLA is responding to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce smear campaign with a full page ad in USA Today.

UPDATE: Here is the Harris Poll the ad is responding to. ATLA's in-depth response to the poll is as follows:

On Monday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will release an updated “study” that supposedly ranks the best and worst state legal systems in America. But as with past editions, this “study” merely measures how Corporate America perceives the civil justice system, ignoring the views of consumers. The “study” is based on a survey of corporate lawyers from multi-million dollar corporations who spend their days trying to ensure that consumers or employees can’t hold these corporations accountable for wrongdoing and gross negligence. A survey isn’t necessary to tell us that the attorneys working for Merck are not happy with the legal system that holds their company accountable for the deaths and injuries caused by its controversial drug Vioxx. Similarly, any convicted criminal would say that the legal system doesn't work. Nevertheless, the Chamber touts this study as fairly measuring the states’ legal systems. The facts tell a different story.

THE CHAMBER’S “STUDY” IS MISLEADING

• The Chamber’s “Study” Is Actually a Survey of Corporate Lawyers Working for Multi-Million Dollar Corporations. Instead of attempting to measure the effectiveness of the civil justice systems in each state, the Chamber instead commissioned a poll of corporate lawyers at companies with $100 million or more in annual revenues. These are the very same lawyers who work every day protecting and defending large corporations when they take unfair advantage of consumers and employees.

• The Chamber’s Own Pollster Admitted that There is No Way to Measure the Fairness of a State’s Legal System. Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, the polling firm that conducted the survey for the Chamber, admitted that there is no way to measure fairness of the legal system in each state. According to the Copley News Service, “Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive said the survey is based on the individual responses of the [corporate] lawyers because there is no hard data that can be used to measure the perceived fairness of a state's legal system.” Copley News Service, 3/8/04. Nevertheless, the Chamber has mischaracterized the “study” as “rank[ing] the best to worst legal systems in America.” “AdWatch,” The Tallahassee Democrat, 3/12/05.

• After Ranking West Virginia as Having One of the “Worst” Liability Systems, the Chamber’s CEO and Pollster Were Forced to Admit that Only of a Fraction of Those Surveyed Actually Knew Anything About the State’s Court System. When questioned about the methodology of last year’s “study” that ranked West Virginia as 49th in the list of state legal systems, the Chamber’s CEO, Thomas Donohue, and the pollster that conducted the survey, Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, were forced to admit that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed actually knew anything about West Virginia’s courts. According to the Charleston Gazette, “Taylor and Donahue [sic] acknowledged not all of the 1,437 lawyers surveyed knew anything about West Virginia's courts. Taylor said ‘around 107’ said they had direct knowledge of the state. ‘You could argue that's a small sample, but what they keep saying is ‘49th, 49th, 49th,’ he said.” “Corporate lawyers rank state's legal climate poor,” The Charleston Gazette, 3/9/05.

• Florida Newspaper Criticized Chamber for Mischaracterizing the “Study” in a Television Ad. According to the Tallahassee Democrat [“AdWatch,” The Tallahassee Democrat, 3/12/05], the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform sponsored a television ad in Florida last year that mischaracterized the results of their “study” of state legal systems. The Chamber’s ad included the line, “[a] recent Harris poll ranked the best to worst legal systems in America.” However, the Democrat reported that this claim was “wrong,” noting that the “ad did not mention the Harris poll was conducted among corporate lawyers who have to defend their clients against civil suits.”

LAWSUITS ARE NOT A MAJOR CONCERN FOR BUSINESSES

• A Recent Survey Published by the National Association of Manufacturers Found that American Manufacturing Companies Ranked the “Fear of Litigation” at the Bottom of Their Concerns. The National Association of Manufacturers recently released a survey of manufacturers in the United States showing that the “fear of litigation” ranked at the bottom of their list of concerns:

“Please rate the following factors in terms of their negative impact on your company's operations (with 1 representing the greatest negative impact and 10 the least).”

2.9 Cost of non-wage compensation
3.5 Cost of materials used in production
4.0 Inability to raise prices
4.1 Energy prices
5.0 Foreign competition
6.1 Taxes
6.3 Cost of wages
6.4 Shortage of qualified workers
7.4 Regulations/corporate governance rules (Sarbanes-Oxley)
7.8 Fear of litigation

• Survey by Business Week Magazine Found that the Threat of Lawsuits is Not a Major Concern of Small Business Owners. According to a recent survey published in Business Week magazine, owners of small and medium-sized businesses are generally not concerned about the threat of lawsuits: “One of the survey's more surprising results revealed that tort reform -- particularly limiting class-action lawsuits -- is not a major priority.” The survey found that the biggest threats to their businesses are: (1) Rising inflation, 44 percent; (2) The trade deficit and a weak dollar, 40 percent; (3) Energy shortages, 40 percent; (4) Excessive household and/or corporate debt, 29 percent; (5) The growing federal deficit, 28 percent; (6) Poorly prepared labor force/Shortage of skilled labor, 27 percent.


THE NUMBER OF STATE AND FEDERAL TORT TRIALS IS DECLINING

• Bush Administration Statistics Show that the Number of Federal Tort Trials is Down Nearly 80 Percent Since 1985. Last year, the Bush Justice Department reported that the number of tort (personal injury) cases resolved in U.S. District Courts fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. In 1985, 3,600 tort trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. District Courts. By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800. “Federal Tort Trials and Verdicts, 2002-03”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 8/17/05

• The Number of State Tort Trials is Decreasing. According to the most recent statistics from the Bush administration’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of tort trials at the state level has decreased. These statistics were compiled as part of the Bureau’s survey of state civil justice systems in the nation’s largest 75 counties. Among these counties, the number of tort trials decreased 31.8% between 1992 and 2001. “Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4/04.

• “Overwhelming Majority” of Federal Judges Don’t See “Frivolous Lawsuits” as Major Problem. According to survey by the Federal Judicial Center – the research and education agency of the federal court system – most Federal judges do not view “frivolous lawsuits” as a problem: “Frivolous litigation is not a major problem in the federal court system, according to an overwhelming majority of federal judges who participated in a recent survey. The survey, conducted by the Federal Judicial Center, was based on the responses of 278 federal district court judges. Seventy percent of the respondents called groundless litigation either a ‘small problem’ or a ‘very small problem,’ and 15% said it was no problem at all. Only 1% called it a ‘very large problem,’ 2% called it a ‘large problem’ and the rest rated it as a ‘moderate problem’ in their courts. … In addition, 91% of the judges surveyed opposed provisions in the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which won House approval in the last Congress.”

I'm still reading Sidney Blumenthal's definitive political history of the attacks on the Clinton administration, "The Clinton Wars," and I think his conclusion -- and President Clinton's -- is absolutely correct, as well as applicable here. Lies, damn lies and statistics, all used in the vicious and machiavellian quest for power. Despite a well-documented refutation, the forces that seek to limit -- or eliminate -- the rights of people to legal redress will say anything, and stop at nothing, to achieve their goals. The irony is that the public, through naivete, lethargy or lack of comprehension, is allowing it to happen, piece by piece, bill by bill, and regulation by regulation.

Well, Knoxville hits the big time. All these stories on immigration demonstrations around the country have hit our fair city, too. An excerpt:

Most of those in attendance wore red or white shirts with the words, in Spanish and English, "Where are our Rights? Dignity and Justice for All." Hundreds carried American flags, though there was also a smattering of Mexican flags and at least two Honduran flags among the crowd.

Many brought pay stubs to show they pay taxes.

"All these people they are good people," said Kim Salazar, a California native. "They are hard workers, and they do the jobs American people don't want. Doesn't that deserve some kind of rights?"

One Mexican man, carrying a large American flag, said he had been in the United States six years. He shrugged when asked if he was here legally.

I saw the people congregated around the City-County Building yesterday, but was on the way to court and didn't get a chance to snap my own photos. I am not well educated on the subject, but my take is that productive taxpayers who do jobs others don't want to do ought to be allowed to stay, and be given legalized status. After all, we're all immigrants.

As to security concerns, a lawyer I was walking with said this: "Nineteen people committed the 9/11 attacks. And not one of them was Mexican." Facetious, but true.

Michael Barone bemoans the alleged fact that 90% of the news media is of the Democratic persuasion. I say, so what? Consider:

* Does being a Democrat mean one can't report the news objectively?
* If the Democrats had Big Media locked up, then why the unprecedented attacks on the Clinotn Administration from 1992-2000? See, e.g., The Clinton Wars, by Sidney Blumenthal.
* If Big Media is so infested with Democrats, impliedly forcing a Democratic agenda, then how is it that a Republican won in 2000 and 2004, and how is it that Republicans have kept control over Congress for years?
* Who owns Big Media? I'm betting there are a bunch of Republicans in there.

The fact is that the media is, as Carville and Matalin called it, "The Beast," and The Beast must be fed. The Beast doesn't care who is -- literally -- the sacrificial lamb; it just needs stories to feed it. I used to yell about the Washington Post when I lived in D.C., considering its coverage of Israel unfair and biased [it was]. The point is, The Beast is non-partisan, omni-partisan, whatever. It doesn't care, as long as it has raw meat from somewhere.

UPDATE: Here's a how-to on getting the Beast to pay attention to you.

How this woman got on Al-Jazeera is beyond me. She gives better than she gives, though.

Take a look quickly, because I'll bet the link doesn't stay active for long.

In my last post, an exhaustive [or exhausting?] look at the recording career of the rock group Chicago, I promised my own review of the group's first album of original songs since 1991. Since then, several reviews have sprung up, including a scathing thumbs down from Blogcritics.org, and mixed home-grown reviews on the Amazon site. Not to be outdone, here's my take.

Chicago has gone through several incarnations. The bad news is that XXX is a resumption of the last incarnation, continuing the sad trend toward sappy power ballads exemplified in Twenty-One [1991]. This latest collection, eleven years after their last album of new music [Chicago Night and Day Big Band] and fifteen years after their last record of original tunes [Twenty-One] includes forgettable ballad-like songs as four out of the first seven selections. Clearly growing out of Bassist Jason Scheff's strong influence on this record, these songs are for the most part a waste of space. Not only do the lyrics noy SAY much of anything, the music [which is my emphasis] is routine, ordinary, and frankly blah.

The good news is that the remaining songs, "Caroline," "Ninety Degrees and Freezing," "Already Gone," "Come to Me, Do," "Lovin' Chains," and "Better" are, after repeated listenings, not bad at all. As Tolkien said, "This tale grew in the telling...." And so it is with at least some of Chicago XXX.

"Ninety Degrees" is probably the strongest proto-Chicago song, co-written by Robert Lamm, in previous incarnations the band's most prolific and interesting songwriter. "Already Gone," penned by Bill Champlin and George Hawkins [previously from Kenny Loggins' band in the 80s?] combines an at-first annoying and then interesting guitar/bass riff with a seemingly atonal vocal that resolves into a satisfying tongue-in-cheek chorus. Lamm's "Come to Me, Do" is bouncy and catchy, if not particularly lyrically deep. Here's a sentiment I agree with:

On the other hand, Robert Lamm lets his age and experience serve him well. His smooth, jazzy baritone is deeper and rougher around the edges, but he works these new bits of character in his favor on "Come to Me, Do", the record's simplest and most immediately appealing number - and also, unfortunately, Lamm's only solo composition here. The song has an uncommon warmth that suggests that Chicago need not do so much blatant pandering to the next generation to preserve their beloved institution. Maybe, if they, y'know, just played music, it would all work out.

"Lovin' Chains," written by Rascal Flatts' [and album producer] Jay DeMarcus, has a wickedly infectious set of chord changes that makes one wait impatiently for the chorus.

James Pankow's horn charts are fun to listen to, even if sometimes predictable. At times, the horn riff one hears is a bit too reminiscent of lines from past songs. Also, an annoying tendency of the Chicago horn sound in the last twenty years is to emphasize the brass element of the section, at the expense of Walt Parazaider's woodwinds in the middle. The horn solo on "Come to Me, Do" is the only ensemble solo on the record where Parazaider's sax can be heard, doubling Lee Loughnane's trumpet.

The musicianship is fine, as far as it goes. These guys are all professionals, and the record is put together reasonably well, from the point of view of the playing of the songs. But that limited accolade misses the point. What haas been lacking in Chicago's music for decades is the sense of grit, creativity, of simple balls to the wall playing. With Chicago's orignal incarnation, it was obvious that the whole exceeded the sum of the parts. One does not get that impression here. it is a meticulously assembled album, but not a cohesive sound that makes the listener sit up and take notice.

As usual for Chicago efforts since 1982, the album is woefully over-produced. Jay DeMarcus, one-third of country's Rascal Flatts, had the chance to put these guys in a room and let them play; he missed the boat with his overdone vocal arrangements and sterile overall feel. A lot of the reason for this perceived sterility is the continuing lack of a strong guitar presence on record. Keith Howland, Chicago's guitraist for over ten years, is a fine player, but he never gets the chance to blow out his amp. And that's what this band needs, maybe more than anything.

Other reviews have bemoaned the return to 80s power ballad formula music, and have ridiculed this group's failure to artistically stretch at a point in their career when they can afford to do it. They're right, to a point. The Chicago of 2006 is nothing close to the group that recorded "Mississippi Delta City Blues" in 1977, either technically [two of the three lead singers adre different], or musically [the lack of a rock guitar presence stunts the record from the start].

But, taking this record for what it is, it's an okay piece of work. It's good for maybe two and a half stars out of five. For those of us starved for Chicago music, it has to do, because that's all we've got. But, given that the band had a decade and a half to put its best material together, XXX has to be considered an overall disappointment. Hearing the unreleased Stone of Sisyphus and Lamm's Subtlety and Passion leads me to believe that these guys can do better.

The original Chicago members are either approaching or into their 60s now. If they have anything left to say, and I believe they do, it's time for them to take the risks that defined them as a young band breaking all the rules, and create music that they -- and the world -- would be unreservedly proud of. While Chicago XXX has some decent tuneage, it is not in any sense of the word the groundbreaking work that Chicago ought to be striving for.

Chicago. The band, not the city. Anyone who came up in the 1970s and was musically oriented probably has an appreciation for this rock icon.

For me, as a trumpet player cum drummer out of the big band and Tijuana Brass school of music, Chicago was a veritable feast of musical textures. Imagine – a horn driven rock and roll band. Wow!

Their output from 1969 through 1977 was nothing short of extraordinary. Chicago’s first three releases [1969, 1970, 1971] were all double albums. Chicago at Carnegie Hall was a four record set. These albums were revolutionary, not only musically, buy politically, as well.

From 1972 onward, the band edged more and more toward radio-friendly pop and rock, and away from the harder-edged politically-based work previously done. Chicago V, and VI were single albums, but both had big hits and great music past the radio-played songs. 1974' Chicago VII was another double album, containing percussive Latin-based work, folk-derived songs, and jazz/funk-tinged pop. VIII, from 1975, showed the group heading more toward pop/rock sensibilities, but with outstanding musicianship and arrangement skills. The prolific nature of the three main writers, Lamm [keyboards], Kath [guitar], and Pankow [trombone and arrangements] was nothing short of astounding

My first real exposure to Chicago was their tenth album, with the chocolate bar cover. I owe it all to my friend Glenn. That was the record that included “If You Leave Me Now,” the worst song on the album and ironically the band’s first number one single. The other songs were the actual meat of the collection: “Once or Twice,” featuring Terry Kath’s sizzling vocal and the driving horns, “You Are On My Mind,” an infectious samba number with James Pankow’s rolling trombone solo [in a rock and roll song, mind you!] and Danny Seraphine’s solid Latin groove, “Skin Tight,” a half-time shuffle hot enough to scorch your skin right off with a horn solo transcendent enough to drive you crazy, and perhaps the best song on the album, Robert Lamm’s “Scrapbook,” a lyrical band biography with contemplative but fabulous horns and Kath’s wicked guitar work gluing it all together.

The band’s eleventh album featured strong work, too, with Kath’s “Mississippi Delta City Blues,” Lamm’s “Policeman,” Kath’s guitar tour-de-force, “Takin’ It On Uptown,” Lamm’s scathing campaign number, “Vote for Me,” which works well in any election cycle, and the anthemic "Take Me Back To Chicago," featuring the great Kath and Chaka Khan preach at the end. To this day, I can see my friend Glenn, listening to that song over and over, living for that moment of the keyboard surge during the bridge. Well, I guess you had to be there.

Then, in late 1977, Terry Kath, who was idolized by the likes of Jimi Hendrix, stupidly put a gun to his head in jest, and blew his brains out. Chicago lost its way, and has never been quite the same since. The band parted ways with its long-tie producer, Jimmy Guercio at the same time.

1978's Hot Streets, with a hastily-added Donnie Dacus on guitar and vocals, was a decent record, with some quality tuneage and a couple of big hits for the group. The thirteenth album was an ill-considered descent into disco, and was the first nadir of the group’s discography. Chicago XIV, produced by the great Tom Dowd, provided four very good songs, but typified a directionless effort. Instead of setting the standard, Chicago was relegated to following trends. Chicago had become irrelevant.

After jumping labels from Columbia to Warner Brothers, adding San Francisco’s Bill Champlin to the lineup, and hooking up with hot producer David Foster, Chicago appeared reinvigorated with their sixteenth effort in 1982. They had a number one single and some solid arrangements, but it was apparent that the new label wanted to push the band away from horn-driven rock and roll, and more toward power ballads sung by Peter Cetera. In other words, Cetera with his backup band. Chicago 17 (1984) was a big success, but was a typical 80s album, with boring drum machine grooves, boring power ballads, and incessantly 80s pop sensibilities. I believe that you dance with who brung ya. Chicago forgot what brung them. The public loved it; I hated it, other than the three or four songs that still had some signature Chicago horn riffs.

Chicago 18 saw the departure of Peter Cetera, who obviously decided he could hire his own back-up band. Jason Scheff, son of Elvis bass player Jerry Scheff, was recruited to sing the Cetera alto parts and play bass. The eighteenth and nineteenth albums are frankly, almost un-listenable, at least to me. The mind-numbing Humberto Gatica-style production values are just awful. These albums saw a complete lack of the organic Chicago sound. The songs basically sucked, too, with a few exceptions. This period is the second nadir of the group.

With their twenty-first album in 1991, the production was clearer, but the material was still mediocre at best. The great Danny Seraphine was abruptly replaced by former Kenny Loggins drummer Tris Imboden, who sounded nothing like Seraphine’s free-wheeling style, and nothing like his own very solid and intricate work with Loggins. Clearly, this talented drummer was being held back by the rest of the group. Boring. Amply stocked with Diane Warren power ballads, there are maybe three or four songs that are worth a listen. Apparently, the public was as bored with Chicago as I was, because Chicago Twenty-One sold about four copies. Chicago had become – again – irrelevant.

Four years passed. Chicago left its label, and produced a big band album in 1995 on Giant Records, taking swing standards and giving them the “Chicago treatment.” This record was a strong effort, taking well-known songs and making them Chicago songs. And it was a real return to the days when Chicago set musical standards. Chicago Night and Day Big Band predicted the rise of big band rock efforts by the likes of the Brian Setzer Orchestra and even Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. I heard more of the real essence of Chicago in its Night and Day covers than I had heard in years.

Unfortunately, it did not sell well, and Chicago again disappeared from the ranks of bands producing and releasing new material. They became what I had always feared: an oldies band, regurgitating their [very] old hits during the obligatory summer tour. Without new work, new songs, new growth, it was inevitable that they withered on the vine.

Then, I discovered that, in fact, Chicago had completed an album for Warner Brothers in 1994. Prospectively titled Stone of Sisyphus, Warners had rejected the album outright. Apparently, the label wanted the same old power ballads, which is not what “Stone” is. Chicago bought themselves out of their contract and shelved “Stone” indefinitely.

It turns out that Stone was available, in varying degrees of mp3 quality, on the Internet. I downloaded it and got a shock, because it was good. At points, it was great. The guys are writing about what matters to them. While the record had ballads, they are written by band member, and are actually pretty good. And the horn-driven rock and roll aspect, so long left out of the equation, is back. “Stone” is a first rate piece of work, and should have been released when made, in 1994. I’m lucky to have found decent mp3s of the songs, and have my own copy of the work.

So here it is, the Spring of 2006. Chicago’s last commercially released album of original work was fifteen years ago, in 1991. Robert Lamm’s “Subtlety and Passion” from 2003 was an excellent collection, and as close to a real Chicago album as we have seen in a decade. But it wasn’t Chicago.

Now, finally, released on March 21, is Chicago XXX. Have the guys pulled it off? Can they reinvent themselves yet again? Will XXX “take me back to Chicago,” as it were? I’ll post soon with my review of the long-awaited Chicago XXX.

Pernicious:

SUPPORTERS and detractors call it the "silent tort reform" movement, and it has quietly and quickly been gaining ground.

Across Washington, federal agencies that supervise everything from auto safety to medicine labeling have waged a powerful counterattack against active state prosecutors and trial lawyers. In the last three decades, the state courts and legislatures have been vital avenues for critics of Washington deregulation. Federal policy makers, having caught onto the game, are now striking back.

Using a variety of largely unheralded regulations, officials appointed by President Bush have moved in recent months to neuter the states. At the urging of industry groups, the federal agencies have inserted clauses in new rules that block trial lawyers and state attorneys general from applying both higher standards in state laws and those in state court precedents.

The efforts by the federal regulators may wind up doing more than Congress to change state tort laws.

Last month, for instance, the bedding industry persuaded the Consumer Product Safety Commission to adopt a rule over the objections of safety groups that would limit the ability of consumers to win damages under state laws for mattresses that catch fire. The move was the first instance in the agency's 33-year history of the commission's voting to limit the ability of consumers to bring cases in state courts.

Read it all. What they can't get above-board, they get below-board.

Gekko gulps. Rates unfair? Note the non-denial denial from Geico.

Not to belabor the obvious, but:

. . . a study by John Ashcroft's Justice Department found that the number of tort trials declined by nearly 80 percent between 1985 and 2003. If the number of lawsuits is rapidly shrinking, but the cost of insurance keeps getting more expensive, then how can frivolous lawsuits be the problem?

What this state [Florida] needs is insurance reform, and we needed it last year, instead of Senate Bill 3. Did you know that property casualty insurance companies increased their annual profits from $3 billion in 2002, to over $40 billion in 2004?

What is so distrssing is that through lack of attention, lack of interest, and/or lack of knowledge, the public is letting Big Insurance and its shills [including, apparently, the Bush Administration] ride roughshod over its rights. I saw the President answering questions today on TV, and he was casually candid about his agenda: limit lawsuits. Not cut insurance rates, not reduce "frivolous" litigation, but limit lawsuits.

Protect Patients Now, by limiting their rights of redress in the event of negligence. Yeah, makes sense to me.

By the way, this guy is no relation to me.

Sandra Day O'Connor warns us of what we should already know: We are seeing the embryonic formation of american dictatorship; forewarned is forearmed:

I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Per NPR and Keith Olberman at MSNBC, and The Raw Story.

A Kentucky proposed constitutional amendment that would allow caps on noneconomic damages as low as $250,000 failed to pass the Kentucky State Senate earlier this month. Good.

Medical malpractice caps have little effect on rates, according to a Harvard Economist who studies the issue:

[Harvard economist] Chandra particularly attacks the doctors' argument that higher malpractice payments, which can result from having no cap, directly lead to higher liability insurance rates. "The relationship between these two variables that people have argued is tight is actually very weak," he said.

No surprise here.

I've said since the 2004 primary season that what John Edwards really needed to become a truly viable presidential candidate was more foreign policy gravitas. Apparently, he thought so, too.

I love Grand Cayman, aside from the traffic, which is becoming a real problem. The good news: I was there with my wife, for our first grown-up vacation in 4 and a half years, and I got to do 13 dives in 5 days [I'll post a trip report when I get it done]. The bad news: Glenn couldn't go, because he was doing something else, I'm not sure what....

Thanks to Nick and Patrick at Red Baron Divers for the photo, as well as the great dives!

Random thought: many people -- and especially Republicans -- are saying that Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Ever wonder why? Could it be because the Republicans WANT to run against Hillary, because they think she would go a long way to assure a Republican victory? Consider the situation:

The Democrats are seen as being disorganized, overly radical, soft on foreign policy, terrorism, the military, unfocused, with no clear "plan," and so forth. In other words, the same old hyperbole the Repubs have been spouting since 1972, or even 1968. Why is this the message resonating in the public? Because the Republican spin-meisters are doing a really good job at delivering that message to the public, and the democratic spin-meisters seem to be AWOL [I mean, Bilbo Baggins, uh, I mean Bob Shrum, who has NEVER won a presidential, and who blew a sure thing presidential in 2004, is on Hardball representing the left? come on guys....].

Those same Repub spinners are practically slobbering to run against Hillary. She has incredibly high negatives, and that's a year before her putative campaign would begin. Because she chose to move to New York and run for the Senate there, the Repub spinners will portray her as just another northeastern liberal, regardless of her Senate record on foreign policy, which is actually quite centrist. Truth is irrelevant; perception is what matters. She will be tarred -- unfairly, or course -- by the spectre of Bill's peccadillos while in the White House, and she won't get to take any of the credit for perhaps the best substantive administration since FDR. Finally, the Repubs believe, regardless of what might be said publicly, that the country just is not ready for a woman as president, especially in these terror-ridden times. I hate to agree with Pat Buchanan on anything, but he's right when he says John McCain will destroy Hillary in a presidential campaign.

Why wouldn't the Republicans want to run against Hillary?

Tennessee litigators may be familiar with the "made whole doctrine," which provides that a private health insurance company or medical payments insurance company may not be reimbursed from the proceeds of a personal injury settlement until and unless the injured party is fully compensated. Thus, if a plaintiff has $100,000 in medical bills, but the maximum recovery is only, say, $50,000, then that plaintiff is not fully compensated, or made whole, and the health/med pay carrier has no legal subrogation interest or right of reimbursement.

One "creative" argument insurance companies came up with to try and get reimbursement was to claim that the health insurance plan was covered under the federal ERISA law, and that therefore, ERISA preempts, or trumps state law protections and provides a federal right of recovery. The U.S. Supreme Court scotched that idea, though, in 2002, with the Knudson opinion, authored by my new best friend, Justice Scalia. Read the opinion if you will, but in essence, Scalia for the Court says that there is no such reimbursement right contained within the ERISA law. I have had a few cases where citation of this case was important to defeating a health carrier's assertion of a reimbursement right. Thank goodness for fairness, equity, and Antonin Scalia.

But wait a minute! Our wonderful Congress, who has shown itself as a body more interested in protecting business and Big Insurance, is at it again. H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005, is going to conference committee. The House version of the bill contains ERISA amendments that would allow insurance companies to have first dibs at personal injury recoveries. If enacted per the conference report, we will find many instances where the insurance companies get reimbursed and the injured victim as a result gets little or nothing from their his or her lawsuit. Here's a fact sheet detailing reasons for opposing this change in the law, which, as usual hurts the little guy while causing a windfall for Big Insurance.

Well, I'm back, literally as well as figuratively. I got a call from a colleague, commenting that I had not posted since December. He was, unfortunately, right. I really hate it when things like work and vacations get in the way of good, solid blogging. Heh.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION -- ATTORNEY FEE CAPS MAY BE WAIVED:

Last year, state voters approved Amendment 3, which places strict limits on the contingency fees that lawyers earn from representing people who sue doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers for malpractice. But lawyers have found a way to sidestep the cap: They ask clients to waive their rights under the amendment, allowing the attorneys to collect higher fees.
Doctors responded by asking the court to change the ethical rules that all lawyers in Florida must abide by, and both sides went before the court two weeks ago. Justices expressed skepticism that the court could prohibit anyone from waiving their constitutional rights. But several justices also said that there should be some safeguards to guarantee that medical malpractice victims are aware of their rights.
The order on Wednesday says it is not a final ruling in the case, but it sends a strong signal as to how the court will eventually rule. Justices said that the new rules developed by the Florida Bar must ''include a procedure'' where medical malpractice victims can free their attorney from the fee caps.

Here is text of the Supreme Court Order. Here's a link to the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers page, with links to other neat stuff for lawyer and quasi-lawyer geeks, like oral arguments, briefs and the like.

One must understand that the effort to cap attorney's fees does not help the average person, it hurts them profoundly. If a lawyer must limit his fees to an arbitrarily low figure, while still having to finance a case often well into the six figures, then that puts an incredibly chilling effect on the ability of malpractice victims to hire a lawyer. The doctors and Big Insurance haven't been able to win the day on substance, so they are trying to achieve the same goal through the back door. If a client can't get a lawyer, they won't file suit. No lawsuit, no insurance exposure. Pernicious, but not surprising.

I read it. It's called London Blues. Not bad, either.

You know, I gave up watching lawyer shows on TV some time ago. I think it was "Ally McBeal" that really did it to me. Now it's another David Kelley show, "Boston Legal." I happened to catch an episode [TIVO's playing it back as I blog], and it is so insulting for lawyers, as well as the poor audience that might actually think lawyers act this way, that I'm just disgusted.

Now, I didn't see the whole episode, but apparently a four year old got kidnapped, so two associates of this fictional firm masquerade as FBI agents, abduct a person with knowledge about the kidnapping, truss him up, threaten torture, violate every constitutional right the guy might have had, and get information from him. Then -- if that's not bad enough -- they go to a suspect's priest, and in an effort to get him to violate his confessional confidentiality, misrepresent themselves as federal officers, threaten him with a fraudulently fake search warrant, threaten to knock down the priest's door with an axe, and when the priest puts his hand up to stop them, they cut off three of the priest's fingers! Still with me? THEN, they blackmail him at the hospital by refusing to give him back one of his severed fingers until he breaks his vow of confidentiality. Oh, and I forgot to mention that the firm's managing partner knew what these two lawyers were up to, and turned a blind eye to it.

Oh. My. God.

This insult to my intelligence was like a law school ethics question -- how many ways to get not only disbarred, but hell, arrested and prosecuted for multiple felonies? I suppose I should laugh about it like I did with "The Verdict," but I just can't. People believe this crap. I know they want it controversial, but can't they do it without making the lawyers look like the biggest bunch of lawbreakers, crooks, and generally bad people since Jesse James?

UPDATE: OK, here's a wild contrast: on AMC is "To Kill A Mockingbird." Atticus is very cool

More thoughts on ideology and zealotry. Bill Moyers's fears are, in my opinion, entirely justified:

there is an even harder challenge - to pierce the ideology that governs official policy today. One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

Read the whole thing.

There's an argument being floated that Bush is no more culpable for taking military action against Iraq than is Clinton, who launched missile strikes in 1998. If life were a debating society, the point might be good. But I can't help but note that (1) The Bush Administration had five more years of intelligence; (2) there are serious questions whether the Bush Administration tweaked the intel to suit their ends-oriented analysis; (3) when no WMD were found, the Bush Administration shifted their alleged motivation for war to "the fight against global terror"; (4) evidence indicates that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq even before 9/11; and most importantly, (5) The Clinton Administration's military action against Iraq did not cost (to date) 2,065 American lives and many thousands more maimed and wounded.

I also have a long enough memory to recall just what the Administration said, both explicitly and by innuendo: that Saddam had WMD, that he would use them imminently, and we had to take military action right away, or else. The Bush Administration resorted shamelessly -- and effectively -- to the worst kind of fear-mongering.

The Administration had an unrealistic assessment of the presence of WMD, it had an unrealistic assessment of the cooperation of Iraqis, and it had an unrealistic assessment of how to win the peace. When collectively pink with embarassment for not having found any WMD, the Administration resultingly resorted to attempted political retribution against Joe Wilson when he went off the reservation to expose the Administration's shortcomings in the decision to commit to war.

In its zeal to find out something -- anything! -- to justify the war decision, the Administration has condoned, nay, approved the use of torture to extract information of questionable reliability from prisoners. In short, the Bush Administration, acting for the United States, has acted contemptibly, and has caused us, in the eyes of the world, to become that which we detest the most.

Before I'm castigated for being unpatriotic, let me say that this discussion has nothing to do with our troops on the ground. They are simply soldiering. But we went to war in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, because we, the people, were misled about the necessity for military action.

Americans don't like to be lied to, and the public is just now starting to suspect they were duped into support for this war. There will be a price to be paid ultimately by this Administration.

MED-MAL "REFORM" UPDATE: Ken Connor, former president of the Family Research Council and attorney for Florida Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case, injects fresh air into the debate over changes to our civil justice system. His column, with support links, persuasively argues the following:

All told, the top 15 medical malpractice insurance carriers raised their rates a startling 120% between 2000-2004, even though their payouts increased less than 6%. Some companies continued to raise the rates doctors pay even though their payout expenses were declining.

The industry’s clear strategy is to blame injured patients and their attorneys in order to deflect attention from their avarice.

The truth is that there is a medical malpractice crisis facing our nation. It has its origins in the operating room, not the courtroom. According to an Institute of Medicine study published a few years ago, between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die in hospitals every year due to preventable medical errors.i (To put that in context, we lost 58,000 soldiers in the entire Vietnam War).

Another way to improve the quality of patient care is for doctors to police their own ranks more vigorously. In Florida, for instance, one study has shown that over half of the malpractice in that state is committed by just six percent of the doctors.iv The proper response to that fact is not to attack the injured patients and strip them of their legal rights, but to more aggressively discipline errant doctors. A “three strikes and you’re out” program for negligent doctors would not only be good for patients, but also for the non-negligent doctors who are currently forced to pick up the tab for their negligent colleagues.

Another way to reduce insurance premiums for good doctors would be to institute a “risk pooling” method of insurance coverage. Doctors with a history of neglect would be placed in “high risk” pools separate and apart from those with good track records. The result will be that insurance premiums will be more commensurate with the risk posed by those in the “pool”.

Connor will be speaking to the ATLA Republican Trial Lawyers Caucus tomorrow. Just goes to show that sometimes, the differences between "red" and "blue" types is not that great after all.

Some thoughts on the University of Tennessee football Vols:

This year's offense has seesawed between mediocre and pathetic. During Satruday's debacle against Georgia, my seatmate and I figured that Tennessee has failed to score in 9 out of the 20 quarters of football it has played this season [I don't count that "last minute" touchdown referred to in the link's headline; we scored with no time left to make the score 27-14 -- it was meaningless]. While I have seen [very] poor Tennessee offenses before, never have I seen such poor performance after everyone, from the head coach down the line, told us how fabulous this team was going to be. It's no one player; it's a comprehensive offensive problem.

I refuse to believe it's the level of talent. Tennessee consistently recruits top classes. As a general assumption, it's fair to say that Tennessee's talent level rivals any other program in the NCAA.

If that is the case, then the reason for the poor play comes down to one of two things: either the outstanding prospects are simply and collectively not as good as everone thought, or those outstanding prospects are not being developed into the top college football players they could be. My vote, for several years, has been the latter.

Casey Clausen, who was a starter most of his Tennessee career, had stats almost as good as Peyton Manning's. Where's Casey these days? Graduate assistant for some SEC school. He never achieved the way Manning did because he wasn't developed as well as Manning. David Cutcliffe brought along Peyton, as wel as Eli, both successful college and NFL quarterbacks. Who developed Clausen? Randy Sanders.

In every year since 1999, the year Sanders became Offensive Coordinator and Quarterbacks Coach, the Tennessee's offensive output has either gone down, or at the very least, has never reached the levels of previous teams, including the 1998 National Championship squad. While the defense under John Chavis has consistently excelled, the offense has sputtered, or fallen apart [see Florida game in 2002].

I was the first person to laud Sanders after his magnificent work in the 2004 campaign. He got two completely green quarterbacks ready to play, he got the third-stringer ready when both the first two went out with injuries, and he was able to construct an offensive line game after game, from a group that had been decimated with injuries. He should have been named the assistant coach of the year. Alas, it appears that Sanders's performance in 2004 was the exception to the rule.

Player preparation is weak. Offensive lineman are not opening holes or moving the pile to allow the running game to breathe. Receivers are dropping the ball more than I can remember in the last 16 years. The offense is consistently plagued with penalties that reflect a lack of coaching and a lack of discipline. As I said over and over again during last Saturday's game, "it's one step forward, two steps back."

The play-calling is adequate, but there are definitely times when the opposing defense has known what we're going to run, before our offense does. We are consistently told that we have a tremendously sophisticated playbook, but I seem to see the same 20 or so plays every game. If we've got it, why aren't we using it?

The bottom line is that, seven years after our shining National Championship, Tennessee football has become average. The players have lost that edge, that innate ability to do whatever is necessary to win the game that top rank teams have. Seven years ago, we would have roared back to beat Georgia, the way USC has been coming from behind to beat teams this season. Unfortunately, Tennessee is no longer in USC's league.

We need to shake things up in the Tennessee program. If that means making a change in Offensive Coordinator, so be it. I'm open to suggestions.

Comparing George W. Bush to Harry Truman is an insult to Truman.

Michael Brown and Harriet Miers have caused the spotlight to shine on the Bush Administration's remarkable track record of promoting unqualified Bush cronies to positions of power and responsibility. The New Republic lists top 15 of the Bush "Hackocracy." Just two examples:

No. 13. Claire Buchan, Chief of Staff, Department of Commerce: She used to be a White House Deputy Press Secretary, "a public affairs underling for the Treasury Department under former President Bush, a flack for the Republican National Committee, and (during the Clinton years) an image czar for the lawn care, extermination, and appliance repair company ServiceMaster. Some of Buchan's erstwhile colleagues in the White House press corps were left speechless when her new assignment was announced in February. One White House reporter who worked closely with Buchan for five years called her 'the most useless in a Bush universe of enforced uselessness. She took empty banality to a new low.'"

No. 3: Rear Admiral Cristina Beato, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services: In June 2004, Cristina Beato admitted to her hometown newspaper that she hadn't paid much attention to the details of her resumé. That's too bad, because those silly little details seem to have stalled her confirmation for assistant secretary for health for over two years now. Beato said she earned a master's of public health in occupational medicine from the University of Wisconsin (but the university doesn't even offer that degree). She claimed to be "one of the principal leaders who revolutionized medical education in American universities by implementing the Problem Based learning curriculum" (but the curriculum was developed while Beato was still a medical student). She listed "medical attaché" to the American Embassy in Turkey as a job she held in 1986 (but that position didn't exist until 1995). She also boasted that she had "established" the University of New Mexico's occupational health clinic (but the clinic existed before she was hired, and there was even another medical director before her). For her part, Beato has offered a simple explanation: English is her third language, after French and her native Spanish, and sometimes the language barrier is just too much to handle. How does one say "pants on fire" in Spanish?

And that's just two on the list. Sheesh.

I guess I don't mind being loyal to one's friends and getting them positions in the government. Most administrations have done it. But at least let them be qualified for the job. As it stands, it is an insult to the taxpayer who pays their salary, the department that is saddled with apparent incompetents, as well as the government employees who work with and under these hacks.

Anyone who wants to talk about "good government" and "government waste" should start by looking at the hackocracy.

This Harriet Miers thing has me alternately guffawing at Republicans practicing political cannibalism, and depressed over what it appears to mean.

Most of the establishment "Reagan" Republicans, have, without so much as a by your leave, roundly attacked and decried the Administration. OK; that's fun. But why are they doing it to "their" president? Because he's "their" president only so long as he does their bidding. Message to W:toe the line or face the consequences.

If I am right, it supports what I have been saying since 2000: George W. Bush is and has been nothing more than a placeholder for the Republican establishment, a figurehead who was put up for the job because he had a name and he was pretty and they had no one else at the time who was any better. Right wing pundits seem to confirm this theory, because just as soon as he does something not "cleared" with them, they vomit vitriol against him that is extraordinary. Unbelieveably, they've got me feeling sorry for Bush, and I consider the guy a political dunderhead!

The larger issue of what this "eat your young" exercise reflects is the true agenda of the Republican party, and especially its right wing. They want to pack the courts [including the Supreme Court] with right wing ideologues who will redraw our country in their image. Want a picture of their image of the U.S.? Just ask Ann Coulter -- Democrats are traitors. It's the ultimate crushing of dissent.

The dirty little secret about the judicial debate is that it is not between "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism." For over 200 years, it has been elementary that we must have independent judges who "say what the law is." We must have judges who will be the ultimate arbiters on what our statutes and our Constitution means, in light of the 21st century that we live in.

The conservatives want the Supreme Court to be activist, too. They just want it to judicially legislate to suit their image of our country and for their interests. They want the Court to abolish the right to choose. They want the Court to curtail or abolish privacy rights. They want the Court to do away with the rights of the accused. They want the Court to "say what the law is," but in the way they want it to be.

The conservatives and right wingers have firm control over two branches of our government. Even a cursory listen to a Pat Buchanan type makes it obvious that they want the fight with Democrats over control over the third and last branch -- the Judiciary. Because they think they can win.

This free-for-all is about getting and keeping power, nothing more or less. The right wingers think they've got the votes to ram a conservative ideologue down the Senate's collecive throat. Bush sidestepped the fight. The zealots are livid that their figurehead didn't do their bidding.

What's got all us middle-of-the-roaders so worried is the adage that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't trust the Republicans to be good stewards of our nation, based not only on their positions and philosophy, but also on their track record in the White House since 2001 and in Congress since 1995. If the Republicans in general -- and increasingly, that means the right wing fundamentalists -- gain control of all organs of government, I truly fear for us.

The 2 or 3 people who actually visit this site might have noticed I have been playing musical templates the last day or so. I like this one all right; the last one didn't show the hyperlinks well, so I changed it.

It's no great news that I went to the Tennessee-Ole Miss game last weekend. What was cool about this game was that I got to sit in the East Skyboxes. Here's an exterior view of the structure. For the well-heeled (and lucky hangers-on like me), they set out a heckuva spread here both before and during the game. We're talking lamb and beef tenderloin, lobster ravioli, shrimp etouffee, and a delightful white chocolate mousse for dessert that cleaned the pallette jusy right.

My assessment: it was OK, and quite plush, but considering the thick glass separating you from the game itself, there still is a disconnect feeling about sitting there. Don't get me wrong, though: if asked, I would attend there in the future!

Interesting coincidence: the last [and only other] time I was in a skybox was in 1984, when my friend Glenn had an invite from UT Chancellor Jack Reese to come up to the Chancellor's box. Who were we playing that day? Ole Miss! Oh, and we won that day, too.

UPDATE: The Skybox links above don't work right. However, just click on the links in the page you are directed to, and you will see some interior photos.

Not only is Ann Coulter crazy and dangerous, she's a snob, too.

Don't get me wrong. I honestly don't know whether this Harriet Miers would be a good Supreme Court Justice or not. I do know that there is nothing in the Supreme Court Justice job description that says, "Must have attended elite university, such as Harvard, Yale, et al." Coulter's reasoning is insultingly forced ["I think we want the nerd from an elite law school" remarkably denigrates "nerds" and non-nerds at the same time], and is fundamentally flawed.

I think there is too much academic in-breeding in the federal judiciary anyway. Why SMU? Why not SMU? Or Tennessee [home of my friend Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds]. Or American University's Washington College of Law [my alma mater]. Where a lawyer went to school has no impact on what kind of mind that lawyer has, or what kind of judge he/she would make. I say that a little diversity would be good for the Court, and the country.

Now, I guess I'm not too surprised at Coulter's ranting about Miers's background. She went to an "elite" undergraduate school [Cornell], an "elite" law school [Michigan], she was an editor of the law review, she clerked for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she worked for Floyd Abrams's "elite" law firm in New York City [highly-paid, hundreds of lawyers, most with pedigrees such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Virginia, Michigan]. Coulter's looking for a bird of a feather, and appears to take an immediate dislike to an appointee who has the wrong color feathers.

One thing I've figured out over the last 20 years or so: legal elitists tend to a pack mentality; they are most comfortable with people who have similar backgrounds. If I had been top 5% at American University, I might have gotten an interview with Coulter's former firm, had I been so inclined. It's unlikely they would have made me an offer, however. I'm just not in the same club, so to speak.

And at the end, that's what's got Coulter and the other elitists, "liberal" or "conservative," upset. Miers is not in the right club. She doesn't belong.

If we're going to judge this appointee on whether she's "fit" [whatever that means] to sit on the Supreme Court, we should have a reasoned discourse on her qualifications for the job. Maybe she doesn't have the gravitas to deserve the job, but where she matriculated should have nothing to do with the debate.

A lawsuit by the widow of a policeman who was killed when bullets penetrated his bulletproof vest has led to a federal lawsuit and criminal investigation against that manufacturer. Turns out the allegedly defective vests were used by Secret Service, the President, and the First Lady:

Prosecutors have gathered documents showing that Second Chance was alerted as early as 1998 by the Japanese material maker, Toyobo Co., that Zylon had trouble maintaining its protective properties.

By 2001, Second Chance's research chief, Aaron Westrick, was pleading unsuccessfully with his company's president to replace the vests after his own tests showed them degrading, the memos show.

"Lives and our credibility are at stake," Westrick wrote then-Second Chance president Richard Davis in a Dec. 18, 2001, memo. "We will only prevail if we do the right things and not hesitate. This issue should not be hidden for obvious safety issues and because of future litigation."

Westrick urged Davis to "immediately notify our customers of the degradation problems," let those with pending orders cancel them and cease all executive bonuses to save money so the company could pay for a replacement initiative, the memo shows.

But Second Chance customers were not alerted to the problems until September 2003 _ after a California police officer was shot to death wearing the vest and a Pennsylvania officer was seriously wounded.

In the interim, the Secret Service paid $53,000 in 2002 to Second Chance for body armor, enough to equip the president and the security detail that protects him and other VIPs, federal procurement records show.

Legal professionals and government officials familiar with the inquiry confirmed Westrick's account about the Secret Service and Bush. They said the criminal investigation is in addition to a Justice Department lawsuit filed last summer that accuses Second Chance and Toyobo of fraud. The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing grand jury secrecy.

While the purpose of lawsuits is to get compensation for the wronged, this situation illustrates how legal action can force changes -- or at least investigations -- that serve the greater good.

W.R. Grace to asbestos victims: You're not so sick:

Most of the 870 people under a medical plan for Libby-area residents sickened by asbestos exposure have been sent letters saying they no longer have asbestos-related disease, or may not be as sick as they thought.

About 700 people received the letters this month from HNA/Triveras, administrator of a medical plan for W.R. Grace & Co., which operated a vermiculite mine here until 1990. Some health authorities blame the mine for killing 200 people and sickening one of every eight residents.

Apparently, blue is green and red is purple, according to W.R. Grace.

Regarding the ongoing levee problem in New Orleans, why isn't this solution being considered or used? Moreover, why isn't Aqua-Levee bringing its miracle product down to N.O. on its own. If nothing else, imagine the worldwide positive publicity it could garner.

I know the president has more or less backed off his statement that no one expected Katrina to cause so much damage. But I just had to link here, because Nashville lawyer John Day makes a good point: the National weather Service predicted Katrina damage pretty well:

URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA 1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005 ..DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED HURRICANE KATRINA A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969. MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. ALL GABLED ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL. PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME WALL AND ROOF FAILURE. HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT. AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH AS HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK. POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE KILLED. AN INLAND HURRICANE WIND WARNING IS ISSUED WHEN SUSTAINED WINDS NEAR HURRICANE FORCE...OR FREQUENT GUSTS AT OR ABOVE HURRICANE FORCE...ARE CERTAIN WITHIN THE NEXT 12 TO 24 HOURS. ONCE TROPICAL STORM AND HURRICANE FORCE WINDS ONSET...DO NOT VENTURE OUTSIDE!

Katrina is a demonstration of the failure of imagination in government -- nobody, apparently, ever imagined it would be so bad, even though we all knew, intellectually, that such a thing was possible. What we need are government people tasked specifically to spin out disaster scenarios, so that prepared responses may be formulated and executed. I think Instapundit suggested just this type of thing long ago. When I get the time, I'll find a link.

By now, y'all have probably heard that Merck, maker of the infamous Vioxx, got slapped with a jury verdict for a whopping $253.5 million, including punitive damages of $229 million. But did you hear that, under Texas law, that punitive verdict is automatically cut to $1.6 million? Let's put it in perspective:

$11.772 Billion: The total worldwide sales of Vioxx from the time it was introduced in 1999 to the time it was removed from the market in 2004.

1999: $472 million ["S&P Affirms Ratings on Merck & Co.; Outlook Stable," Standard & Poor's press release, Business Wire, 2/23/00]

2000: $2.2 billion ["Merck's Strong Performance in 2000 Driven by Five Key Medicines, Chairman Ray Gilmartin Tells Stockholders," Merck & Co., Inc. press release, Business Wire, 4/24/01]

2001: $2.6 billion ["Merck's Continued Focus on Innovation Will Drive Growth, Merck Chairman Tells Stockholders," Merck & Co., Inc. press release, Business Wire, 4/23/02]

2002: $2.5 billion [Merck & Co., Inc Annual Report, 2002, p. 24]

2003: $2.5 billion [Merck & Co., Inc Annual Report, 2003, p.19]

2004: $1.5 billion ["Cholesterol Drugs on Top," Med Ad News, Vol.24 No.5, May 2005]

$505 Million: The amount Merck spent ($505,207,440) on direct to consumer advertising for Vioxx. ["The new face of consumer advertising," Med Ad News, 24(6):1, June 2005, "Consumer ads reach peak, Med Ad News," Pg. 1(8) Vol. 21 No. 6, June 2002, "Direct-to-consumer spending by brand," Med Ad News, Pg. 46 Vol. 19 No. 6, June 2000]

$37.8 Million: The amount Merck's Chief Executive Officer, Raymond Gilmartin made ($37.775 million) in 2004 from a salary, bonus, and stock options that he cashed-in. He was paid a base salary of $1,600,008, and received a bonus of $1,375,000. In addition to this salary and bonus, Gilmartin made $34.8 million by exercising stock options that he previously received from the company. It should also be noted that Merck gave Gilmatin additional stock options in 2004, estimated to be valued at $19.2 million. [Merck & Co. 2005 Proxy Statement, p.24-25; USA Today, 3/30/05; Washington Post, 3/22/05; The New York Times, 5/6/05]

$30.4 Million: The amount Merck spent ($30,390,294) lobbying Members of Congress and Federal agencies between 2000 and 2004. [The Center for Public Integrity]
$1.511 Million The amount Merck's Political Action Committee contributed ($1,511,885) to federal candidates since 1997. [Center for Responsive Politics, as of July 31, 2005]

$675 Million: The amount Merck has set aside to pay its corporate defense lawyers in Vioxx-related lawsuits. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/20/05]

Note that last statistic. And they call plaintiff's lawyers greedy?

There's no point belaboring how bad things are in the Katrina-affected areas. The American Trial Lawyers Association has a way of making tax deductible contributions for hurricane relief, though.

As most musicians will tell you, the magic of playing happens when the whole exceeds the sum of the parts. There are relatively few groups that achieve that goal. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Chicago come to mind in this respect, as the solo output of these groups’ respective players seldom matches the music of the group. Loggins and Messina, reunited after 29 years, achieves the goal handily, even effortlessly.

The duo, who were paired almost accidentally back in the early 1970s, only played together for 4 or 5 years, but their music remains entrenched as some of the most notable tuneage of the 1970s. While both Loggins and Messina, as solos, have created some good music, none of what they have done since their amicable parting in 1976 approaches the soul and staying power of the Loggins and Messina catalog.

I drove 200 miles to see them in Atlanta, at Chastain Park Pavilion. Not that I'm superstituos, but because I brough no rain gear other than a couple of small umbrellas, it rained for about 2/3 of the show. Regardless, I had waited 25 years to see them again, and I was not disappointed by their performance. Loggins was his usual animated self, while Messina laid back and sang/played, essentially flawlessly.

Their voices are as pure as they were 30 years ago, which is quite a contrast, compared to other icons, such as Elton John and Paul McCartney, whose voices have suffered changes with age. Harmonies were spot on; I failed to detect any glitches in the vocals.

It was the same with the band, populated with musicians new to the Loggins and Messina scene. There were a couple of songs I thought were played slightly too slow, but it wasn't tentative, it was measured. There were no self-indulgent solos like we heard back in the day. The song selection, while mostly centered on the songs they are “known” for, was fine. As a fan, I always want to hear more, but I was not disappointed by what they played.

Not counting the down time during the intermission, the group played for about 2 ½ hours through on and off [mostly on] rain, and the audience that persevered through the elements was left wanting more.

Ultimately, it was a fine show, demonstrating that this duo needs to be making new music together. Loggins’s tendency toward fluff is perfectly counter-balanced by Messina’s grittiness. Their vocal styles complement each other well. They are both approaching 60 years on; it would be a horrible shame to their musical legacy, as well as the fans that enjoy their music, if they finished this tour and simply went their own separate ways again. If not now, when?

Playlist:
8:05 PM
1. Watching the River Run
2. House At Pooh Corner
3. Travelin Blues
4. Sailin’ The Wind
5. Long Tail Cat6. Country Song/Holiday Hotel
7. Back to Georgia
8. Changes
9. Trilogy
-Lovin Me...
-To Make a Woman Feel Wanted
-Peace of Mind
10. Your Mama Don’t Dance
(End at 9:00 pm)
Intermission
Around 9:20 they started showing clips of them from the 70s
The “General Store” part of the show
11. You Better Think Twice (A Poco Song)
12. Love Song
13. Keep Me In Mind
14. Kind Woman (A Buffalo Springfield Song)
15. Alive and Kickin
16. Growin’
17. Be Free
18. Same Old Wine
19. You Need A Man
20. Vahevala
Encore
21. Angry Eyes
Encore
22. Nobody But You
Encore
23. Danny’s Song
End about 10:55 pm

And then we drove 200 miles home again. Whew!

Based on this footage, thank God the French didn't help us out in Iraq [PG-13 site, caution for underage viwers]!

To no one's surprise, there is no "crisis" in medical malpractice cases. That is the conclusiosn of a study to be published in the July 2005 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, a peer-reviewed publication, and authored by four law professors. Some conclusions:

The number of large paid claims (>$25,000 in 1988 dollars) per year was roughly constant. The number of small paid claims (<$25,000 in 1988 dollars) declined sharply.

Mean and median payouts per large paid claim were $528,000 and $200,000, respectively, in 2002 and were roughly constant over time.

Roughly 5% of paid claims involved payments over $1 million, with little annual variation.

In 2000–2002, there was an average of 4.6 paid claims per 100 practicing Texas physicians per year, down from 6.4 paid claims per 100 practicing physicians per year in 1990–1992.

The total number of closed claim files averaged 25 per 100 practicing Texas physicians per year in 2000–2002. Of these, about 80% involved no payout.
In 2002, payouts to patients were about $515 million and Texas health care spending was about $93 billion, meaning that malpractice payouts equaled 0.6% of health care spending.

Mean and median jury verdicts in trials won by patients were $889,951 and $300,593, respectively, in 2002 and showed no significant upward or downward trend.
The sum of payouts and defense cost rose by about 1% per year. Defense costs, which grew 4.4% annually, drove this increase.

No surprise here. These facts and figures are consistent with my experience in Tennessee, too.

Anti-semitism at UC Irvine. Cloaked in the old rubric of "anti-zionism," the muslim students have hauled out yet again this old chestnut: "Malik Ali unleashed an attack about the Zionist control of the American media, Zionist complicity in the war in Iraq and Zionists’ ability to deflect justified criticism."

And how about this: "More recently in October, somebody scrawled the messages, “Kill the Jews” and 'Make it snow Jewish ash' in a classroom at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. That same month at UC Riverside, a pro-Palestinian display equated the Star of David with a swastika and Zionism with Nazism." It's the bg lie -- scream loud enough and long enough, and people may just start to believe it.

We're back to late 1930s Germany here. We must be very careful not to let this spiral get out of control.

It's official: bloggers beat Tom Daschle. What's interesting is that two of the most vociferous pro-Thune and anti-Daschle blogs were funded by the Thune campaign, and the bloggers closely associated either with Thune or with the GOP.

It's one thing if you're a blogger who just happens to like one candidate over another. It's quite another when you represent yourself as objective, fair and/or balanced, and it turns out after you have significantly influenced a campaign that you were bought, paid for, and propagandizing for your candidate.

Glenn spoke yesterday about poor Helen about having had it with being in he hospital. His comments about being in the hospital long periods of time is right on the mark. It's called ICU psychosis. Basically, the longer you are in the ICU [specifically, and hospital generally], the crazier you get. It happened to my father, when he was in the hospital for nine weeks following cancer surgery in 1992. He just got further and further away from us, to the point where a family friend [and doctor] told us to get him out, no matter what, or he was going to die. We did, and he didn't.

Being in the hospital sucks.

We now have a new law that restricts class action lawsuits, further limiting the rights of people to be compensated for their injuries. The Houston Chronicle, in our president's back yard, is critical of the legislation. The Chronicle's point: what happened to the concepts of limiting federal power, espoused by the republicans? Good question. My answer is that the Republicans never really believed that stuff; they say whaever they need to in advancing ther own agenda. Thus, if it serves their purpose to say "get government out of peoples' lives," they take that tack. When they want something in line witht their iedologu, all of a sudden restrictive legislation that takes perennially state matters out the states' hands becomes perfectly acceptable. Logically inconsistent, but ideologically useful.

Now that class actions are out of the way, it's back to this ridiculous effort to limit, first medical malpractice lawsuits, and ultimately all lawsuits for damages. Here are some interesting truths demonstrating that caps on damages and other limitations as proposed by the Administration do not reduce healthcare costs. Read the whole report, but here are some bullet points:

Despite caps on damages enacted in 19 states, most insurers continued to increase premiums for doctors at a rapid pace, regardless of caps.

States with caps on damages have premiums on average 9.8% higher that states that do not have caps.

Past and present medical malpractice judgments/settlements do not seem to be the driving force behind increases in premiums.

California doctors' premiums rose 450% in the 13 years after passage of caps on damages, and did not go down until California passed, by referendum, insurance reform.

The state of Texas's passed caps on damages in 2003. Its second largest insurer has now requested a 19% increase in premiums, stating that caps do not lead to any significant savings.

Modern Physician: "The real drivers of the rise in premiums over the past four years have been low interest rates, a sour national economy and the legacy of overly aggressive pricing policies in the years before the ‘crisis’ began in late 2000. . . ."

Many of those who support medical malpractice caps – even many tort reform “experts” and insurance company executives, admit that caps will not significantly lower premiums.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that caps will not significantly reduce overall healthcare costs.

Even the Budget Submitted by the Bush Administration – the Administration’s FY ’05 Budget did not state any savings as a result of caps.

"Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in. An insurance company today can't do that." (Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, "Dose of Legality," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, April 20, 2003).

The number of physicians has risen in every state every year over the last 3 years (of available data – 2000–2002), and the numbers of physicians are higher in every state than they were in 1996. (American Medical Association, “Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S.,” 2003-2004 edition)

In studies done in 1995 and 2004, the median plaintiff award in tort cases has dropped from $50,000 in the 1990s to $37,000 by 2001. (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm#state; University of Chicago Law Review, Winter 1998). Between 1992 and 2001 the number of jury trials with punitive damages remained stable (4% to 6%) and the median punitive damage award decreased slightly from $63,000 to $50,000. (Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001, Thomas H. Cohen, Steven K. Smith, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004).

The General Counsel for the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) – admitted that so-called “frivolous” malpractice cases are “very rare.”

In August 2003, tort reform advocates, including insurance industry executives, were forced to admit their arguments lacked merit after they were placed under oath by the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee. The St. Petersburg Times reported: “The Senate Judiciary Committee, frustrated by the conflicting information given it by different interest groups, discredited much of the medical malpractice rhetoric by placing witnesses under oath. Suddenly, there were no frivolous lawsuits and
Florida was a profitable place for insurance companies to do business after all.” (St. Petersburg Times, 8/17/03)

The bottom line is that this whole "reform" effort is nothing more than a shell game by Big Insurance and the chambers of commerce, in the hopes that a not-well-understood issue slides past the public's eye. It's much harder to undo something that has already been done. Which is exactly what they're trying to do.