An outfit called IceRocket has a search engine just for blogs. Check it out.

I just got an email from the Bush campaign, addressed to "Jewish Outreach." The subject was Arafat's "endorsement" of Kerry. Awfully kind of the Bushies to let me know. It does beg the question, however, of why people other than Jewish folks would not be interested in this news. The religious/ethnic stereotyping obviously employed by the Bush campaign is, frankly, reprehensible.

Interestingly, Arafat, technically, has not endorsed Kerry or anybody else:

Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told WND in an exclusive interview that while "we do not involve ourselves in internal American politics," at the same time "our region has been sliding deeper and deeper into chaos because of certain policies over the past few years, and this needs to change."

While he would not directly endorse Kerry, it was clear Erekat was implying the PA wants a change in White House leadership: "If things continue the way they are, if certain policies toward our region are maintained in the years to come, there is going to be a lot of violence on both sides."

Thus, Arafat has made no direct statement on the matter; an aide is speaking for him. Further, no direct endorsement was made.

Now, this might be splitting hairs, but the Bush trumpeting of an Arafat "endorsement" is just not accurate. Moreover, Kerry has no control over what Arafat or his people do. It would be a mistake to assume that Kerry is pro-palestinean or pro-Arafat simply because a Palstinean fellow made supporting statements about him. That does not compute.

And, while I no more support the Palestinean cause than I do terrorism [maybe the same thing?], it's no surprise that the Palestineans want regime change in the U.S., as Bush has been anathema to them.

Actually, the only good thing I can say about the Bush Administration is that its policy re: Israel has more or less recognized that the Palestineans have not acted and still do not act in good faith. Conversely, my biggest fear about a Kerry presidency is that he would re-elevate the grandaddy of terrorists and further muddle the situation in the Middle East.

Note by the way that I do not use the term "peace process," because I think that there is no peace process without both the warring parties acting in good faith. Given the Palestinean track record, I see no evidence of good faith movement toward peaceful co-existence with Israel. Ever.

JibJab has competition. Check this out for a, ahem, lighter side to this political season.

God help us all? A scathing graphical presentation accusing Katherine Harris, then Florida Secretary of State, Supervisor of Elections and head of the Bush campaign in Florida, of illegally disenfranchising at least 55,100 voters. As the presentation says, did she go to jail? Was she censured? Publicly lambasted? No. She is now a congresswoman from Florida. If the animation is accurate, it's devastating.

The Greg Palast BBC newscast upon which the presentation is based is here. And while the report is from 2001, it does beg the question: will it happen again?

Bad sign for Bush -- Dwight Eisenhower's son is a Kerry supporter. Pertinent quote:

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
****
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

The implication here is that prominent old line Republicans are deserting the Republican party as having moved too far to the right, too far in favor of the wealthy to the exclusion of everyone else. I agree.

On my way to pick up my car from the shop today, I asked the kid who was driving me whether he was going to vote. He said, "Yes." I said, "Well, you should vote for Kerry, unless, of course, you make over $200,000 per year. In that case, Bush is your man." Sadly, I believe that exactly to be the case.

Finally, a photo of the damage on Grand Cayman.

UPDATE: Here are more photos.

Devastating stories from Grand Cayman, including an unconfirmed report of 50 fatalities:

Angela and her friends Darina Fennel ,Nick Robinson, Darina's sister and boyfriend who are visiting,Emma and Clive and those who sheltered in Walkers Building and Caledonia house are okay, including Mr William Walker and his sons Robert and David.(The rest of the Walker family are not on the Island.)She said the navy ships are trying to get in now although they have been near all day but due to the bad conditions of the waves could not come close.Angela said that where they live just south of Georgetown just next to the water by some miracle, their apartment on the 2nd floor still is intact except for some water damage near the door and windows.and the landline phone seemed to be working ,but they feel it is not safe to live there because of the ocean conditions and they are moving back to a shelter.They have some water and some food left.They have spent the day helping others whose homes are either non existent or badly damaged and trying to help salvage some of the possessions. At this point they have not been able to make contact with other parts of the Island but they do know there are at least 50 people who have lost their lives.She said that they hope they can leave the Island as soon as The Powers That Be can help everyone to make arrangement ,as the Island is not livable given that there is no water , no electricity and the tremendous damage.

I have been trolling for news on my favorite places and people, and am struck by the can-do attitude of the victims on the scene, in terms of getting the infrastructure working again. More Cayman news at CaymanNet News.

UPDATE: Here's that fighting spirit in action:

The absolute priority of the Cayman Islands Government is to ensure the Islands get back on their feet. The Cabinet Secretary, Orrett Connor, said: "The Cayman Islands has picked itself up from hurricanes in the past. There is a tremendous team spirit here, and we are working together to rebuild and regroup. We are absolutely determined to be back in business extremely quickly."

I love these people!

The news from Grand Cayman is very, very bad.

Here's the winner for the most shameless solicitation of the month award: Lawyers for Bush. Considering his well-established record of fighting to put litigators out of business, this come-on indeed takes cojones.

Osama seems to be the least of our worries. Following is an email I just received from a distant family member. It delivers a chilling message:

This past Friday evening we attended services at Temple Bethel in Palm Beach. We went there specifically to listen to a lecture by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed. Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studiesat the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam. The title of the lecture was "Can Militant IslamCoexist with the state Of Israel?"

What we heard was blood chilling,but not at all surprising. His opening statement was, "The people of the United States worry aboutOsama. He is nothing but a tiny offshoot of the problem. The mainproblem is (and I quote) "EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROMTHE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BEANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!! And these mosques don't even consider themselves militant.Trading land for peace. A big joke!

The Koran states (as he quoted) that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim nation is not binding and is meant to be broken once the Muslim nation becomes stronger than the non-Muslim nation with whom the treaty was made. So all the treaties with Israel to be made in the future will eventually (and must) be broken once the Muslim nation feels it is strong enough. It took 200 years for the Crusaders to be vanquished and driven from the Holy Land. Israel is a mere 50 yrs old. Islam has patience. Dr. M. has received numerous death threats and is constantly booed and driven off the pulpit in the many mosques that he lectures in because he espouses peaceful co-existence with Israel. The frightening aspect of this is that there a huge 5th column right here in the USA.

I can't vouch for the reliability of this report, but at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve it. And except for the Israel-Egypt peace, it is consistent with Arab/Islamic practices in the region since 1948.

Osama seems to be the least of our worries. Following is an email I just received from a distant family member. It delivers a chilling message:

This past Friday evening we attended services at Temple Bethel in Palm Beach. We went there specifically to listen to a lecture by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed. Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studiesat the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam. The title of the lecture was "Can Militant IslamCoexist with the state Of Israel?"

What we heard was blood chilling,but not at all surprising. His opening statement was, "The people of the United States worry aboutOsama. He is nothing but a tiny offshoot of the problem. The mainproblem is (and I quote) "EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROMTHE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BEANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!! And these mosques don't even consider themselves militant.Trading land for peace. A big joke!

The Koran states (as he quoted) that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim nation is not binding and is meant to be broken once the Muslim nation becomes stronger than the non-Muslim nation with whom the treaty was made. So all the treaties with Israel to be made in the future will eventually (and must) be broken once the Muslim nation feels it is strong enough. It took 200 years for the Crusaders to be vanquished and driven from the Holy Land. Israel is a mere 50 yrs old. Islam has patience. Dr. M. has received numerous death threats and is constantly booed and driven off the pulpit in the many mosques that he lectures in because he espouses peaceful co-existence with Israel. The frightening aspect of this is that there a huge 5th column righthere in the USA.

I can't vouch for the reliability of this report, but at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve it. And except for the Israel-Egypt peace, it is consistent with Arab/Islamic practices in the region since 1948.

Dumbest. Election. Ever. A pertinent excerpt:

Issues we are not hearing about because we have spent so much time talking about television advertisements:

Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

Unbearably expensive health care;

A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;

The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;

The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;

The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;

The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense;

The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family;

The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq;

The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business;

The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;

The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo;

Does anyone even remember Enron?

This supports what I have been saying, that what happened 35 years ago to the two candidates is insignificant compared to what people are having to deal with today.

Grand Cayman got hit HARD by Ivan the Terrible. Here's a sobering report. Here's another one. Reports are that a tidal surge possible flooded the entire island.

This latest business about Bush and the National Guard is a waste of time, in my opinion. My guess is that everybody pretty much knows that Bush used influence and his family's political power to get into the Texas Air National Guard, and to get special dispensation while serving. Again, no one cares what this guy did 32 yeards ago. It's got a 2-3 day news arc, at best. If the Kerry people are pushing this story on the media, it's a mistake. If it's the media, then you can't stop them anyway.

Interestingly, I have somehow gotten on the email list for the "Bush-Cheney '04 Grassroots Team." Here's their response to the story:

In response to President Bush's Agenda for America's Future and a critique of his policies and Senate record, Senator Kerry's campaign is implementing a strategy of vicious personal attacks against the President and Vice President.

The campaign is bringing in a bevy of former Clinton henchmen, including CNN commentators James Carville and Paul Begala. In August alone, Begala called President Bush a "gutless wonder," said he has a "lack of intelligence," and called Vice President Cheney a "dirt bag." Carville said the President is "ignorant big time" and said "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are a couple of nobodies."

It's not like Bob Shrum needed encouragement to engage in personal attacks. At a Kerry rally Friday morning in Ohio, campaign surrogate John Glenn compared the Republican Convention to a Nazi rally, and Kerry called the President unfit to lead our nation and once again sought to divide the country by who served and how 35 years ago.

Of course, the President was called a "cheap thug," a "killer" and a "liar" at a Kerry-Edwards campaign event in New York, Mrs. Kerry has called the President's policies "unpatriotic" and "immoral" and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe falsely accused the President of being AWOL.

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich outlined the strategy last Wednesday in a column warning Republicans to "watch out." "I'm not promising pretty," she wrote before going on to call President Bush and Vice President Cheney alcoholics, then ask "is any alcoholic ever really cured?" ("I can see the ad now.") She deems the President's service as a National Guard fighter pilot "draft dodging," and says, "a forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the President has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion." (Interestingly, the New York Daily News reported back in February that the Kerry campaign intended to spread such a rumor in pro-life chat rooms late in the campaign.)

So the former Dukakis campaign manager has an advance copy of Democrat donor Kitty Kelly's book, which promises to throw unsubstantiated gossip at President Bush in the same way she falsely maligned the late President Reagan as a date rapist who paid for a girlfriend's abortion and wrongly castigated Nancy Reagan as an adulterer who had an affair with Frank Sinatra. A recent story says Kelly's book alleges President Bush used cocaine at Camp David while his father was President, which is as credible as her story that then Governor and Nancy Reagan smoked marijuana with Jack Benny and George and Gracie Burns.

And tonight on CBS, longtime Democratic operative Ben Barnes-a friend of, major contributor to and Nantucket neighbor of Senator Kerry's and vice chair of the Kerry Campaign--will repudiate his statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the President's National Guard service. (Anyone surprised that Barnes would contradict a statement he made under oath probably doesn't know his long history of political scandal and financial misdealings.)

So brace yourselves. Any mention of John Kerry's votes for higher taxes and against vital weapons programs will be met with the worst kind of personal attacks. Such desperation is unbecoming of American Presidential politics, and Senator Kerry will pay a price for it at the polls as we stay focused on policies to continue growing our economy and winning the War on Terror.

Anybody notice how the Repubs decry the so-called personal attacks, and in the same literary breath, they do the same thing! (see "bevy of Clinton henchmen"] What's happening is that they are muddying the water so throroughly that no one knows what to believe, and in the absence of strong evidence one way or the other, the tendency is to retain the status quo. This tactic, by the way, is commonly practiced by defense lawyers; make it so confusing that the jury has no idea whether the plaintiff's case has merit. In the absence of clear evidence, the jury is inclined to leave things the way they are and not deliver a verdict for the plaintiff.

Kerry is the plaintiff here, and he is losing his case.

UPDATE: The New Republic, in commenting on this story, slams Ed Gillespie for the above "panicky" memo that he wrote, saying, "Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, circulated a panicky memo to supporters on Wednesday claiming that Barnes "will repudiate his statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the President's National Guard service." Gillespie's statement proved to be absolutely false." The article points out that Barnes's interview was completely consistent with his previous story. Ryan Lizza's article goes on to say:

CBS obtained four documents from the personal papers of Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, Bush's Texas National Guard squadron commander. These memos tell a fascinating story about the struggle of a by-the-book commander caught between a self-important young pilot trying to cut corners and wriggle out of the rest of his Guard commitment, and superiors who seem all too willing to let the privileged son of a Texas VIP bend the rules.

That's the real story here, if we're interested in character as an issue. Kerry didn't duck Vietnam service; he volunteered for it. Bush not only ducked Vietnam, he couldn't be bothered to do his duty, even though it was [relatively] cushy state-side pilot training and physicals.

I still say, though, that the Kerry poeple need to ignore the issue and just let the media run with it, if they want.

Don't send a machine to do a man's [or woman's] work. Off the top of my head, it strikes me that of the unmanned devices we have sent out into space in the last few years, there is something like a 50% failure rate. Let's find some cowboys, strap some boosters on, and just GO.

Some months ago, I predicted that the Bush camp had something on Kerry, and would spring it, probably after the conventions. I was half right. This Swift Boat Veterans for Truth nonsense, which surfaced after the Democratic Convention, is what they were waiting to jump Kerry with. Is that the worst they've got? A show of hands please: who really believes that the Bush Administration and the Republican establishment don't control these "527" groups? I don't.

In my copious spare time [i.e., none], I have perused some of the blogs [i.e., Instapundit], and have seen the joyous lambasting of candidate Kerry, and I get depressed. Not because they are right [I don't know that they are], but because the Kerry campaign is running such a lousy campaign.

I have said all along that Kerry has got to dispel the notion of "Northeastern Liberal." He really has not done that. He had to dispel the notion that he is a flip-flopper. He has not done that. He had to craft and convey a "message": a vision of the U.S. that he wanted to bring to the table. He has not done that.

Instead, his campaign has allowed itself to get sucked into the minutiae of who did what, when and where 35 years ago in Vietnam. Who cares? The campaign is REacting, not PROacting. The campaign is not on message, because it seems to have no message at all.

If I were running the show, this is what I would be pushing:

1. The economy: deficit spending tends to depress the economy. Bush has gone from surplus to record deficits in four years. That kind of incompetence takes some doing. And Bush is the first president in history to seek tax cuts in wartime. What's that about? People are most concerned about how they are going to live and thrive. There are many, many people who are not doing as well now as they were four years ago. Tap into this dissatisfaction. Refute the propaganda that Bush had a recession when he entered office in 2001. Evoke memories of how good things were when Clinton was president. It's not all about 9/11. The Bush Administration is letting jobs slip away from us, trade deficits are at an all-time high, and the economy is at best sluggish. It's the economy, stupid. Don't forget healthcare.

2. National Security: Kerry voted for war in Iraq based on misleading information, if not out and out lies from the Administration. While it's generally a good thing for Saddam to be out of power, Americans don't like to be misled -- or lied to. At best, the Bush Administration myopically went to war where the need did not exist. At worst, the Bush Administration went to war based on a vendetta to oust Saddam, no matter what the cost. Whichever is true, it is undeniable that the Administration is giving us now a different rationale for war than it did before we went in [see credibility, below]. However, now that we're committed, we must finish the job, with a coherent plan to win the peace, as well as the war. I don't know what Bush's plan is; Kerry needs to formulate one and articulate it.

3. Credibility: Kerry must refute, simply, the accusations that he cannot be consistent on a position. Seems to me they said the same thing about Clinton in 1992 and 1996. The problem is that Kerry seems to keep shifting, and is not fighting back against those charges. At the same time, Kerry needs to go after Bush and the Republican establishment he controls for their lack of credibility on life and death issues, on civil rights, on the envoronment, on cronyism, and a host of other issues.

4. Distance Kerry from any aspect of the 1988 Dukakis campaign. The Bush people are crowing about John Sasso's possible involvement in the campaign. Comparisons between Kerry and Dukakis are starting to happen. Take steps to stop the references; Kerry must establish himself as his own man, and stay the hell away from Dukakis

There are a lot of people, including Republicans, who are mad as hell at the Bush Administration right now. The Kerry people have got to give them a reason to vote for their man. It's not too late for the Kerry campaign to turn this around, but it's go to get its collective head out of its collective ass and move. Where's James Carville when you need him?

My cousin, Fred "Rico" Hurvich, sent my mother this opinion piece, who sent it to me. I'm not usually one to cite to Garrison Keillor, but he certainly says it loud and proud. An excerpt:

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

Also: "It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning." I guess Keillor thinks Kerry is going to lose?

Have George II and his merry men been lying? On the right hand side of the aisle, you'll hear, "no -- just bad intelligence, and besides, we did a good thing." To the left of center, you're likely to hear the slavering growl of "Hell yes, he lied!" I think this compendium is probably from the latter. Notwithstanding the approach, there's nothing here that sways me from my thinking that the Administration at best misled us into war.

The Kerry camp is missing the boat on this issue. Americans will get mad if it becomes clear they were misled into war, with the resulting human and capital costs. Instead, Kerry & Co. are fixating on a 35 year old Vietnam war service issue, which will inevitably paint him as an irrepressible lefty, based on his protest work afterwards. He does NOT want that to happen, yet he has let it happen.

I don't care whether Kerry stepped across into Cambodia in 1968. I do care about how I'm going to make ends meet in this economic environment. It's still the economy, stupid.

People for the American Way and the NAACP have published a disturbing report on voter intimdation and suppression. Among its findings:

In 2004 in Texas, students at a majority black college were challenged by a local district attorney’s absurd claim that they were not eligible to vote in the county where the school was located. It happened in Waller County – the same county where 26 years earlier, a federal court order was required to prevent the local registrar from discriminating against the students.

In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African American areas were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia.

In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African American communities telling voters they could go to the polls on Tuesday, December 10th – two days after a special Senate election was held.

In 2000 in Florida, thousands of voters whose names mistakenly appeared on a flawed list of felons were purged from the state’s voter rolls. Despite the ensuing outcry and litigation, the state has not yet restored the rights of many of those voters -- and in fact has begun a new purge of an additional 40,000 names for the 2004 election.

In 1998 in North Carolina, GOP officials openly planned to videotape voters in heavily Democratic districts in a partisan attempt to avoid alleged “voter fraud,” until the Justice Department stepped in to warn that taping minority voters at or near the polls would violate federal election laws.

I was one of those who have been saying about Florida in 2000, "Get over it!" Howver, with documented evidence of denying the franchise to a large number of voters, based on an unforgivable mistake, "I think I'd better think it out again!"

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.