Saturday, November 27, 2004
75 Billion Here, 75 Million There
PRETTY SOON YOU'RE TALKIN' REAL, IF OTHER PEOPLE'S, MONEY
Ted Frank of Overlawyered has this:
"Though the contract required disputes to be litigated in Texas, the [lower Mississippi] court permitted the case to go to trial, permitted the plaintiffs to add a new theory of liability in the middle of trial without warning, permitted $1.2 million damages to be awarded for "mental distress" over a contract dispute between sophisticated [insurance] businessmen, and then allowed a jury to award $75 million in punitive damages--thirty times the already-inflated compensatory damages. (The jury actually wrote $75,000,000,000 on their verdict form, but the judge decided that this was a confusion over how many zeroes were in a million.)"
Or perhaps they meant 75 trillion and forgot a few zeroes. What's a few more decimal places among friends of the court, anyway?
Exsqueeze me, but if you don't know the difference between 75 million and 75 billion, let me lovingly--yet firmly--suggest you don't belong anywhere near a jury room. A remedial-math classroom, perhaps; but not a jury room.
Or, better yet, visit a Sunday School-room. I am assured Mississippi has them in abundance. (Hint: While you're there, ask about Exodus 20, verses 15-17!)
In fact, the only lawsuit material here is for certain parties to sue the schools that "educated" and graduated them. And I don't mean just the jurors.
Evidently, Mississippi has such an over-abundance of insured people that it can afford to drive insurance companies out of the state. Perhaps the denziens of these judicial hellholes should consider returning to the system of the "regulators", where shotgun-weilding men on horseback roamed the highways, extracting "fees" from out-of-staters at gun-point; it was at least more honest than the current system.
In the name of law, these runaway tribunals are actually deconstructing the rule of law. Raw greed is not made prettier by giving it the color of law; indeed, it is made even uglier. And it makes law into anti-law. And if there is any state that should know better than to bend the laws to achieve an unjust result, it is Mississippi.
The good news is that Mississippi's Supreme Court threw out this "case". Chalk one up for decency, common sense and the rule of law.
Tort Reform, anyone?
Ted Frank of Overlawyered has this:
"Though the contract required disputes to be litigated in Texas, the [lower Mississippi] court permitted the case to go to trial, permitted the plaintiffs to add a new theory of liability in the middle of trial without warning, permitted $1.2 million damages to be awarded for "mental distress" over a contract dispute between sophisticated [insurance] businessmen, and then allowed a jury to award $75 million in punitive damages--thirty times the already-inflated compensatory damages. (The jury actually wrote $75,000,000,000 on their verdict form, but the judge decided that this was a confusion over how many zeroes were in a million.)"
Or perhaps they meant 75 trillion and forgot a few zeroes. What's a few more decimal places among friends of the court, anyway?
Exsqueeze me, but if you don't know the difference between 75 million and 75 billion, let me lovingly--yet firmly--suggest you don't belong anywhere near a jury room. A remedial-math classroom, perhaps; but not a jury room.
Or, better yet, visit a Sunday School-room. I am assured Mississippi has them in abundance. (Hint: While you're there, ask about Exodus 20, verses 15-17!)
In fact, the only lawsuit material here is for certain parties to sue the schools that "educated" and graduated them. And I don't mean just the jurors.
Evidently, Mississippi has such an over-abundance of insured people that it can afford to drive insurance companies out of the state. Perhaps the denziens of these judicial hellholes should consider returning to the system of the "regulators", where shotgun-weilding men on horseback roamed the highways, extracting "fees" from out-of-staters at gun-point; it was at least more honest than the current system.
In the name of law, these runaway tribunals are actually deconstructing the rule of law. Raw greed is not made prettier by giving it the color of law; indeed, it is made even uglier. And it makes law into anti-law. And if there is any state that should know better than to bend the laws to achieve an unjust result, it is Mississippi.
The good news is that Mississippi's Supreme Court threw out this "case". Chalk one up for decency, common sense and the rule of law.
Tort Reform, anyone?
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Happy Thanksgiving to Americans Everywhere
From 'The Pilgrims in Holland' by Robert A. Peterson:
"Despite their experience in Holland's free economy, the Pilgrims tried a brief experiment in agricultural socialism when they arrived in America. This experiment, based on a false reading of the Book of Acts, caused widespread starvation. Fortunately, before it was too late, the Pilgrims saw their error and abandoned their "common course" in favor of private property. As Bradford later explained, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.... The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.""
"Despite their experience in Holland's free economy, the Pilgrims tried a brief experiment in agricultural socialism when they arrived in America. This experiment, based on a false reading of the Book of Acts, caused widespread starvation. Fortunately, before it was too late, the Pilgrims saw their error and abandoned their "common course" in favor of private property. As Bradford later explained, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.... The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.""
Monday, November 22, 2004
The Permanent Campaign
YET ANOTHER GIFT TO THE REPUBLIC FROM MA & PA BARKER
HillaryMao! pulled the bleeding knife from between John Kerry's shoulder blades and went to Tufts, where she announced her '08 candidacy. She said her platform will consist of a head-fake to conservatives, while re-packaging the same old tired '60's radical chic leftism so that Katie Couric can sell it to the Great Unwashed.
btw, if you thought the Media sold out to Kerry, you haven't seen anything yet. They respond to HillaryMao! like a leashed and hooded rubber-panted man on his knees barks for his latex-and-leather dominatrix. By the time it's over, the reporters at her press conferences will resemble an Abu Gharib pile with notepads.
Nor will the Breck Girl be allowed anywhere near her ticket. Losers like Gore & Edwards, who can't even carry their home states, shouldn't even be on a national ticket. If there's one thing HillaryMao! despises more than strong men, it's weak men.
John McCain, already in New Hampshire, also announced his candidacy with this:
''with CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.''
Prediction: McCain/Powell v. HillaryMao!/Richardson.
Yeah; I can't believe I'm writing this either.
HillaryMao! pulled the bleeding knife from between John Kerry's shoulder blades and went to Tufts, where she announced her '08 candidacy. She said her platform will consist of a head-fake to conservatives, while re-packaging the same old tired '60's radical chic leftism so that Katie Couric can sell it to the Great Unwashed.
btw, if you thought the Media sold out to Kerry, you haven't seen anything yet. They respond to HillaryMao! like a leashed and hooded rubber-panted man on his knees barks for his latex-and-leather dominatrix. By the time it's over, the reporters at her press conferences will resemble an Abu Gharib pile with notepads.
Nor will the Breck Girl be allowed anywhere near her ticket. Losers like Gore & Edwards, who can't even carry their home states, shouldn't even be on a national ticket. If there's one thing HillaryMao! despises more than strong men, it's weak men.
John McCain, already in New Hampshire, also announced his candidacy with this:
''with CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.''
Prediction: McCain/Powell v. HillaryMao!/Richardson.
Yeah; I can't believe I'm writing this either.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
The Cleaning Lady Cleans House
THAT'S "DOCTOR" CLEANING LADY TO YOU DONKS.
When Condi Rice was a poor black girl in Alabama, white Democrats tried to hold her back because she was too black.
Now that she's a successful black woman in Washington, some white Democrats still want to hold her back because she's too "white"; it never stops with these people.
Hint to Democrats: "They all look alike" is offensive. But not as offensive as "They all think alike--or else."
Dr. Rice will have the distinct pleasure and duty of reining in the State Department, something long, long overdue. Fred Kaplan of Slate tries to pit her against her probable second-in-command: "...no self-respecting secretary of state could abide a deputy with [John] Bolton's methods, especially his flagrant disregard for the chain of command."
But it isn't Bolton who has been disregarding the chain-of-command.
Here's a post from 2002 describing the problem:
The State Dept. Departs from the Constitution
From the Washington Times:
"Walk the halls of the State Department's main offices in Washington these days, and you'll encounter an abundance of political cartoons, something you could not have found even three years ago. It's not that the diplomats at Foggy Bottom have suddenly developed a sense of humor, but rather a newfound contempt for the leader of the free world. The cartoons overwhelmingly lampoon President Bush as a simpleton who doesn't understand the "complexities" of the foreign policy."
That's insubordination. Not to mention tacky. But hardly the worst of it:
"On March 31, representatives of the North Korean government told State Department officials, for the first time, that they were reprocessing plutonium, a key step in developing nuclear weapons. The Pentagon and the White House did not learn of this stunning announcement until Pyongyang told them during previously scheduled talks with North Korea in China on April 18. The State Department intentionally withheld this vital piece of information, fearing that, if the White House knew, officials there might call off the meeting."
For two and a half weeks, State felt it had the right to deny to the Commander-in-Chief information vital to this nation's security in order to promote its own policy preference. That's criminally seditious. And megalomaniacal. It smacks of a coup.
These are the people who let the 9-11 terrorists write their own visas in crayon. They've had their noses planted up Arafat's posterior for years, despite his having murdered Americans...including State Dept. employees!
They're just back from a tour of Nevada's brothels.
Someone needs to tell them they do not work for themselves... they work for the President. The President of the United States...not France.
If Gen. Powell's officers had pulled a stunt like that on him while he was in command, their asses would still be in Leavenworth.
A damned outrage.
Our cabinet departments must not devolve into cult-of-personality rubber stamps. We came close to that in the Clinton years, when not one secretary had the guts to resign when Clinton lied to their faces, and Webb Hubbell forced employees to sign undated resignation letters. Only Louis Freeh stood up to the Clinton Crime Family, refusing to give them the FBI's China files.
But neither must the departments be allowed to run their own policies independent of the Executive and unaccountable to the American people.
And that is exactly what State has been doing for years.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence, Doc.
When Condi Rice was a poor black girl in Alabama, white Democrats tried to hold her back because she was too black.
Now that she's a successful black woman in Washington, some white Democrats still want to hold her back because she's too "white"; it never stops with these people.
Hint to Democrats: "They all look alike" is offensive. But not as offensive as "They all think alike--or else."
Dr. Rice will have the distinct pleasure and duty of reining in the State Department, something long, long overdue. Fred Kaplan of Slate tries to pit her against her probable second-in-command: "...no self-respecting secretary of state could abide a deputy with [John] Bolton's methods, especially his flagrant disregard for the chain of command."
But it isn't Bolton who has been disregarding the chain-of-command.
Here's a post from 2002 describing the problem:
The State Dept. Departs from the Constitution
From the Washington Times:
"Walk the halls of the State Department's main offices in Washington these days, and you'll encounter an abundance of political cartoons, something you could not have found even three years ago. It's not that the diplomats at Foggy Bottom have suddenly developed a sense of humor, but rather a newfound contempt for the leader of the free world. The cartoons overwhelmingly lampoon President Bush as a simpleton who doesn't understand the "complexities" of the foreign policy."
That's insubordination. Not to mention tacky. But hardly the worst of it:
"On March 31, representatives of the North Korean government told State Department officials, for the first time, that they were reprocessing plutonium, a key step in developing nuclear weapons. The Pentagon and the White House did not learn of this stunning announcement until Pyongyang told them during previously scheduled talks with North Korea in China on April 18. The State Department intentionally withheld this vital piece of information, fearing that, if the White House knew, officials there might call off the meeting."
For two and a half weeks, State felt it had the right to deny to the Commander-in-Chief information vital to this nation's security in order to promote its own policy preference. That's criminally seditious. And megalomaniacal. It smacks of a coup.
These are the people who let the 9-11 terrorists write their own visas in crayon. They've had their noses planted up Arafat's posterior for years, despite his having murdered Americans...including State Dept. employees!
They're just back from a tour of Nevada's brothels.
Someone needs to tell them they do not work for themselves... they work for the President. The President of the United States...not France.
If Gen. Powell's officers had pulled a stunt like that on him while he was in command, their asses would still be in Leavenworth.
A damned outrage.
Our cabinet departments must not devolve into cult-of-personality rubber stamps. We came close to that in the Clinton years, when not one secretary had the guts to resign when Clinton lied to their faces, and Webb Hubbell forced employees to sign undated resignation letters. Only Louis Freeh stood up to the Clinton Crime Family, refusing to give them the FBI's China files.
But neither must the departments be allowed to run their own policies independent of the Executive and unaccountable to the American people.
And that is exactly what State has been doing for years.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence, Doc.
Mommy Has Two Heathers
AND MOMMY'S PARENT CORPORATION HAS 2,000 MORE IN STOCK!
The UN just gave a Soylent green light to human cloning by failing to approve even a non-binding resolution to ban the mad science. We're not talking about stem-cells from embryos, but full Dolly-the-Sheep human cloning. Just when you thought they couldn't be anymore useless.
In 'Big Biotech's Voracious Appetite' (The Weekly Standard), Wesley J. Smith examines laws from New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, and California passed at the behest of Big Biotech. These laws all pretend to contain bans on human cloning, but are actually as toothless as an abortion ban containing a 'Bad Hair-Day' health exemption. They all allow for the introduction of a cloned embryo into a woman's womb. At that point, all bets are off.
Regardless of any agreement the woman had entered into with the corporation to have a pre-meditated abortion, she cannot be forced to do so. In fact, the corporation may have even signed the agreement with a wink and a nod (or secret payments), hoping she will give birth to their latest product line. And cloned humans would be presented to us as a fait accompli.
We rightly insist on moral restraint in our fellow citizens; for example, we don't think someone should be drunk 24/7. We insist that business show moral restraint by refraining from price-fixing or hiring children. We understand that while preventing crime is a noble goal, government must not monitor our phone calls or read our mail in order to do so; it must show moral restraint. Yet many feel that "science" is exempt from any moral restraint, especially in pursuit of the noble goals of knowledge and cures. That is, to use the scientific term, equine excrement.
While I do not share the Left's knee-jerk loathing of corporations, there are areas where business should not go. While many on the left have supported cloning because it tends to justify abortion and undercut traditional families, they had better ask themselves if they want the Biotech Enrons, Wal-Marts and Halliburtons in charge of the manufacture, marketing--and disposal--of humans.
Should these companies be able to rent the wombs of poor women? Or build an artificial womb and produce their own corporate "children"? If you clean your hairbrush and discard the hair, could your discarded DNA be used without your permission? Should we encourage pre-meditated abortion-for-profit? Is "science" obliged to exhibit any moral restraint at all? Should citizens have any say in the re-branding of HomoSapiens(tm)?
Or how 'bout this: instead of mixing up embryonic milkshakes so that we Boomers might enjoy satisfying erections for the rest of our un-natural lives, why don't we randomly snatch a couple of thousand Boomers off the streets every year, put them in a blender, and see if we can use the soup to keep pre-born babies alive and healthy?
Just a thought.
We'd better start asking--and answering--some of these questions.
Hold the phone, clone.
The UN just gave a Soylent green light to human cloning by failing to approve even a non-binding resolution to ban the mad science. We're not talking about stem-cells from embryos, but full Dolly-the-Sheep human cloning. Just when you thought they couldn't be anymore useless.
In 'Big Biotech's Voracious Appetite' (The Weekly Standard), Wesley J. Smith examines laws from New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, and California passed at the behest of Big Biotech. These laws all pretend to contain bans on human cloning, but are actually as toothless as an abortion ban containing a 'Bad Hair-Day' health exemption. They all allow for the introduction of a cloned embryo into a woman's womb. At that point, all bets are off.
Regardless of any agreement the woman had entered into with the corporation to have a pre-meditated abortion, she cannot be forced to do so. In fact, the corporation may have even signed the agreement with a wink and a nod (or secret payments), hoping she will give birth to their latest product line. And cloned humans would be presented to us as a fait accompli.
We rightly insist on moral restraint in our fellow citizens; for example, we don't think someone should be drunk 24/7. We insist that business show moral restraint by refraining from price-fixing or hiring children. We understand that while preventing crime is a noble goal, government must not monitor our phone calls or read our mail in order to do so; it must show moral restraint. Yet many feel that "science" is exempt from any moral restraint, especially in pursuit of the noble goals of knowledge and cures. That is, to use the scientific term, equine excrement.
While I do not share the Left's knee-jerk loathing of corporations, there are areas where business should not go. While many on the left have supported cloning because it tends to justify abortion and undercut traditional families, they had better ask themselves if they want the Biotech Enrons, Wal-Marts and Halliburtons in charge of the manufacture, marketing--and disposal--of humans.
Should these companies be able to rent the wombs of poor women? Or build an artificial womb and produce their own corporate "children"? If you clean your hairbrush and discard the hair, could your discarded DNA be used without your permission? Should we encourage pre-meditated abortion-for-profit? Is "science" obliged to exhibit any moral restraint at all? Should citizens have any say in the re-branding of HomoSapiens(tm)?
Or how 'bout this: instead of mixing up embryonic milkshakes so that we Boomers might enjoy satisfying erections for the rest of our un-natural lives, why don't we randomly snatch a couple of thousand Boomers off the streets every year, put them in a blender, and see if we can use the soup to keep pre-born babies alive and healthy?
Just a thought.
We'd better start asking--and answering--some of these questions.
Hold the phone, clone.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
When Yasser Killed Bobby
WHAT DOES IT PROFITETH A MAN TO GAIN A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE...
Don't kid yourself; just as Castro had JFK murdered, Yasser Arafat had Robert F. Kennedy asassinated. And because we didn't confront the evil then, we face it today.
Arafat's entire life was based on two words: "Kill Jews". And friends of Jews. And anyone who got in his way, including his own people.
Here was a man who robbed his own people blind. He infantilized and toxified them. He sent their children to blow up Jewish children, while his own child was safely sinecured in Paris. Of course Chirac rushed to his bedside--Arafat was the closest available Nazi war-criminal.
The question is not whether Arafat was a murdering, theiving, cowardly racist pervert; he was.
The question is why the Left, Liberals and Arabists willingly functioned as his human baby-wipes--and how to prevent such moral travesties in the future. I refer you again to Norman Doidge's essay "Evil's Advantage Over Conscience Why the West gives Yasser Arafat endless second chances."
Even the usually-reliable George W. Bush said "God bless his soul". That is piss-poor theology, Mr. President; we are enjoined to pray that our enemies have a change of heart, not bless them in death after they have manifestly failed to do so for a lifetime.
I'll save my blessings for his literally countless victims, including American diplomats Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, whom Arafat tried to ransom for trigger-man Sirhan Sirhan.
And contrary to popular opinion, Arafat is not being buggered by 72 demons. Surely Hell is a singular experience, the very essence of self; Arafat must be locked inside Arafat with only Arafat to keep him company--Hell, indeed.
Ironically, he spent his final hours at a Western hospital. You see, when he had the chance to build hospitals of his own, he chose instead to kill Jews. He never built hospitals--he only filled them. Them...and morgues.
I pray that our enemies have a change of heart. I pray for those still lost in the fog of appeasement. And I also pray that we have the moral courage to smash the truly depraved, who have hardened their hearts against God and to all humanity.
And, God, please rest Bobby's soul.
Don't kid yourself; just as Castro had JFK murdered, Yasser Arafat had Robert F. Kennedy asassinated. And because we didn't confront the evil then, we face it today.
Arafat's entire life was based on two words: "Kill Jews". And friends of Jews. And anyone who got in his way, including his own people.
Here was a man who robbed his own people blind. He infantilized and toxified them. He sent their children to blow up Jewish children, while his own child was safely sinecured in Paris. Of course Chirac rushed to his bedside--Arafat was the closest available Nazi war-criminal.
The question is not whether Arafat was a murdering, theiving, cowardly racist pervert; he was.
The question is why the Left, Liberals and Arabists willingly functioned as his human baby-wipes--and how to prevent such moral travesties in the future. I refer you again to Norman Doidge's essay "Evil's Advantage Over Conscience Why the West gives Yasser Arafat endless second chances."
Even the usually-reliable George W. Bush said "God bless his soul". That is piss-poor theology, Mr. President; we are enjoined to pray that our enemies have a change of heart, not bless them in death after they have manifestly failed to do so for a lifetime.
I'll save my blessings for his literally countless victims, including American diplomats Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore, whom Arafat tried to ransom for trigger-man Sirhan Sirhan.
And contrary to popular opinion, Arafat is not being buggered by 72 demons. Surely Hell is a singular experience, the very essence of self; Arafat must be locked inside Arafat with only Arafat to keep him company--Hell, indeed.
Ironically, he spent his final hours at a Western hospital. You see, when he had the chance to build hospitals of his own, he chose instead to kill Jews. He never built hospitals--he only filled them. Them...and morgues.
I pray that our enemies have a change of heart. I pray for those still lost in the fog of appeasement. And I also pray that we have the moral courage to smash the truly depraved, who have hardened their hearts against God and to all humanity.
And, God, please rest Bobby's soul.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
In Our Names
AND FOR OUR SAKE
Maybe it was standing guard at an embassy. Or flying secret missions into the Soviet Union. Or on a ship or a sub, scattered across every ocean. Or in Grenada. Or in 'Nam. Or today in Fallujah, where our Marines are giving their all for us, fighting the right war in the right place at the right time for the right reasons.
America's veterans have always answered the call to duty. We owe them debts that cannot really be repaid, debts of honor and gratitude.
Thank you, veterans.
Maybe it was standing guard at an embassy. Or flying secret missions into the Soviet Union. Or on a ship or a sub, scattered across every ocean. Or in Grenada. Or in 'Nam. Or today in Fallujah, where our Marines are giving their all for us, fighting the right war in the right place at the right time for the right reasons.
America's veterans have always answered the call to duty. We owe them debts that cannot really be repaid, debts of honor and gratitude.
Thank you, veterans.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Winners and Liberals
First, thanks for your service, 'Nam vets...and welcome home.
A third of a century ago, John Kerry sat down before the Congress and lied about vets--and was rewarded for doing so. This year, veterans stood up and told the truth about Kerry--and the verdict is in.
The Democrats believed their own spin, exit-poll and otherwise, and it kept them from waging an effective campaign; a perfect analogy to their War on Terror policies.
Ten years after the Republicans won the House, it's official; this is a conservative-majority country now. Liberals still control many power sectors, however; like France, who lost WWII twice, yet got a Security Council seat, liberals punch above their weight. They've still got much of the "Main-Stream" Media, Hollywood, the Education Blob, the Permanent Bureaucracies, the un-elected Trial-lawyer Legislature and especially the Courts. Aside from an actual attack, those courts represent the greatest threat to our system of self-governance.
I do not want courts that impose my favorite policies. That's exactly what I do not want. For example, I would not support a court that said "The 'Common Defense' clause means that Congress must add a half-million new troops to the services." We need judges who will adjudicate law, not invent and impose it.
The battle lies here.
A third of a century ago, John Kerry sat down before the Congress and lied about vets--and was rewarded for doing so. This year, veterans stood up and told the truth about Kerry--and the verdict is in.
The Democrats believed their own spin, exit-poll and otherwise, and it kept them from waging an effective campaign; a perfect analogy to their War on Terror policies.
Ten years after the Republicans won the House, it's official; this is a conservative-majority country now. Liberals still control many power sectors, however; like France, who lost WWII twice, yet got a Security Council seat, liberals punch above their weight. They've still got much of the "Main-Stream" Media, Hollywood, the Education Blob, the Permanent Bureaucracies, the un-elected Trial-lawyer Legislature and especially the Courts. Aside from an actual attack, those courts represent the greatest threat to our system of self-governance.
I do not want courts that impose my favorite policies. That's exactly what I do not want. For example, I would not support a court that said "The 'Common Defense' clause means that Congress must add a half-million new troops to the services." We need judges who will adjudicate law, not invent and impose it.
The battle lies here.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Vote!
