December 30, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
The Midnight Ride of Bill Frist, chapter V...
Little over a year ago, when Wampum was just a wee blog, a still unknown member of Congress in the dead of night secretly attached an amendment to the Homeland Security Bill due to be brought to the House and Senate floors in the closing hour of the 104th Congress. The addition, with included language identical to that which Senator Bill Frist twice failed to even get out of the HHS committee, slipped by nearly undetected in the House, where only a few legislators realized the gravity of the situation before the bill passed by a healthy margin. By the time the Senate took up the bill, the alarms were raised, and while phone calls, faxes and letters poured into Senators offices and the blogosphere, including right here, rallied to the call, the debate spread to the floors of the chamber, with Democratic Senator after Senator calling for the body to protect the rights of the most vulnerable in our society, children potentially injured by the addition of neurotoxic mercury to vaccines. [nota bene: For those who assert that Washington Democrats don't have the backbone to stand up to Bush and the neocons, I offer the CSPAN archives for last December.]
The midnight rider sought to indemnify the manufacturers of a vaccine preservative, thimerosal, just as dozens of liability cases against the manufacturers, the largest of all pharmaceutical giant, Eli Lilly, were successfully proceeding through the courts. While Congress had passed liability protection for childhood vaccine manufacturers in 1986, the courts in various cases had ruled that mercury was a "contaminant", not a vaccine ingredient, and thus allowed the lawsuits to proceed. The amendment to the Homeland Security Bill would supercede the courts, making the mercury in the vaccine preservative an "ingredient", and thus not subject to liability.
The argument should be openly investigated and debated by Congress. But the sleazy manner in which it was tacked on to completely unrelated legislation certain to pass unexamined in both chambers prompted a handful of honorable Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, to withhold their yea votes on the entire bill until extracting a promise that the Eli Lilly rider, and other questionable last minute provisions, would be stripped away when Congress reconvened in January.
And thus it went...
But alas, like the orc hordes of Mordor, the big-Pharma lobbyists and their Conservative media mouthpieces have returned, this time armed with questionable science and the vilification of even those few Republicans who now question their motives. Monday, that bastion of scholarly scientific inquiry, the editorial desk of the Wall Street Journal, took up now-Senate Majority Leader Frist's payback to his pharmaceutical campaign contributors, and called for the passage of Frist's bill to overhaul the National Vaccine Compensation Fund.
The WSJ editorial is just rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, both of recent research on thimerosal as well as the impact of the pending lawsuits on future childhood vaccine production. While ignoring the NIH's admission that a thimerosal-autism link is biologically plausible and the CDC's original study, which found children injected with thimerosal had a 2.5 time greater chance of the condition, the editors instead offered up as evidence controversial studies tainted with claims of methodological inconsistencies, small sample size, and conflict of interest, i.e., funding by and other ties to vaccine manufactures. But as I read through my old posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and that was just November, 2002) on the thimerosal controversy, I became clear that the Senate Majority Leader hands (or those of his staff) were all over yesterday's editorial. In fact, some of the language so closely mirrors Frist's own press releases that either the WSJ is guilty of plagiarism, or the wording was used with the original author's permission. [My spouse is curious to know whether Frist is moonlighting for any other publications and if he's being fairly compensated as a journalist.]
While picking up the often-used brush to paint the parents of autistic children as psychologically unstable, grasping, greedy and irrational, the WSJ also knowingly misrepresents the possible consequences of the current thimerosal litigation:
their [parents] understandable passion shouldn't be allowed to trump undeniable evidence and damage childhood immunizations that are essential to public health. Vaccine makers stopped using thimerosal a few years ago, but the autism lawsuits threaten those companies with enough damage that their ability to supply vaccines is in jeopardy.
Eli Lilly stopped producing childhood immunizations years ago, because they weren't profitable, and although it is involved in development of new smallpox and anthrax, both of those are protected under Executive Order and do not fall under the National Vaccine Compensation Fund legislation. And there is no evidence that immunization rates in the US have dropped due to the lawsuits. Senator Frist's bill, however, would extend unlimited protection to Lilly and other thimerosal manufacturers, while stripping children potentially covered by the NVICP of their rights, even the limited compensation for themselves and their families. His goal? Well, besides the obvious sop to unlimited funds for Republican candidates by the pharmaceutical industry, Frist gets his grubby hands on the multi-billion dollar vaccine fund, a ploy to shift funds to his own pet projects.
Amazing that the Wall Street Journal editorial desk, with it's fixation on money, would leave out that part.
December 29, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Devastated by Wild Pres
Josh Marshall points us to an astroturf effort by the Bush-Cheney campaign regarding the president’s “Healthy Forest” initiative. The Bush Cheney web site requests letters to the editor on the subject and suggests the following language:
On December 3, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to help to prevent catastrophic wildfires and strengthen America’s long-term forest health. The legislation, based on the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protectAs a nation, we have watched helplessly as parts of America were devastated by wildfires that displaced families, ruined communities and took lives. In the past two years alone, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres. The President understands the necessity to manage forest and rangelands to protect the land and prevent further destruction caused not only by fires, but also disease and infestation of insects.
The effort to Astroturf printed appears to have worked in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, as this letter from one William R. Stogner will attest.
It also worked in Las Vegas as this letter from Kevin Manix appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
The Missourian carried a version of the letter from Dennis Minner.
In Arizona, Tim Keeland got the astroturf accepted as a grassroots effort.
I do not know whether the effort of Chad Snader was astroturf or crab grass. The following appeared on the web site of a Delaware paper:
On Dec. 3, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to help to prevent catastrophic wildÞres and strengthen America's long-term forest health. The legislation, based on the president's Healthy Forest Initiative, will reduce the risk of catastrophic Þre to communities, help save the lives of ÞreÞghters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.As a nation, we have watched helplessly as parts of America were devastated by wildÞres that displaced families, ruined communities and took lives. In the past two years alone, 147,049 Þres burned nearly 11 million acres. The president understands the necessity to manage forest and range lands to protect the land and prevent further destruction caused not only by Þres, but also disease and infestation of insects.
Was the substitution of “pres” for “fire” a joke of Mr. Snader, of the editor of the Delaware Coast Press or just a mistake in transferring the item to the net?
I do not know but I certainly agree that "As a nation, we have watched helplessly as parts of America were devastated by wildÞres."
Whence now the American consumer?
While I've been noticeably absent from the pages of Wampum since taking a seasonal CSR position (yes, I'll finally say it, at Maine behemoth LL Bean), I have been intently following a few sectors of the economy during my few hours off. With the madness of "peak" now over, I spent this weekend synthesizing much of the data I've stored away over time. And between such, and that which I saw first hand at the nation's largest mail/phone order business, I'm frankly pretty concerned about the health of the Bush's so-called economic recovery.
Bean itself did fairly well this holiday season, due mostly, I would argue, to a fluke of Nature, i.e. early December blizzard which kept shoppers out of the malls and near their telephones, and I'm sure many Bushies would like to point to such as evidence that consumers are in fact regaining their confidence and "all is well". However, consumer confidence, while low in the polls, never did translate much to action; healthy retail sales, fueled by low mortgage rate-spurred home refinancing and child-tax credit checks, prevented a relatively moderate and short recession from turning into a full-fledged economic meltdown. And while many "high end" retailers, including Bean, did relatively well this season, many stores frequented by average Janes and Joes, found their cash registers wanting.
Anyone keeping a close eye on some specific economic indicators shouldn't be all that surprised. While overall personal income has increased over the past five months, hourly wages for non-exempt workers has remained flat, even retreating slightly with CPI factored in.
For my less "visual" readers, here are actual numbers:
| Month | (current dollars) | (constant 1982 dollars) |
| November 2002 | ||
| December 2002 | ||
| January 2003 | ||
| February 2003 | ||
| March 2003 | ||
| April 2003 | ||
| May 2003 | ||
| June 2003 | ||
| July 2003 | ||
| August 2003 | ||
| September 2003 | ||
| October 2003 | ||
| November 2003 |
I waded back into the BLS archives, and from 1994 on, the period which such data is available online, this is the first time such a period of stagnation of wages in current dollars has occurred. In addition, as I mentioned back in October, this is the smallest annual increase in 1982 dollars in that period as well.
So while the Census Bureau reports that "personal income" has increased over this time, it's not coming from worker bee wages. And the possible alternative sources of income, the recent tax rebates, capital gains from the bubbling stock market, cash-outs on mortgage refinancing, etc., are disconcertingly short lived or volatile.
The Census Bureau also reports on personal spending, which, while rebounding slightly this month (though not as much as market analysts expected,) has been relatively flat in recent months. There's a host of reasons for this besides the stagnation in average wages discussed above. One of the elements which has kept consumer spending chugging along is showing a distinctive cooling trend; new home purchases. For the past three months, new homes sales have defied analysts' assessments and declined substantially, most likely in response to climbing interest rates. Fewer new homes, fewer durable goods, such as refrigerators and washing machines, needed to outfit those homes. Last week, durable goods orders tumbled 3.1%, and while this leading indicator is highly volatile, the decreases were across the board, a much, much more worrying trend. Non-defense capital orders, that piece which economists track as a sign of business "consumer" spending, fell more than 6%, the largest drop since July 2000.
Besides low mortgage rates, the other impetus for consumer spending, the Bush tax bribe rebates are now spent. Unless Republicans in Congress are willing to hand out more checks, the stimulatory effects are now history. And from the spin out of the White House these days, "trickle down", aka voodoo, economic principles, are back in vogue. Of course, should foreign investors pull out of US markets due to the sliding dollar, we may see the son take the same position as his father did in the 1980 Republican primaries.
I honestly don't know if these trends are enough to derail the fragile, still mostly jobless, recovery, but I'm significantly more worried today than I was a month ago (and I was feeling rather uneasy as that point, with soaring natural gas prices and Bean's sales falling below projections for much of November.) I guess my nails will remained chewed down for the next month or so as the cards play out.
[update: slight revision in awkward wording]
December 28, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Principal Off-Rez, call handlers (pt 3)
The SRS looks to take 27.5% of the vote, winning Mr. Seslj a seat in the Parliment. The SPS looks to take 7%, above the 5% cut-off, and therefore Mr. Milosevic too wins a seat in the Parliment.
Data via Libé, from a projection by the independent election supervising body. Photo EPA.
The thing I take away from this is that after three years of post-Milosevic government, less than half of the Serbian electorate was convinced that something more complex than a return to the prior regime, minus its most egregious military excesses, was the better choice. Anger at the West. Anger at corrupt politicians. Anger at a stagnant economy. This is so possible in Iraq in 2007, and it seems uncannily close to the present moment here in the US, with the obvious re-allignment of the scarecrows and signposts.
Social democrats take note.
IMSURT-E Deployed to Bam
International Medical Surgical Response Team East (IMSURT-E), attached to Metro Boston Team Disaster Medical Assistance Team (MA-1 DMAT), under the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), deployed to Bam Saturday. The 60 member team will set up and operate a free-standing self-sufficient field hospital for the next three weeks.
People wanting to contribute directly to IMSURT-E's logistics tail drop me a note. I'll find out RSN.
ebw at abenaki dot wabanaki dot net
December 27, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Blog Aid
Twenty years ago I knew a lot of Persians. Bay area communist Pahlavi-exiled Persians. Los Angeles royalist Khomeini-exiled Persians. I knew a lot about Persian politics. A lot.
Today I know the operator of the Iran Network Information Center.
Today's Al-Jazeera:
Health Minister Massoud Pezeshkian claimed that in Bam, a city of 90,000 people "65 to 70 percent of the population have either been killed or injured."
The situation isn't limited to just Bam, the whole of Kerman province is affected.
You can contribute to the Paris-based medical charity Medicines Sans Frontieres (MSF) http://www.msf.org/.
Things You Wish Your Candidate Would Say- Lead Paint
Earlier today, Eric posted Things you Wish Your Candidate Would Say. Eric wants a candidate who is serious about trying to address the public health crisis in West Africa. I, too, wish that some candidate would address that crisis in a serious way.
I do not know if Eric intended that to be a one time post, but the idea of posting things we wish the candidates to say is a great one. I can not resist taking up the theme. I encourage you to leave your ideas of what the candidates should say in the comments.
I wish a candidate would say:
The next generations of Americans will face unprecedented economic competition from abroad. Our children will either have to become highly productive or they will have to compete with the third world to see who will work for the lowest wages.Our children will not become highly productive without healthy brains. A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that one in ten of our children suffer lower IQs as a result of lead poisoning. Six million children have lost an average of more than 7 IQ points as a result of lead exposure. The leading cause of lead exposure in children is lead based paint in older homes.
When I am President, we will remove lead based paint from every house, apartment and condominium. We will no longer allow our children to suffer brain damage from exposure to lead in old paint.
That will be expensive, a one time cost of about $32 billion. I propose to delay implementation of scheduled tax cuts for those making in excess of $300,000 per year until all of our children are safe from lead poisoning.
The benefits of such a policy include almost $60 billion of savings in special education spending as well as the benefit of having children with healthy brains.
When I am elected President, we will have seen the last generation of American children with brain damage from exposure to lead-based paint.
For more about a policy of removing lead based paint from our housing stock, please see here and here.
Removing lead-based paint is good environmental policy, good social policy, good education policy, good health care policy, and good economic policy. Why are the candidates not discussing it?
Things you wish your candidate would say ...
"I'm going to nationalize significant portions of the pharmacutical industry and militarize an equivalent portion of the medical industry, and we are going to invade West Africa, and drop a serious chunk of change in direct costs, peace keeping costs, and development costs, with the French and others ... because that is the prudent, and humane policy choice."
The Sunday Herald (Scotland) has a must read this season of giving link on public health in West Africa.
N.B. I got to thinking about this when reflecting on what Rev. Sharpton attempted to do earlier in the campaign when "off-rez", or could have attempted during any of the debates, and what Gen. Clark (Ret.) accomplished for International Law while in The Hague, and how much quality campaign policy exposition time is wasted on the moral equivalent of Sam Donaldson's hair, or John Wayne's teeth.
Principal Off-Rez, call handlers (pt 2)
It is probable that tomorrow Slobidan Milosevic will win a seat in Serbia's Parliment, as will Vojislav Seslj.
To recap: 6.5 million voters, 250 deputes, some 4,000 candidates, distributed across19 party and ad hoc coalitions. Three years ago 18 parties found common purpose in ending the Milosevic autocracy. Beyond that goal -- to the problems of national reconstruction after the NATO War and the UN Sanctions, their center could not hold.
Mr. Milosevic heads the list (trans: top of the ticket) for the Serbian Socialist Party (SPS). Mr. Vojislav Seslj heads the list for the Serbian Radical Party (SRS). Mr. Seslj also holds the distinction for standing in this election from a cell in The Hague.
Photo: AFP.
Mr. Seselj surrendered voluntarily to the ICT in February 2003, where he will also answer to charges of war crimes. Mr. Milosevic was involuntarily transfered to the ICT in June 2001, which had as a side effect the fracture of the 18 party coalition into two principle segments -- the Serbian Democratic Party (DSS) lead by Vojislav Kostunica and the Democratic Party (DS), lead by Zoran Jindjic, who served as Prime Minister until his assassination on March 12th 2003 in Belgrade.
So, why is this happening? Why is the smart money on the Parties of deposed war criminals to at the very least seat their leaders tomorrow? Are Serbians depraved? Are Serbians stupid? Is this the Balkan form of Holocaust Denial?
Three years of internicine bickering, visible corruption, and the vulnerabilities of Parties and candidates who are "reformist" and "pro-western" to critiques of opportunism, self-agrandizement, lack of social solidarity, and corruption after a period of prolonged militarized isolation. Which means that about the time GWB's second term draws to a close, if similar or worse conditions of reconstruction are achieved in Iraq, there may be quite a few Baathists and Integralists who are as popular as, if not more popular than, "reformist" and "pro-western" candidates in the first genuinely free elections -- that is, elections in which the "bad guys" are allowed to run, perhaps even allowed to win -- in Post-Occupation Iraq.
Here in the US the opposition party is divided -- is the weakness of the incumbent party its economic record, or is the weakness of the incumbent party its military record? What really distinguishes this electorate from the Serbian electorate, or the eventual Iraqi electorate?
In Serbia, a platform that has had its military plank removed by NATO (N.B., under the command of Wes Clark), relieving it of a liability, but otherwise unchanged, and adamantly opposed to the current administrations of the EU and the US, looks to be competitive with a platform that had no military plank to exercise, or be exorcised, and presents a profoundly differing economic plan from the prior regime's. The return of the Serbian War Party, pacified.
In Iraq, a platform that has had its military plank recently removed by the US/UK (N.B., under the command of George W. Bush), relieving it of a liability, but otherwise unchanged, and adamantly opposed to the current administrations of the US and the UK, may be competitive with a platform that had no military plank to exercise, or be exorcised, and presents a profoundly differing economic plan from the prior regime's. The (future) return of the Iraqi War Party, pacified.
In the US opposition, a platform that defines itself primarily by the removal of the military plank from the current administration's platform is highly competitive with a platform defines itself primarily as offering a profoundly differing economic plan from the current administration.
Everyone who writes for wampum acts on the premise that the incumbent party can be defeated on its economic record. A premise that may not be tested. After a morning of chasing children about and fixing meals and running appliances and stealing moments to string together disjoint concordances, I think I understand why war criminals are going to elevated from international detention to national chambers of deputies, and some part of why our party is feverish and shivering from political influenza.
December 26, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Half Full
Many on the left are unable to see the good in George W. Bush. Sure, his record on job creation is the worse since Herbert Hoover. Our fiscal house is now a mess when it was immaculate prior to Mr. Bush taking office.
Yes, Mr. Bush mislead the Congress and the American people in order to wage a war that did not need to be fought while moving resources away from the fight against the enemy who needs to be defeated now.
It is undeniable that No Child Left Behind will leave many children, including one of mine, behind. While the president promised to be a uniter, his every action seems calculated to widen the partisan divide. Still, if you turn your head a little and squint in just the right way, it is possible to see the good in Mr. Bush’s policies.
Last summer, Mr. Bush was selling his tax cut by using averages in what I can only describe as a creative way. While many simply thought Mr. Bush’s use of statistics showed his mendacity, I was able to see the merit in his way of looking at things. As a result, I plan on wearing a Pirates cap at my Hall of Fame induction at Cooperstown.
Recently, my wife sent me to the store for some last minutes stocking stuffers and a supply of AA batteries. It was close to sunset and the store was to our west. I had slept poorly the night before and had a crick in my neck that caused me to tilt my head slightly. As I crested a hill, the sun sinking in the west caused me to squint to see oncoming traffic. In that moment, I had an insight.
In Mr. Bush’s recent interview with Diane Sawyer, the following exchange took place:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
The benefits of Mr. Bush’s logic were suddenly apparent to me. Shortly after I arrived home, my wife asked whether I had remembered to clean out the garage. I informed her that although I had not done it, I had a “garage cleaning program.” “What is the difference?” I confidently asked. Apparently, she didn’t have a crick in her neck as she seemed to discern a major difference.
Undeterred, I called an old friend in Chicago. He is a die hard Cubs fan. “Congratulations on winning the World Series,” I exclaimed. After assuring him that I had not lost my mind, I explained that there was a possibility that the Cubs could win the World Series and that there is actually no difference between that and a championship.
I have since learned that my friend has a “no cursing program.” I wasvery happy to hear that. I now know that there is no difference between what he actually said before slamming down the phone and “Merry Christmas to you and yours.”
I highly recommend staring into the sun with your head tilted when making New Year’s resolutions. There really is no difference between planning to diet and exercise and actually losing weight.
If we can just convince Mr. Bush and Karl Rove that there is no difference between having a reelection program and actually being reelected, I can stop staring into the sun when trying to make sense of public policy.
December 25, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Happy lyrical holidays...
Last year, Skippy put out a request from blogtopians for favorite Holiday carols. At that time, I listed a couple, with this one on the top of my favs. This year, it seems even more relevant than ever, so will post it again, while I wish all our readers a Happy, and Peaceful, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza and Winter Solstice.
HAPPY CHRISTMAS (WAR IS OVER)
John Lennon and Yoko Ono
So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
Ans so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
And what have we done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
Ans so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
War is over over
If you want it
War is over
Now...
December 23, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
The vengeance of petty "snowbird" tyrants...
Frontpage on NYTimes.com this morning is a troubling story of a Maine teen tried and convicted in federal court, now doing time in a federal prison more than 500 miles from his family. His crime? Torching a boatyard. But not just any boatyard. This one housed the engine of the Bush family yacht. Poppa Bush, that is, the [seasonal] King of Kennebunkport.
The story is troubling on many levels. The boy, just 14 when the arson crime occurred, was ready to plead guilty in state court. He is now one of only two juveniles in all of New England serving time in federal prison, housed in a facility where most of his peers are mentally ill or developmentally challenged.
While arson is a serious crime, this instance was no different from hundreds of others which occur in Maine and around the country every year. In fact, at the same time the youth was attempting to plea bargain, a resident of a neighboring town was on trial for burning his restaurant down.
What is particularly disconcerting about these events is that while the "powers that be" deemed the case to be of the most serious import, none of the events were even covered in the local press. A search of both the Portland Press Herald and Boston Globe archives didn't even turn up a mention of the fire at the boatyard, let alone the conviction of the boy or his nineteen year-old accomplice (ironically charged in state court.) How is it that the younger boy is such a threat to society that he joined only a few hundred other juveniles incarcerated in federal prisons, yet the crime itself wasn't even deemed "news" by the local press. I live only thirty minutes from Kennebunkport (home of my ancestral tribal village) and I never heard of the boatyard fire until I read it in the Times.
It's been speculated that G.W. Bush invaded Iraq in part because of Hussein's purported assassination attempt on his father. It's certainly clear he's not the only one in the family willing to use the resources at his disposal for petty vengeance.
December 21, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Kurds and Wh(e)y
Let's be cosmopolitan this morning and read XINHUA in French:
Saddam Hussein a été capturé par les troupes américaines seulement après avoir été fait prisonnier par les forces kurdes, drogué et abandonné aux mains des soldats américains, rapporte l'hebdomadaire dominical londonien Sunday Express.Selon Sunday Express citant un responsable des services secrets militaires britannique, Saddam est tombé aux mains du Front patriote kurde après avoir été trahi par un membre de la tribu al-Jabour, dont la fille a été violée par le fils de l'ancien président irakien, Uday, ce qui a entraîné une vengeance sanglante.
Selon le journal, l'histoire complète des évènements qui ont conduit à la capture de Saddam hussein, le 13 décembre, près de son fief de Tikrit dans le nord de l'Irak, "montre que la version colportée par les conseillers américains est incomplète".
Un ancien responsable des services secrets irakiens, dont le Sunday Express ne cite pas le nom, a raconté que Saddam Hussein a été fait prisonnier par un dirigeant du Front patriotique kurde qui a combattu contre les forces américaines pendant la guerre en Irak avant de conclure avec elles un accord.
L'accord aurait apparemment procuré un avantage politique à ce mouvement dans la région.
Une source anonyme des services de renseignement occidentaux au Moyen-Orient a déclaré au journal: "Saddam n'a pas été capturé à la suite d'une action des services secrets américains ou britanniques. Nous savions que quelques-uns voudraient se venger de lui, c'était juste une question de temps". Fin
Trans: The claims made in the arabic press six days ago, and universally dismissed by right-minded people everywhere -- that Saddam was drugged when apparently captured, appear to be true, not false.
Trans: The KPF has held Saddam for some time prior to the "we got him" moment.
If either element of the Sunday Express' story holds up, things will be interesting over at the corral.
Newsweek of a few minutes ago is still reporting the nitty gritty story of a Kurdless capture.
Here's an interesting link: click.
December 20, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Scare Tactics
Stuart Taylor and Even Thomas have an article in Newsweek in which they argue that Americans have an enormous fear of being sued.
We have been hardened and made more fearful. Friends and neighbors are more wary now. Almost anyone has to ask: if I say or do something that might be taken wrong, will I wind up in court? Mentors and teachers are restrained from offering either comfort or discipline—might that touch be misconstrued, those stern words somehow made “actionable”?
Taylor and Thomas even give a concrete example of how such fear prevents socially beneficial activities:
Ryan Warner is a volunteer who runs an annual softball tournament in Page, Ariz., that usually raises about $5,000 to support local school sports programs. But not this year. A man who broke his leg at a recent tournament sliding into third base filed a $100,000 lawsuit against the city, and Warner fears he may be named as a defendant. “It’s very upsetting when you’re doing something for the community, not making any money for yourself, to be sued over something over which you had no control,” he says. So Warner canceled the tournament.
It that not terrible? A guy just wants to volunteer to run a softball tournament and raise money for school sports programs. He can’t do it because he is afraid of being sued.
Perhaps we need a law that says that volunteers like Ryan Warner can’t be held liable for negligence when they are volunteering for a socially beneficial activity. Congress and President Clinton certainly thought so because, as Public Citizen (pdf) points out, they enacted just such a law.
Given that Ryan Warner was immune from suit by virtue of a federal statute, one could argue that his fear of litigation was unreasonable. Unreasonable fear is still fear. The question is why are Americans so afraid of being sued?
There are a number of reasons but surely one such reason is that the tort reform lobby and the media has chosen the scare the bejesus out of the public to promote a tort reform agenda. What is worse, they continually lie to generate the fear.
Among the groups most frightened about the prospect of being sued are doctors and hospitals. How could they not be afraid when they hear stories like the one Taylor and Thomas tell?
In California recently, a couple won a $70 million judgment against Stanford University Hospital and two other health-care centers for failing to prevent their child from becoming disabled by a rare birth condition.
A child is born with rare birth condition through no fault of the doctors or hospitals and some crazy jury hands out $70 million? That really is scary. Taylor and Thomas note that doctors and hospitals respond to their fear by practicing defensive medicine. They put the price tag for defensive medicine at “$50 billion to $100 billion” per year.
Given that the total of all medical malpractice judgments and settlements is a little over $4 billion per year (see here and here), the medical profession is killing a fly with a cannon.
Nonetheless, how can you blame doctors for being afraid when they are told a jury handed out $70 million as a result of a birth defect that the doctors had no way to prevent?
I put part of the blame squarely where it belongs, on Taylor and Thomas because they are promoting such fear by lying.
Public Citizen has looked into the “$70 million” case and found it to be false in a number of respects. It is true that the baby, Michael Cook, had a birth defect. That is the only truth in Taylor and Thomas’s rendition of the case. Public Citizens notes:
Michael was born with the rare metabolic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU), which prevents certain amino acids from being properly metabolized. According to medical experts, the disorder occurs once every 10,000 to 15,000 births and can be detected by a test that is required by law for all newborns. If diagnosed early, it can usually be controlled with a low-protein diet. The medical standard of practice is to test newborns about 24 hours after birth, but Michael’s test was conducted too early, only four hours after birth. Medical experts testifying at the trial stated that if the test had been performed as required by the standard, it would have detected Michael’s condition, and he could have gone on to lead a healthy life. Instead, Michael was not diagnosed until he was six years old, after the disease had permanently impaired him. Michael’s doctors testified that he now functions at a three-year-old level, is fed through a tube, and will never be able to work or live on his own.
Failing to give a required test at the proper time causing permanent injury to a baby is a far cry from simply being sued just because a baby had a birth defect through no fault of anyone.
Still, $70 million is a lot of money, even for a permanently disabled infant. It is so much that it is barely believable that a jury would make such an award in California where there is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages. The reason that is unbelievable is that Taylor and Thomas are lying. Public Citizen tells us that the $70 million was actually $8.3 million:
Since this was a structured judgment rather than lump sum payment, with periodic payments over Michael’s lifetime, the present value of the award was only $8.3 million ($6.3 million for medical expenses and $1.8 million for lost wages) – the cost to purchase an annuity to provide the payments to Michael over his lifetime.
To call a one time payment (in the form of the purchase of an annuity) of $8.3 million a judgment for $70 million is just a lie. Eight million, seventy million, what is the difference if your purpose is to scare people so that you can write an article about how afraid they are?
I do not mean to pick on Newsweek. Scare tactics are a standard procedure when the issue is tort reform.
Take Mort Zuckerman, the editor in chief and publisher of Newsweek’s competitor, U.S. News and World Report for example. Last summer Zuckerman wrote a column about the litigation crisis in which he gave two examples of how juries give out awards in silly cases. I discussed the column here.
Zuckerman wrote (the link is now broken):
a woman throws a soft drink at her boyfriend at a restaurant, then slips on the floor she wet and breaks her tailbone. She sues. Bingo--a jury says the restaurant owes her $100,000! A woman tries to sneak through a restroom window at a nightclub to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She falls, knocks out two front teeth, and sues. A jury awards her $12,000 for dental expenses.
How stupid can a jury be? Awarding $100,000 to a woman who slips on the drink she herself spilled is unbelievable. And $12,500 for dental expenses of a person who hurt herself while trying to beat the cover charge at a nightclub is equally unbelievable. The reason they are unbelievable is that no jury would make such an award. Zuckerman’s examples are lies. See here. He just reported those cases without checking to see if they were true.
Or maybe you heard about the guy who was trying to steal someone’s hubcaps and got hurt when the car rolled over his hand. He sued the owner of the car and won $74,000. That is a fabrication.
Or perhaps you heard about the guy who won half a million dollars ($1.5 million in some versions) for mental anguish after he locked himself in the garage of a house he had robbed and had to remain in the garage for eight days living on dog food. Yeah, right, juries are often just so sympathetic to criminals.
Or perhaps you heard of these:
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms. Robertson’s son.Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor’s beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner’s fenced yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma … purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the RV left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner’s manual that he couldn’t actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.
All are fabrications as Kip points out.
The media and the tort reform lobby constantly tells us that juries give out large awards in cases that are so absurd that they do not even pass the laugh test. People like Mort Zuckerman, Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas report them as true.
Zuckerman would not award anything to the plaintiff in the cases he (falsely) reports. Taylor and Thomas would never award $70 million in a case in which the doctors made no error. Their friends would not make those awards.
Zuckerman, Thomas and Taylor, however, are prepared to believe that juries would make absurd awards because they are just so sure that they and their friends are so much smarter than people on juries. They are elitists.
People who think juries are stupid either have no experience with juries or think mighty highly of themselves. If juries make such absurd decisions, why are the reported cases so often fabrications? Why can not Zuckerman or Thomas or Taylor show us some examples of ridiculous awards that are actually true?
There is a huge, well funded interest group trying to pass tort reform. There are any number of journalists sympathetic to tort reform. If there are lots of crazy jury awards that stand up on appeal, why do we usually hear only the bogus ones?
Tort reformers and the media just make stuff up. They want you to believe that juries are irrational. They want you to believe that evidence, fairness and justice are irrelevant in the “litigation lottery.” They want to scare you.
They then use the fear their lies have generated to argue that we need tort reform legislation. It really is one big scam.
Update:
I meant to link to this excellent report entitled The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law by Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest and the Commonweal Institute. It traces the origins of the tort reform movement. Who is behind the effort? The usual suspects. My failure to link to that report in the main body of the post was purely the result of negligence on my part. Should I fear a suit?
December 18, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Arnold Folds on Cuts for the Developmentally Disabled
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has backed down from his plan to cut the budget for developmentally disabled Californians including autistic children.
Many thanks to Pacific John for letting us know in comments. The Gropinator has more.
The Los Angeles Times reports as follows:
In a startling reversal, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose proposed budget cuts in services for the developmentally disabled had caused a statewide outcry, agreed Wednesday to abandon the plan…Schwarzenegger sent shockwaves through the Legislature and the developmentally disabled population when, a few days after taking office Nov. 17, he singled out these Californians for his first round of cuts aimed at saving about $274 million over 18 months.
A torrent of angry protests by the disabled, their supporters, care providers and advocates greeted the proposal for cuts. Among the protests were a demonstration at the Capitol last month by thousands of protesters and a second demonstration of several hundred Tuesday in Los Angeles.
Being an action hero, the Governor denied that the protests had any effect on his position:
Administration officials denied that outside pressure had caused the governor to reverse himself. They told The Times that he had taken a second look at the cuts and told his administrators to abandon them and come back with alternatives.In a statement, the governor said he wanted to "find a thoughtful way to bring efficiencies to these services without capping the programs and shutting out families in need." He said he believed he had found a "better solution," but did not divulge it.
That is fine with me. If the governor wants to claim that he did not bow to public pressure, I do not care. If allowing the governor to save face prevents budget cuts for autistic kids, let him save face. I just want those kids to have the needed services.
When I previously wrote about Schwarzenegger’s proposal, I noted that since the passage of the Lanterman Act thirty five years ago, Californians had chosen to be a leader in humane treatment of the developmentally disabled. I wrote:
Thirty five years ago, Californians proved themselves to be among the most caring, humane and decent people in the country. They were willing to pay the price to help the least fortunate among them. They were then willing to choose to be on the side of the angels.The only remaining question is whether that has changed in the last thirty five years.
Californians, by backing Schwarzenegger down, have answered that question with a resounding “No.” California remains on the side of the angels.
Defining and Relishing Success
For many jobs, the ability to deal with failure is a skill necessary for success. Hank Aaron is in the Hall of Fame and is the all time leader in home runs. On the way to that success, he made 8,593 outs.
Every trauma surgeon has some patients die on the operating table. The clients of public defenders often end up either pleading guilty or being convicted of a crime. To be successful, people in those professions must learn to deal with failure.
It has been my observation that successful people in such professions define some outcomes that may on the surface seem like as failure as successes.
Hank Aaron may have felt that a one for four with a home run was a successful game. A trauma surgeon whose efforts extend the life of a very badly injured patient for even a short while can take pride in the result. A public defender who negotiates a plea to reduce the time a client will spend in jail has won, even if the client goes away for years.
My guess is that something of the sort is necessary for people like Martha Pryor of Oklahoma. While reading some newspapers, I found the following:
Meet a 7-year-old boy who waits:J is blonde with blue eyes. He is about 4 feet tall and weighs about 70 pounds.
Loving and affectionate, J likes to please others. He is an active and energetic boy, who likes to be outside, where he can ride his go-cart or tractor. He is currently trying to improve his athletic skills, and likes being the bat boy on his foster brother's baseball team.J is a good eater. He especially likes pizza and chicken nuggets. He requires help with hygiene and does need "pull-ups" at night.
J has no ongoing health problems. He is diagnosed with mental retardation. His IQ has been tested at 40, showing moderate mental retardation. He also is autistic. J has delays in motor skills and appears to lack coordination. He also has difficulties with language. He does not speak in full sentences and uses very few words.
J is in the first grade. He is in special education, where he receives speech, occupational and physical therapy. His biggest problem is a very short attention span. J has been diagnosed with ADD and takes medication to help his concentration level. J also does not have a sense of danger and will engage in dangerous activities without thinking about the consequences. He requires close supervision.
Anyone wanting to learn more about adopting this child or any of the children throughout the state in need of a safe and loving environment can call DHS adoption specialist Martha Pryor at (580) 490-6060 or (877) OK-SWIFT.
Raising an autistic child is difficult. Few people are willing to volunteer for the job. Apparently, it is Martha Pryor’s job to find such people.
Although there are people with enough love in their hearts and enough selflessness to volunteer to help special need children, I suspect that Martha Pryor has more kids seeking a family than volunteers seeking to adopt mentally retarded or autistic kids. My guess is that a large percentage of such kids are never adopted.
People in Martha Pryor’s job have to gain sufficient satisfaction from finding loving homes for a few of the special needs kids to make up for the inability to locate homes for all of the kids.
The same is true of raising an autistic child. It is a hard job. The successes are all too infrequent. It is very important to define each small step forward as a success and to relish each such success. The successes may be small and infrequent but they are the only things allowing the defeats to be endured
December 17, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Plan B
It has been said that the definition of a fanatic is one who, having lost sight of his objective, redoubles his effort. The American Life League qualifies under that definition.
Yesterday, two expert advisory committees to the FDA voted overwhelmingly to approve the emergency contraception pill known as “Plan B” for over the counter sale. Plan B is a “morning after” pill. Plan B consists of two large doses of the very same hormone contained in the usual birth control pill.
Plan B is very effective. It prevents pregnancy in 89% of the cases if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Plan B was originally approved in 1999 but required a doctor’s prescription. That requirement prevented Plan B from being readily available when needed.
According to Barr Laboratories, who purchased the right to manufacture and sell Plan B, making Plan B available on an over the counter basis would prevent 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies per year and would reduce the number of abortions by 700,000 per year.
One might think that a reduction of almost three quarters of a million abortions per year would please the American Life League. One would be mistaken. The American Life League is adamantly opposed to Plan B being sold over the counter.
The controversy arises out of the mechanisms used by Plan B to prevent pregnancies. Reuters reports:
Plan B contains high doses of progestin, one of the hormones used in birth control pills, to interfere with ovulation or prevent fertilization of an egg, according to the manufacturer.But some research has suggested the pills also stop a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus, which upsets some abortion opponents.
The Boston Globe reports that Plan B works “by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. It has no effect after an egg is firmly implanted in the uterine wall.”
The right to life groups have seized on the possibility of Plan B preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted to make their argument against over the counter sales. The American Life League believes that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterine wall is the equivalent of an abortion. That position follows from the belief that life begins at conception.
The Times reports:
Judy Brown, president of the American Life League, said, "The pill acts to prevent a pregnancy by aborting a child." Ms. Brown added that while Plan B may be called emergency contraception "the emergency in this case is a baby."
In the cases in which Plan B works by preventing ovulation, no egg is ever fertilized, no conception occurs and, therefore, even by the American Life League’s standards, no life is ever created or destroyed. In the cases in which Plan B works by preventing fertilization, obviously no conception occurs and therefore no life is destroyed. It is only in the instance in which a fertilized egg is prevented from being implanted in the uterine wall that an egg has been fertilized, conception is achieved and, in their view, life has begun.
Let us assume for the purpose of discussion that the American Life League wants to minimize the number of abortions. What policy, from the American Life League’s point of view, is best suited to promote that goal?
In order to answer that question, we need to make some assumptions. First, let’s assume that Barr Laboratories is correct that over the counter sales will prevent 1.5 million unwanted pregnancies and 700,000 abortions a year. Let us also assume that the reported figure of 89% effectiveness is accurate.
Since we are looking at this from the American Life League’s point of view, let us assume that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted is the equivalent of an abortion.
There are three possible mechanisms by which Plan B works. The key point is that the mechanisms work in sequence.
If Plan B works by preventing ovulation, there is no fertilized egg to prevent from being implanted. For Plan B to destroy a life, as defined by the American Life League, Plan B must first fail to prevent ovulation, and then fail to prevent fertilization. Only if both those failures occur does the possibility of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg come into play.
Let’s do some math.
How many fertilized eggs would be prevented from being implanted (the equivalent of an abortion from the American Life League’s point of view) by over the counter sales of Plan B?
Assume that each of the three mechanisms work in 50% of the possible cases. I chose that figure because three sequential 50% chances to prevent a pregnancy will result in an overall effectiveness of 87.5%, very close to the reported 89% effectiveness of Plan B.
The first possibility is that Plan B works by preventing ovulation. Under our assumptions, that will occur in 750,000 of the 1.5 million cases. The second possibility is that Plan B will work by preventing fertilization. That only occurs in the cases in which Plan B fails to prevent ovulation. Thus, fertilization will be prevented in half of the remaining cases for a total of 375,000 additional cases.
Only when both ovulation and fertilization occurs will a fertilized egg be prevented from being implanted in the uterine wall. That is another 375,000 cases.
Thus, over the counter sales of Plan B will prevent 700,000 abortions and will result in fertilized eggs being prevented from implanting in the uterine wall 375,000 times.
The American Life League believes that life begins at conception. It also believes that both abortion and preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall is the equivalent of killing a baby. If we accept those views, then approval of over the counter sales of Plan B will prevent the killing of 325,000 babies. Nonetheless, the American Life League opposes over the counter sales of Plan B.
The American Life League has lost sight of its objective but has not diminished its efforts.
December 16, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Things to Make You Laugh
Kevin at Lean Left thinks that God Likes a Challenge.
Mad Kane had social engagements on two consecutive nights. While Mad was being a social butterfly, Julia got to do the dishes. Of the three evenings in question, Julia’s was the second best experience.
Meanwhile, Jim relates his experiences with panhandlers. Jim’s post reminded me of a panhandler I once met.
While walking on the street, a disheveled man asked me for a dollar for "coffee." I asked the man if he really planned to use the money to buy booze. "Oh no," he replied, "I just want a cup of coffee." It was 2:00 pm in Atlanta in August and about 95 degrees. I doubted the coffee story.
"Too bad," I said, "I was going to buy you a bottle of scotch if you had been honest with me but I do not give to people who lie."
For the first time, he looked directly at me and said, "how about a bottle of gin?"
Impressed with his sudden conversion to truth telling, I gave him a $10.
Quick programming note...
Dwight Meredith, who has been "guest blogging" here at Wampum, will no longer be acting in that capacity.
He is now Wampum's permanent co-host.
Hurray!
The ghost of Enrons past....
I suspect many readers of (pre-Dwight) Wampum often wondered about the bee I had in my bonnet over energy prices and supply over the last year. In the Spring, when most Americans fretted about their mutual funds or were glued to news on US adventurism in Iraq, I poured over press missives on natural gas and oil prices and began accosting the local gas man seeking information.
Even earlier this Fall, I was still fixated on gas prices and reserves, puzzling over the government's predictions of gas prices increasing more than 12% over last year's unusual high levels, despite assertions that depleted stocks had rebounded. In fact, in an unusually frank admission, the EIA conceded that high gas prices had a negative effect on the economic recovery earlier this year, as demand by industry decreased 2.3% due to energy costs.
Some residential gas customers are moderately protected against price spikes due to regulation by state and federal agencies. The EIA predicts that barring an unusually cold heating season, natural gas customers on average will pay about $50 more this winter (or 6.25%) to heat their homes. Manufactures and utilities are not so lucky. For fertilizer and chemical companies, natural gas is not only an energy source to run the machines, it's a raw material in the production process, and thus manufacturers pay commodity prices, even when those prices jump exponentially. Last winter, Dow chemical laid off thousands of workers when natural gas prices passed $7/mill btus, as production became too expensive. Landscapers and farmers have witnessed fertilizer prices climb, cutting in on already slim profits. And that was before the events of this past week.
On Saturday evening, the NYTimes ran this article on the recent surge in natural gas prices. Apparently, as Americans were distracted by Halliburton's overcharging at the Iraqi pump, natural gas traders, harkening back to the glory days of the California energy crisis, may have illegally manipulated gas markets, leading to a 50% increase in the two weeks after Thanksgiving. Prices at the opening of the winter heating season currently sit above $7/mill btus, equal to last year's mid-season high. Analysts now fear that without intervention, prices by January-February could rise above $13/mill btus. Such a level could fatally smother the already wobbly recovery in the US manufacturing sector, as more companies follow Dow's lead and cut both production and staff to make up for profits lost to gas suppliers.
The current EIA projections for industrial demand for natural gas in 2004 are an increase in 1%, a number formulated with a burgeoning economy in mind. If EIA concedes that the $7/mill btus level suppressed industrial demand during 2003, one can only imagine the revised forecasts based on an amount nearly double the current number. More than a few members of Congress are concerned enough to call for investigations into price manipulation by energy traders (aka Enron), but with an Administration firmly entrenched in Big Energy's pocket, even Orrin Hatch might not want to hold his breath.
A Tubby Little Cubby All Stuffed With Cash
Whenever I read a news report about a civil suit, I try to predict who will win. Evaluating cases has become a habit. Over my years practicing law, I have had to make countless decisions as to whether or not to take a case. Often, those decisions must be made based with only limited information available.
The decision to take or reject a case directly impacts my financial well being. It is very important that I get those decisions right. When I read about a suit in the papers, I can not resist the temptation to perform a similar analysis. It is a guilty pleasure.
News reports rarely contain a complete or accurate statement of the facts. There is no time to take a close look at the legal issues involved and there is no opportunity to interview and assess the credibility of the witnesses. Predicting winners based on news reports is obviously an inexact science.
Nonetheless, sometimes it is possible to get strong clues from news reports. Let’s look at a concrete example.
Julia points us to a Jeffrey Toobin article in the New Yorker about a suit over the rights to Winnie the Pooh.
First, a brief sketch of the facts of the case:
In 1930, a literary agent named Stephen Slesinger acquired the merchandising rights to the Pooh story from A. A. Milne, who created the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Wood to entertain his real-life son, Christopher Robin Milne. In 1961, Shirley Slesinger, Stephen’s widow, signed those rights over to the Walt Disney company in return for four per cent of the revenues that Disney received from Pooh merchandise. Thirty years later, the Slesinger family sued Disney for breach of contract, claiming that the company had stinted on the royalties.
The legal issue, apparently, is “whether the contract covers home videos, which barely existed when … (the agreement) was signed.” The stakes are high with the potential recovery running to several hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, who is going to win? Before you decide, let me give you a few more items of information. The case has been pending at the trial court level for twelve years. It is the oldest current case in Los Angeles Superior Court. Dozens of lawyers have worked on the case and each side has recently hired a high profile lawyer. Daniel M. Petrocelli (who represented the Ron Goldman family in the civil suit against OJ) has been hired by Disney and Johnny Cochran has been retained by the plaintiff.
To get a feel for who is going to win the case, three more pieces of the puzzle are helpful. First, it would be nice to know why the case has been delayed for so long. Secondly, you should carefully assess what the lawyers for each side are saying. Third, look to see who wants a trial and who wants further delay.
In the Winnie the Pooh case, it appears that the delay was caused by discovery disputes:
But most of the delays seem to be the result of lawyers fighting with each other. At one point, early in the case, a second judge was appointed just to handle arguments about the discovery process. Another time, Disney was sanctioned by a judge for disposing of the files of a company executive who negotiated a 1983 revision of the original contract with the Slesingers.
Sometimes discovery disputes are caused by the plaintiff refusing to turn over material or because the plaintiff is unreasonable in demanding information from the defendant. More often, discovery disputes arise because the defendant is unwilling to turn material over to the plaintiff. Sometimes that is because the defendant has something to hide. Other times, it is because the defense simply wants to focus on anything but the merits fo the case. The fact that Disney has been sanctioned by the court for destroying what appears to be highly relevant evidence suggests that its position is weak. On balance, it is more likely than not that the delay was a result of Disney being in a poor legal position.
What do the attorneys for the parties want to talk about? Cochran, speaking for the plaintiff, is straightforward:
“The question in this case,” Cochran said the other day, “is ‘Does the Mouse keep its word?’”
That sounds like someone who wants to talk about the merits of a breach of contract case. The essence of every breach of contract case is whether a promise was broken. It sounds as if the answer to Cochran's question is that the Mouse has not kept its word.
How about the defendant’s attorney?
The latest turn has Disney accusing the Slesinger team of misconduct for, among other things, rummaging through the company’s garbage. After first dismissing the charge—“I don’t like ketchup on my exhibits,” one lawyer scoffed—the Slesingers’ attorneys conceded that they did take documents from what they called a “publicly accessible” trash container. “There’s been a massive coverup here, and egregious misbehavior,” Petrocelli said.
Maybe so, but what does that have to do with whether or not the contract required Disney to pay royalties on the sale of videotapes? Nothing that I can see.
So, the plaintiff’s lawyer wants to talk about the merits while the defense lawyer wants to talk about the process. That does not bode well for Disney shareholders.
The third factor is to determine who wants to go to trial and who wants to delay. That is the clearest indication of who thinks they have a good case. Cochran is again straightforward:
“We need to get all this stuff out of the way about who went through what trash,” he said. “This is a case that should go to trial, and that’s what I’m going to do.”
Petrocelli wants to go to court just not to trial. He is focused on the trash incident:
“And we’re going to a full hearing about what they did, with witnesses, on January 20th.”
That is a full hearing on the “massive coverup” and “egregious misbehavior” that has not a thing to do with whether or not Disney owes the plaintiff any money.
The lawyer who wants a trial thinks he is going to win. The lawyer who wants to spend lots of his client’s money talking about issues other than the merits of the case is trying to avoid a trial. Usually, when a lawyer does not want to go to trial, it is because he has a lousy case.
All told, I expect that Cochran will push the case towards trial and, at the last moment, the parties will reach a settlement. The terms of the settlement will have the plaintiff singing a song about “a tubby little cubby all stuffed with cash.”
December 15, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Unfortunately, Race Still Matters
Nathan Newman notes a new study of race and hiring practices. The study he cites is here in PDF. Nathan also quotes the BNA Labor Report about the study:
The study that sent specially trained pairs of black and white job applicants to temporary employment agencies in Los Angeles and San Francisco found a "significant preference" for white applicants over slightly higher qualified African Americans...The agencies favored white applicants by a ratio of 4-to-1 in Los Angeles and more than 2-to-1 in San Francisco.
As examples, it said a white applicant was granted an interview, while the black counterpart was not; a white applicant was offered a job with a higher salary or for a higher duration; and a white applicant was the only one to be offered coaching or suggestions for resume improvement.
Kevin at Lean Left has some intelligent things to say as well:
This is why I have such a hard time taking opponents of affirmative action seriously: they never seem to deal with the reality that racism is very much a problem in this country. If you are opposed to affirmative action, you must first tell me what you are going to replace it with. Because today, right now, if you are not white, you are going to have a harder time getting a job, a raise, or an interview because and only because you are not white. Tell me how you are going to deal with that, and only then will I pay attention to what you have to say about affirmative action.Because affirmative action is the only program that has any concrete effect on overcoming that prevalent racism. If you are going to remove it without putting something in its place, then all you are doing is acquiescing to that racism. I do not consider that a valid option.
If one begins with the premise that racism no longer exists (as some do), there is no need to discuss remedies. The study referred to above is just one more reminder that the premise of that argument is false.
Shut Up, He Explained
Taking a break from working on the Koufax Awards, I decided to read the transript of today’s Presidential Press conference.
Matt Yeglesias points us to one part of the press conference in which the answer did not relate to the question.
Mr. Bush was also asked about Iraqi possession of WMD. His answer was as follows:
Here's what I took away from September the 11th, 2001 -- that any time a President sees a gathering threat to the United States, we must deal with it. We can't pick or choose like we used to, could in the past. In the old days, oceans protected us from harm's way, and a President could stand back and say, well, maybe this gathering threat is an issue, maybe it's not. After September the 11th, that complacency, I guess may be the right word, no longer is relevant. And, therefore, I began to assess threats.And the threat of Saddam Hussein was a unique threat in this sense: the world recognized he was a threat for 12 years, and 17 resolutions, I think it is -- I believe it was 17 resolutions -- for the resolution counter, give me a hand here -- 17? Seventeen resolutions. And he ignored them. He just treated the U.N. as an empty debating society, as if their resolutions meant nothing. This is a person who has used chemical weapons before, which indicated to me he was a threat. He invaded his neighbors before. This is a person who was defiant, he's a deceiver, and he was a murderer in his own country. He was a threat.
And so I went to the United Nations, as you recall, September the 12th, 2002, and said to the United Nations, let's work together to disarm this man; you recognized he had arms, we recognize he's got arms, let's disarm him. And 1441 came about, it's when the world spoke through the United Nations Security Council with one voice, and in a unanimous voice said, disarm, or there will be serious consequences. In other words, they agreed that Saddam was a threat.
And so we moved to disarm him. In other words, there were serious consequences because he was defiant.
Since then, David Kay has reported back that he had weapons programs that would have put him in material breach of 1441. What that means, of course, is that had David Kay been the lead inspector, and had done the work that he did prior to our removal of Saddam, he would have reported back to the U.N. Security Council that Saddam was, in fact, in breach of the Council resolutions that were passed.
A shorter translation is “Shut up, he explained.”
Principal Off-Rez, call handlers (pt 1)
Earlier in this cycle Al Sharpton went off-reservation, and spent a week in West Africa working a set of issues that is more important than ... well, who sits in the Oval Office for a term or two. I tried to get him to guest blog that week, which allowed me to chat with Frank Watkins, who was his campaign manager at the time, but I missed the window of opportunity. I thought then that what he was doing was simply more interesting than what Howard Dean had done a week or so earlier on Lawrence Lessig's blog.
I mention this because this week another candidate has gone off-reservation. Wes Clark is in the Hague, which isn't holding a Democratic primary or caucus before, during, or after, Super Tuesday. While Wes Clark does not suffer the same degree of white-out that Al Sharpton endures in the media, all the news cycles this week belong to the incumbant. If he could blog from the Hague, it could be interesting. Profoundly interesting in fact, because we could put the thumbnail sketch of the process that puts Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in UN custody and facing indictments at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the process that puts Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in US custody and facing ... something that no one has bothered to give much thought to until today. A pair of thumbnail sketches should be revealing.
Prosecutors at the war crimes tribunal accuse Slobodan Milosevic of committing the following offences in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995:
See Florence Hartmann's contribution on Bosnia in The Crimes of War for a summary.
Prosecutors at the war crimes tribunal accuse Slobodan Milosevic of committing the following offences in Croatia between 1991 and 1992:
Prosecutors at the war crimes tribunal accuse Slobodan Milosevic and four of his colleagues of committing the following offences in province of Kosovo between January and June 2001:
For the full text of each of the indictments and accompanying documents at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, click on the respective links: Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo. In a nutshell these are: that after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, almost all captured Bosnian Muslim men and boys, altogether several thousands, were executed (Bosnian indictement); Milosevic planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation or execution of the persecution of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian populations (Croatian indictement); the killings occurred in a widespread or systematic manner throughout the province of Kosovo and resulted in the deaths of numerous men, women, and children (Kosovo indictement).
What Wes Clark is doing this week is important. Important like working to improve the human condition in West Africa. He's working to improve the human condition in that part of the world that is subject to, or perhaps celebrates in is a better turn of phrase, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal(s) of the United Nations. It is worth recalling that in May 2002 the US formally renounced participation in the new International Criminal Court.
Credits: The BBC (London), The Globe and Mail (Toronto), The RTBF (Bruxelles). Photo AFP.
Oblig personal note on the capture, not arrest of Saddam Hussein :: a distraction from policy to personality. I'll continue to blog on Le Procès Milosevic.
December 14, 2003 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
2003 Koufax Award Most Humorous Post Nominees
Didn’t some conservatives once argue that lefties have no sense of humor? Well, put down your coffee, I am about to explode that myth. What follows is surely the funniest post of the year. No, I do not fancy myself to be the blogger equivalent of Robin Williams, Richard Pryor or even Henny Youngman. I may not be able to write funny stuff but the lefty community is filled with comedic talent. I will link below to the posts that have, so far, received nominations for the Koufax Award for the Most Humorous Post of the year. Please click the "more" button to get to the links.
This listing does not mean that the nominations for Most Humorous Post are closed. If you know of or have written a post you think is funny, particularly if it was posted early in the year, leave a comment or send an e-mail and I will link to it.
Before I get to the funny stuff, there are a couple of details that need to be cleared up about the rules of the Koufax Awards. First, Best Group Blog is a new category and it is not surprising that there has been some confusion. Please be advised that John Lott and the Sock Puppets do not qualify as a group blog. A group blog requires more than one actual person.
Secondly, to qualify in the categories of Most Humorous Blog and Most Humorous Post, the humor must be intentional. Thus, Instapundit does not qualify for the former and the Kim Du Toit essay does not qualify for the latter. (I shamelessly stole those jokes from the comments. Thanks folks).
Now on to the nominations:
One of my personal favorites is The Horror of Blimps by Scylla posted at Teeming Extras. I found it when Mary Beth linked to it early in the year. I then linked to it under the title “Handle With Care.” It really is funny enough to be dangerous.
The Poor Man, Andrew Northrup, is just hilarious. His posts receiving nominations for Most Humorous Post include Shorter Right-Wing Punditry’s Reaction to the Valerie Plame Affair: In Internal Dialogue, So, So Sad, The Cornier Too and The Science of Deception.
Jesse Taylor of Pandagon won the 2002 Sandy for Most Humorous Post with his Peggy Noonan parody. He is back this year with his Twenty Most Annoying Conservatives of 2003 post.
Speaking of last year’s winners, Adam Felber of Fanatical Apathy won last year for Most Humorous Blog. This year, his posts entitled Rough Justice IV and The UN Spring/Summer 2003 have been nominated for Most Humorous Post.
Few bloggers can match Julia for wit or snark. Her “shorter” entry, Shorter David Brooks is nominated for Most Humorous Post.
Speaking of the “shorter” format, its originator, Daniel Davies (known as D-Squared), has been nominated in this category for Heavy Paratroopers (be sure to read the comments).
What would a listing of the year’s most humorous posts be without an entry from Neal Pollack? Take a look at Your Gonna Frey.
Atrios is usually fairly cryptic in his humor. An exception is his “give me turkee” post.
DKos alum, Billmon of Whisky Bar, has been nominated for Sitcom as well as for a post featuring a picture of Paul Wolfowitz. I have not been able to locate the latter post. Can anyone help?
The Mighty Reason Man of Very, Very Happy began his blog this year. He has multiple nominations in this category including Nicotrol For Right Wing Blog Addicts, Riding in Cars with Weiners, Parts 1 and 2, Holy Christ, Donald Luskin Has Lost His Mind and The Corner Unleashed. With that many nominations, it appears that we also have a candidate for Most Humorous Blog.
It is not really a single post but no listing of funny posts would be complete without mentioning Ted Barlow’s classic collection of light bulb jokes. Here is the Light Bulb Joke Warehouse.
John Holbo received a nomination for his essay Dead Right.
A new blog, World O’Crap has been nominated for Hercules in New York.
Mac Thomason of War Liberal prescribes a dose of “Republicen” for what ails you in
And Now, a Paid Commercial Announcement from Bristol Myers Squibb.
When Neal Pollack called for “Make Fun of Dick Cheney Day, Noho-Missives responded with MC Dick Cheney.
Last year Digby won a Sandy for Best Commentor. Bowing to the will of his public, he then created his own blog, Hullabaloo. Digby is such a good writer and has such great insight that he will undoubtedly be nominated in any number of categories. This category is no exception as he has been nominated for Maidenly Vapors.
Greg at The Talent Show has fun with action figures.
Ever wonder how the economy could go from slow growth to the third quarter explosion in GDP? Tom Burka of Opinions You Should Have lets you in on the secret in Historic GDP Hike Due to Use Of Ronco Dial-O-Matic Food Slicer, Says Ronco. Tom has also been nominated for Killing Moslems Makes Them Angry And Possibly Even Violent, Says Report.
One of my favorite new blogs is Sadly, No. l was pleased to see it receive a nomination for the parody of Kin Du Toit’s silly essay. Sadly, No’s post is entitled The Dickification of the Western Female.
While on the subject of Du Toit’s post, please do not miss Winston Smith, the Philosoraptor’s, post