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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel: not the Riviera in France. Thank goodness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weasel words from NASA hierarchy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. John Conyers said in a prepared press release:

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

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

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

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

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

Ugh. Serious Ugh.

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