I don't care where you are on the ideological landscape.  You've got to check this out.   It's a hoot!

In the Techno-Geek category, here's a cautionary tale.

CompUSA was selling a DVD-Recorder for what seemed to be a very good price -- $199, after rebate. It was the Lite-On, model LVW-5001. I took a chance and bought one. I spent $50 extra [25% of the purchase price, mind you] to buy what the CompUSA folks said was a replacement policy. That is, if it breaks within the 2 year period, they will replace it with the same or like model.

I took it home and spent an hour putting it into my TV system. Dead on arrival.

Next day, I took it back. They said they had 3 in stock, but when they went to get a replacement, it turned out that 2 were also defective, and the only other one was a refurbished model. Did I ask for my money back? Did I run screaming from the store? No, and more fool I. I took the refurb.

This one worked, but had two funny characteristics. One, it overheated and failed on may functions. Checking the relevant message board, I found that thse models, unbelievably, do not have either a cooling fan or a heat sink! I also found that the color balance on recorded material was off. I had to adjust my hue and color depth to get a decent picture.

I went into the CompUSA store a week later, described the problems, and was advised to wait a couple of weeks, and then use my warranty plan to get a replacement. Because the 5001 was discontinued, I would get bumped up to the next Lite-On model, the 5005. OK.

I talked to the Tech Support gal a week later, just before my 14 day return window expired. She said to wait a week and then come in and get the replacement. OK.

Last Saturday, I unhooked the sumbitch and took it in. After waiting 45 minutes, I had the new model. And a cash register that said I owed them an additional $218! Turns out the replacement plan only applies my purchase price toward another unit, if that unit is more expensive. It appeared irrelevant that I had a deal with the Tech Suppor gal; besides, she denied having the arrangement with me to replace the 5001 with the 5005. I threw a fit, and after 15 more minutes, they refunded my money. So, I got my money back, but I've got a hole where a DVD-recorder ought to be.

Moral: beware of these replacement plans. They usually do not provide what the sales people say that they provide. Also, beware the bait and switch, because that's what I think was happening. They make the deal with you, and then make you wait, and then finally give you the new unit, and...surprise, it's more money! I'll not do business as CompUSA again, unfortunately.

I don't know Bill Hobbs, but his comment on my earlier post about the Bredesen sellout of Tennessee's workers is, shall we say, misguided. He is also insulting, by headlining the comment "A Lawyer's Whine." For the record, I'm not whining: I'm pissed! He says:

Cutting the high cost of worker's comp insurance in Tennessee will mean increased job creation. More jobs is good. More money flowing into trial lawyers's pockets doesn't create more jobs, just wealthier trial lawyers.

First, no worker's compensation carrier has said that it will cut the cost of comp insurance contingent upon passage of this legislation. History teaches us that that carrot is always dangled in front of us, and then it's yanked away when we lose interest, down the line. So, I have no doubts that the cost of comp premiums will go UP, and not down.

Second, I have been shown no data that the cost of comp coverage is costing Tennessee jobs. All I have seen is the unsupported, bald assertion made by the Bredesen Administration. Having worked with comp for 12 years, I can tell anyone willing to listen that Tennessee's benefits prior to this legislation were quite middle of the road, contrary to the line put out by the proponents of the change.

Third, where does Hobbs get off with the nonsense about "wealthier trial lawyers?" If I was "wealthy," I wouldn't care about the legislation, and I damn sure wouldn't handle worker's compensation cases. By statute, the maximum fee a lawyer may recover for representing a worker's compensation claimant is 20% of the recovery. Most worker's compensation claims are resolved for under $20,000. Thus, I will work a comp case for -- sometimes -- years, and maybe get a fee of $4,000. And don't forget that you sometimes lose. I represented the nicest fellow in the world for 9 1/2 YEARS, tried the case, and the judge ruled against us. You've got to factor in the losses and no recovery claims [i.e., those where there is no permanent injury and therefore no fee], which these knee-jerk tort reformers fail to account for.

Fourth, Hobbs may be right about a 40% cut in revenue. But he fails to understand how the drop comes about, and what it really means. There will likely be a cut in claims made, because the new law reduces potential comp recoveries so low that many lawyers will not be able to afford to take the case. Put another way, Joe Lawyer is not going to take on a case if he's going to lose money on it even if he wins the case! So, there is a two-fold agenda at work here: (1) Big Insurance and the Chambers of Commerce get rid of those pesky employees who had the bad taste to get hurt on the job, and (2) those trial lawyers who operate at or near the profitability line may be forced out of business, which means even fewer claims to worry about. At bottom, this legislation repesents a very cynical approach to protecting our citizenry. Remember, an employee hurt on the job may make a comp claim, and ONLY a comp claim, against his employer. It's the exclusive remedy. The translation of all this, for the uninitiated, is: Bend over, grab your ankles, and....

What really gets me and those like me is that our Governor, who ran a campaign designed to engender trial lawyer and regular folks support, just spat in our faces -- and our clients as well -- by forcing this legislation down our throats. Hobbs's argument is a mirage; it looks real good till you stare closely at it. Then it dissolves.

Spam sucks. While I'm not in the league of some friends of mine [Read Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds], I'm getting 30-40 pure crap emails per day. It seems like I get one every 5 minutes or so. What a pain.

Speaking of Glenn, he's a real sweetheart. He's posted an ad for my firm's web site on his blog ads. This is my great experiment: can an Internet presence generate new cases for a predominantly plaitiff's personal injury firm? Five years ago, I was convinced that the answer was "No." Now, I'm not sure. I figured that the exposure from the mega-hits that Glenn gets is one not terribly scientific way of finding out. If I get hits on the firm's site, then I'll know.

The verdict so far? Not great. I've had like 1 hit all day. Well, I'll give it time. Life is long....

Apparently I'm not the only one who is scratching his head at the lack of attention given to Al Gore's speech yesterday. I watched most of it on C-Span last night. Boy, he was pissed. And after actually listening to what he said, as opposed, apparently, to folks like these, he made good sense.

Has not our credibility in the eyes of the world suffered due to the prisoner abuse scandal? Aren't the torture tactics used on these prisoners reminiscent of Stalinist gulags and the Gestapo? Aren't we, as Americans, sickened and disgusted by the obvious conclusion that torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions is a top-down policy of this Administration, and not the aberrant acts of "a few bad apples"? Don't we expect reasonable and humane treatment of our prisoners, just as we would expect the same if our people are taken prisoner by an enemy in the future?
I'm just as mad as Gore was.

Look, I'd like to believe that what happened in the Iraq prison and what may be happening in Guantanamo is off the reservation, and that the Bush Administration did not intend to treat our prisoners this way. But then I look at reports that the president's own Office of Legal Counsel has called the prisoner treatment provisions of the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete," and that strikes me as a rationale for treating prisoners the way I would expect the KGB or the Nazis to have done. As Wilford Brimley's character said in the movie Absence of Malice, "It ain't legal, and by God, it ain't right!"

Yeah, it IS politics, because Bush is running for office, and so is his opponent. But my rant has nothing to do with politics. We're Americans. We don't do the things that we apparently ARE doing, as dictated by policy from the White House. We have always seen ourselves as the guys in the white hats. This policy changes that for a lot of people.

Frankly, it was refreshing to see a professional politician speak his own mind, without thinking too much of the consequences. If Gore had done stuff like this 3 1/2 years ago, he'd be president now.

In my absence, Tennessee's Democratic governor, whom all us trial lawyers supported, sold us down the river, by pushing forward a worker's compensation "reform" package that is execrable, to say the least. To find out how I really feel, check out my proto-blog post on my new web site, with links.

I've been off the radar screen for a while now. Lately, I can blame my absence on getting my firm's new web site up and running. The only thing I've had real trouble with is figuring out how to update the copyright and date last modified items in the footer. The site is written in Dreamweaver. Any mavens want to give me a hand and tell me how to change that?

I just got a cool email from my mother, forwarding one of Dennis Miller's rants, this time on Palestinians. It's online here, and here, but I've got to put it in here, 'cause it's great:

A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention.

Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David.

But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and he world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . ooh that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)

While I often disagree with Miller, he's dead right here. What's interesting is that he seems to have changed positions, in that he ranted about the Middle East back in May 2002, concluding that "if I can forgive that motherfucker Sinbad for beating me on Star Search, than Israel and Palestine can certainly get their shit together." He also had some wicked one-liners. Example: "On the other side of the sandbags, you have Ariel Sharon. Now, Ariel Sharon has never been a guy who knows verses 3 through 5 of 'Kumbaya.' But this recent intifada has hardened him like a dead guy on Viagra."

Miller's May 2002 proposal for the Palestinians:

Give the Palestinians CASINOS! It worked here in the U.S. for our Native Americans. Look, all religion has done is to jump-start a grudge war over it's individual beliefs and at least in casinos everyone can get along, have a few drinks, play a little Black Jack and forget their problems. You don't even have to build a lot of new buildings because they already have a thousand-year-old Holy Land theme going on over there. "C'mon, seven. Baby Jesus needs a new pair of shoes!"

He must be wise, because I think casinos are the way to solve a lot of problems, including Tennessee's ongoing fiscal woes.

From Anne...Straight From the Hip comes a great link to an extraordinary photo journal of a motorcycle trip through present-day Chernobyl, now a ghost town, taken by a woman from Ukraine who writes great English, and has lots more guts than me. Apparently, this is her idea of fun. Regardless of motive, it is a powerful set of photos, not to be missed. Check it out.

At some point on our glorious and expensive dive vacation, Glenn speculated that Donald Trump was deliberately looking for a lot of positive exposure with "The Apprentice" because his business must be in trouble. I don't know how he does it, but Glenn is right again [transcribed from the NPR audio broadcast]:

Real estate titan Donald Trump, known as a consummate dealmaker, desperately needs a deal to avoid losing his gambling empire to bankruptcy. . . . Donald Trump needs $400 million, and he needs it fast.

I heard on NBC that he owns half the show and gets $375,000 per episode, but I don't think he'll be getting bailed out from "The Apprentice." According to the radio report, he is trying to restructure his debt, which will involve him having to give up control of the casino hotels business.

UPDATE: As usual, I'm behind the times. USA Today reported on Trump's gambling operations' dreadful performance 3 weeks ago.

Musicians? We don't need no stinkin' musicians!

It's official: Bush has changed his running mate! Someone named Orwell....

And the nostalgia goes on. Glenn's reader Scott Kent thought my 1979 Etc. photo made me look like Pete Townshend, and Glenn invoked St. Keith Moon. Funnily enough, my drum teacher, Doug Klein told me around that time that I played like Keith Moon.

What I didn't know was that -- I think -- he meant my out of control over the top style. Over time, I have, hopefully, developed a more tasteful style. It's not the years, it's the mileage.

God, I loved those Rainbow, Robin Williams, Mork and Mindy suspenders....

Last week, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds outed an earlier me, circa 1980. Yes, he took the photo, it was outside my parents' house in Knoxville, and if I look sombre, it's because I was 24 hours post my first root canal. Turn about being fair play, here's a VERY young looking Glenn, also from the halcyon days of Etc. [the band]. Ah, we used to draw a real crowd in those days. Note the woman center background. She's apparently about to fall asleep. Must have been during a break?

Mary Littleton at the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association was kind enough to send me a copy of The General Assmebly's Joint Tort Reform Subcommittee Report, which I can't find online. However, the salient conclusions are quoted as follows:

1. The Committee finds that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are and have been a consideration in the decisions of physicians to continue their practice or maintain the same level and type of services. However, there was no evidence that access is being eopardized throughout the state, tlut there was some evidence that specialties in rural areas have been impacted (thought the degree was uncertain and unquantifiable) and might tend to be adversely impacted first.

2. The Committee finds that Tennessee does not really regulate medical malpractice insurance premiums, unlike some other states, but the committee was not able to determine from the limited testimony what the impact on premium regulation would have on premium stability or availability of coverage.

3. The committee has determined that medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians have increased in the last two or three years at rates greater than in previous years. However, it cannot at this point in time reach any definitive conclusions as to the cause of those increases without further information.

4. The committee acknowledges that there is evidence tending to show a correlation between the imposition of limitations on damages in medical malpractice cases and stability in medical malpractice insurance premiums, but the committee also finds that the correlation was not absolute or quantifiable and that other reforms and factors may contribute more directly and timely to market stability.

5. No testimony was provided by any presenters regarding the need for or the effect of any kind of reforms other than a limitation on damages, some of which other reforms Tennessee has already adopted into law. The committee desires to have more information on how these other reforms are working in other states and what combination of factors or reforms may be keeping medical malpractice insurance costs stable in those states with the greatest premium stability.

6. The committee desires to have more detailed claim and court case information reported and would recommend for passage legislation that would provide the committee with a clearer picture of the litigation and claim trends in Tennessee, the impact of litigation (and claims) on medical malprac;tice insurance premiums, and those actions that might best lead to premium stability.

In other words, there was no proof submitted to the Joint Committee to justify tort "reform" whatsoever. Quite interestingly, the various witnesses before this Joint Committee were ALL from the hospital, doctor and insurance (i.e., pro tort limitation) side of the issue.
Guess what? The emperor has no clothes!

"The next big challenge is to return pieces of Mars to Earth," says Jim Garvin, a Mars scientist at NASA. So let's pile some astronauts in a ship and go GET them! We have the technological capability right now, but do we have the will?

Looks like she blew it....

I just got a cold call from the Republican National Congressional Committee. Apparently, they got the idea that I'm a Republican, and gave me the honor of listening to a tape recorded message from some congressman exhorting me to join an advisory council [read: give money]. Here's the pertinent part of the message, verbatim:

As a former business owner, I understand the crippling effects overtaxation, government regulation, and red tape has on your business. That's why I'm asking you to serve as an honorary chairman of the Business Advisory Council, an organization of America's top business leaders that was formed in 1995. As an honorary chairman, you'll have the opportunity to meet with and provide input to members of Congress, business experts, and the movers and shakers in Washington at periodical [sic] meetings in the nation's capital. And I'll be sending you an invitaiton to join me, as my honored guest, at the annual black tie President's dinner. It is always the event of the year in D.C.

Then a young woman came on the line and this colloquoy took place:

HER: The latest numbers do show that the President's economic plan is starting to take effect.
ME: Could have fooled me.
HER: Oh, you don't think it's starting to take effect, sir?
ME: Nope.
HER: I'm sorry [pause]. So I take it you are not interested in this call.
ME: Probably not, no.

Hee, hee. So where did they get MY name, anyway?

Anybody else get their message? Money buys access, access buys influence. And by the way, the black tie dinner referred to? I lived in D.C for 9 years and I've never heard of it.

UPDATE: It's all a telemarketing scheme. And, the RNCC/NRCC has been busted before for illegal contributions from foreign nationals. And, "NBC’s Lisa Myers recently not[ed] that awardees 'have included a convicted sex offender and a maker of drug paraphernalia....' "

ANOTHER UPDATE: It wasn't some congressman. Apparently the recorded voice was NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds. This "Business Advisory Council" is a real thing, albeit a fundraising device.

Glenn reports that Hugh Hewitt has given John Edwards a golden opportunity:

Memo to John Edwards and his campaign staff: I know you aren't in the habit of sitting down with center-right radio hosts, even those with a long PBS resume, but my radio program is open to you, each and every day between now and March 2, for all three hours if you'd like. It is aired in drive time in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, the Inland Empire and Sacramento as well as in numerous other Super Tuesday markets, and word has it you are low on cash. Send me an e-mail at hhewitt@hughhewitt.com, and I'd be glad to have you as my co-host for the next ten broadcast days. Why? Just because I like a good race.

Hewitt broadcasts in several at-play states: Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland and Cinncy. I agreed with Glenn that Edwards would be crazy not to grab hold of that kind of free publicity, especially in the morning drive time. I even sent an email to Edwards's national office as well as all his field offices, urging them to get the candidate on the air with Hewitt soonest. No response, either to me or apparently to Hewitt. Why?

Clearly, Kerry is getting the bulk of the free media coverage, especially with him hitting the Vietnam and veteran issues hard. A canny short term strategy to keep Edwards out of the spotlight, but in the long term, I think the last successful presidential candidate who ran primarily as a war hero was Eisenhower. And to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Kerry is no Eisenhower.

Meanwhile what flummoxes me is this perception that Kerry is more electible than Edwards. Again, why? Perception is everything, in the stock market and in national politics. Kerry inevitably must be perceived as a northeastern liberal Kennedy democrat. I don't care how many hare-brained electoral strategies the pundits come up with, the presidential election for the democratic candidate comes down to whether he can win at least one state in the south. I simply don't believe that Kerry can do it.

Edwards, on the other hand, is demonstrably southern. He is a better campaigner than Kerry, who is stiff and stand-offish, to my eyes. It is more likely that Edwards is going to take one or more southern states than Kerry. In the bedrock democratic states, the democratic nominee, whoever he is, is going to win. It's the fringe states, and the fringe voters [independents, libertarians, etc.], who are going to make the difference for either candidate. My sense is that if Kerry is the nominee, those on the fence are going to analyze it like this: Kerry flip flops, he might be too liberal for my taste, we are in the middle of a war situation, and I don't want to take the chance on changing horses in the middle of the stream. I'll vote for the democratic nominee, probably, whoever he is, simply because I think Bush is bad for the country, both domestically and in foreign policy. But I feel in my gut that Edwards will be competitive, while Kerry will probably lose handily to Bush.

What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard.

What's interesting is that they have not even paid attention to Edwards. That's because the only thing they can say about him is that he used to be a very good trial lawyer who represented regular people. If Edwards gets the nomination, I HOPE that the republicans try that argument. I think they'll get their collective head handed to them. The bottom line, however, is that unless Edwards does something significant, like get on Hewitt's morning drive time show in at least 3 at play markets, then it'll be tough for him to catch up, much less win.

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds appears perturbed that the organizers of the Boston Democratic National Convention are considering establishing a "free speech zone" in a disadvantageous location. Well, they just learned it from the Bushies:

The dissidents were confined to a specific site - a "protest zone" or "First Amendment zone," depending on one's interpretation - across the street.

Besides, Mr. Bush couldn't have seen the crowd, or the signs, even if he had ducked out of the $1,000-a-plate festivities taking place inside the hall and strolled to one of the east-facing windows for a gander.

That's because a wall of KAT buses and Knoxville fire engines had been strategically positioned outside, completely surrounding the Henley Street side of the building. His only view of the immediate area would have been end-to-end panels of orange, blue and red sheet metal.

I would agree that in each case, we see a "crushing of dissent." But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to castigate one, then we should castigate both.