Thursday, November 06, 2003
Arguing With Sean: Tort Reform
I make no secret of my regular disagreement with Sean LaFreniere. I agree with him on many, probably almost all, important things. I also find him misinformed and with bad priorities a lot of the time. What is more entertaining is that we are both comfortable with confrontation. Sean credits this to our mutual Irish ancestry, and is very wrong because I have never punched him in the nose, a key racial identifier for dispute resolution.
Most recently, Sean and I are arguing about Tort Reform. I would have this argument in the comments section of his blog, but I hate the tiny type of the java app that he is using and I don't like to get caught misspelling. (I'm not complaining too bitterly, my blog doesn't even have a crappy comments function, I have to envy his.) I think this argument is worth having and should be done on the Big Screen, so here goes:
The personal injury and class action lawsuit aspect of our legal system is broken. The tort bar is not held responsible for the economic and social impact of their actions. The reward of money for unprofitable activity is best used as a spice, not a staple. In many States of the Union, the tort bar controls the judicial process to the extent that they have made the reward of money for unprofitable activity a staple for a considerable portion of the populace. The most dramatic result of this process is that in several states it is difficult if not impossible to get medical care. Obstetricians, emergency physicians and neurosurgeons in particular are moving from states where they can no longer afford malpractice insurance because of out of control tort bars. Indulging lawyers at the price of prenatal care is indefensible.
Beyond this, the drive to jackpot justice at the State Attorney General level is rapidly approaching frenzy. This is a particularly destructive trend because Attorney Generals are not subject to the same political opposition and accountability for their actions that other statewide politicians are due to the technical nature of their jobs. State Attorney Generals do not get unseated for indulging in frivolous lawsuits against out of state companies, especially when there is settlement money in the offing. This is egregiously pernicious because the AG's sub-contract the work and part of the settlement to powerful and wealthy class action specializing law firms who are in no way accountable to the citizens of the state. These large class action firms have, since the asbestos and tobacco settlements, achieved what can be described as critical mass; they are capable of self-sustaining operations. When a firm can spend a decade grinding down a profitable business with the expectation of a reward regardless of the merits of the case, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. That is the situation we have today.
Finally, the effects of the out of control tort bar outweigh the benefit they might give. In much the same way that criminals do much more damage than they ever profit from, tort lawyers are now imposing a much higher economic and social burden than they are delivering an economic or social benefit. Effort spent hiding and defending profit from rapacious lawyers is effort not spent generating beneficial and profitable new products and industries. Judicial hellholes that support jackpot settlements destroy the communities they occupy. Settlements made on the basis of anguished testimony instead of scientific proof destroy the standards of evidence that make the legal system functional. When it becomes more profitable to be litigious than civil, the fundamental social compact is broken, and that is what we are confronted with today.
So tell me again, Sean: Why should we increase the personal injury caps?
On Resolve
Lt. Smash checks in with some telling words on national resolve. I still resent the years I spent on a Reserve frigate, but as time passes I realize that the problem was Congress, not the USNR. He does the JAFR's proud. TrackBack
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
First Rule of Military Leadership and the First Amendment
The first rule of military leadership is to never give an order you know your subordinate will not follow. It is a disservice to your subordinate and yourself because it breaks the bonds of military cohesion and will destroy your command. There numerous other rules, but arguably the next is: Do not give a subordinate an assignment that you are unwilling or unable to follow yourself. One of the critical reasons that the Iraqi military fell apart is that these two rules were flouted regularly.
Not long ago, in military history terms, a general gave an order to a subordinate that he was sure the subordinate would follow. In the event, the subordinate hesitated, so to follow the second rule, the general carried out the assignment himself. The order was to execute a spy caught in civilian clothes in the act of murder during an armed insurrection. The order was legal and the order was a good command decision in the field in every regard save one. There was a film crew from NBC and an Associated Press cameraman on the scene. Although the execution made no difference to outcome of the war, the image of that execution, a military professional coldly performing his duties in the eye of the world, probably lost the war.
Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are coving the events in Iraq very closely. That they have been in the vicinity of bombings very soon after the event has caused some grave suspicion and concern. That they have not covered incidents of oppression in Iran is a strong indicator to their priorities. If a similar image was to become available to those agencies, there is no reason to doubt that they would broadcast it widely. There is also no reason to believe that the western media would not pick up the image and run with it. For the media, the impact of the image is much more important than the consequences of revealing it. There is no reason to believe that any of the major media outlets, with the exception of the Wall Street Journal, are significantly concerned about the outcome of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan save that they are a source of ongoing copy.
The public has a right to the story, but telling that story dishonestly, out of context, and with substantial bias is a de facto infringement of that right. In order to defend our rights, we must commit to an ongoing awareness of media bias. Incomplete, misleading, and unverifiable stories must be challenged early, often, and anywhere they are published. If we cannot follow this basic integrity, we allow sloppy and abusive media to control our perceptions and our future. The image is not necessarily the story, and the news is not always the truth. Anybody who says differently is lying, and no honest journalist will do so. Eddie Adams, the photographer who took the picture of General Loan regretted it for the rest of his life and apologized to the General until his death. If we do not wish to be fooled again, we must do more than just pray for integrity. The first rule of civilian leadership must become transparency.
Monday, November 03, 2003
What Decision Sounds Like
When I was younger, and in reach of such things, I had the opportunity to join the SEALS. Well, I would have had to work out for a solid year first, but I could have done so. I even had orders in hand to Boat Unit One that would have given me the time and location to do so. What was lacking for me was the need to do so. My father needed to be a Marine, the toughest combat troops in the world at the time, in order to accomplish his inner needs, and he did so. I never needed to, I didn't have the drive, and I didn't kid myself that I did. I remember thinking about this and what it would have taken to get me to commit so strongly to a goal that I would make it through Hell Week and all the agony leading up to it.
On September 13, 2001, George W Bush was interviewed and said the following:
BUSH: Well, I don't think about myself right now. I think about the families, the children. I'm a loving guy. And I am also someone, however, who's got a job to do, and I intend to do it. And this is a terrible moment.
This is what it sounds like when somebody decides to spend the rest of their life accomplishing something. I'm not saying that W has been spending his copious 4.2 minutes a day of free time getting ready to spend six months in Coronado becoming a SEAL. By September 13th he had decided to spend the rest of his life eliminating the things that made 9/11 possible.
It is said that most people make two mistakes about George W Bush; they think he is stupid and they think he is nice. While I am not saying that W is the smartest man to have ever been President, that was probably John Quincy Adams, he is not dumb. If W was stupid, the occasional sniping we get from the senior advisors would have been a continuous war with that many brilliant, determined, and ambitious people having to work together. If he was nice, the Taliban and Hussein would still be in power.
People need to keep in mind that George W Bush is going to destroy the Democratic candidate next year. He is raising enough money to make that inevitable. This is not about wanting to be President; this is about needing more time to save the world. The campaign money makes sure that he doesn't have to engage in stupid desperation and useless distraction. The money is there to reduce the amount of time he has to spend on things other than saving the world next year. Bush is running around the country now because he has the time to do so, next year he might not. The other candidate may have decided to spend the next year to become the President, George W. Bush has decided to spend the rest of his life saving the world.
|
