Letters to the Editor
karrsic
Published Letters: 446 Editor's Choice: 6
-
is that a zit?
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]C'mon.. Tell me that William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy never spoke either to each other or to anyone else regarding how they were going to rule on that case.
Personally, I don't find it unlikely at all that they never spoke about it outside the courtroom. Is it that hard to imagine that the arguments in which they all participated led like-minded people to the same decision?
Also, does speaking to each other regarding "how they were going to rule" mean there was in fact a conspiracy? Is that all that's required? If they did speak to each other, is the onus now on the rest of us to prove there was not a conspiracy?
If I have this right, that they spoke with each other is a given and so therefore, the conspiracy exists. Evidence of such things is not required, as long as it is as plain as the nose on your face.
-
Here's one
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Find Law Columnist Anthony Sebok
Doctors often view malpractice lawyers as a threat to their profession - a threat so grave it outweighs any other virtues that the Democratic ticket might have. They are thus concerned that Edwards was a trial lawyer - and in particular, a medical malpractice plaintiffs' lawyer - and is supported by trial lawyers. They are also concerned because some of the cases Edwards brought decades ago have turned out, in retrospect, to be meritless.
n the end, however, neither of these arguments is a persuasive reason to oppose Edwards.
The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending. So how can such litigation be a serious threat to medical care in the first place?
"tort reform" has made it much more expensive and difficult for malpractice plaintiffs to pursue their claims in court. But that's not necessarily good -- when the plaintiffs were genuinely injured and deserve compensation.
But how can this be the right answer? Why should the most unfortunate -- the disabled, the suffering, the severely ill -- forego compensation? It seems mean-spirited to ask those who have lost the most to bear the brunt.
Usually when a society faces a social problem it tries to spread the cost of fixing it as broadly as possible, or it asks the better-off to contribute a little more. Why on earth would we solve the problem of access to medical malpractice insurance by making the victims pay for the reform?
Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."
In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.
Now -- many years later, in light of additional evidence and science -- it seems that the defendants seem to have a much better case than previously believed. But all that proves about Edwards is that he couldn't see into the future. No one can, which is why we have trials, not oracles.
Anonymous represents typical unreasoned, irrational (and cowardly) rightwing attack tactics.
-
@anony
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]look who's dodging now, coward.
-
@WT
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree! I don't want the anonymous option to go away, just so I can enjoy LWM's anonymous postings. They're as funny as those from that Ron Pauliac guy.
-
stills of the shooter
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearest images I've seen yet, though no proof here that Bhutto was struck by these shots. I would think someone would be able to ID the shooter. Suicide bomber speculated to be man in white in the background.
http://www.hamarakarachi.com/live.asp
or
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=karimteli
-
2WT
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now looking the way while someone else did it for him, that I think he'd be capable of...
This he is already doing, no?
-
Where's Ron Pauliac when you need him?
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ron Paul excluded from NH debate:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/12/paul_fox_news_i.html
-
the paranoids rule
[Read the article: Michael Bloomberg: Trans-partisan savior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Leadership in this society here would naturally fall to the paranoids...But you see, with paranoids establishing the ideology, the dominant emotional theme would be hate. Actually hate going in two directions; the leadership would hate everyone outside its enclave, and also would take for granted that everyone hated it in return. Therefore their entire so-called foreign policy would be to establish mechanisms by which this supposed hatred directed at them could be fought. And this would involve the entire society in an illusory struggle, a battle against foes that didn't exist for a victory over nothing.
- a psychiatrist commenting on the functional society developed out of an abandoned mental hospital on Alphane Moon, in a far-off solar system.
Philip K. Dick, 1964 "Clans of the Alphane Moon"
-
@Paul
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree w/ your assessment of PW. I actually think his POV is more "honest" than that of the neocons. If one wants to take the view that might makes right, that tribes will fight over limited resources and so therefore, by god, we will get ours -- there is a rational argument to be made.
Those that are willing to dispense with the "moral authority" claptrap; that are willing to believe that we are no better than "they"; that the principles in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are not moral guides, but merely "nice to haves" on the quest for an easier lifestyle and the ability to worship the gods of our imagination and not theirs - have an intellectual honesty that many on the right don't have.
In my view, they are pathetic, unethical, myopic - and sad. But, I'm willing to give credit for not lying to themselves.