I.F. is starting to piss me off.
This is a good thing.
If Cant were a giant, kissy-kissy lovefest, I'm sure things would get boring fast.
What's got my knickers in a twist?
Simply that I.F. is just so darned wrong.
The belief that someone is fundamentally wrong inspires a lot of thought. When that someone is as adroit as I.F. at wielding language and marshalling arguments, it really motivates you to collect those thoughts as best you can.
Along with this rational response, there's often an irrational, emotional response. It usually runs along the lines of "How can someone actually believe that?" or "How can they not see something that's just so patently obvious?" and "He's got to be completely… a total…"
All sorts of bad words come to mind. Those impulses can get you into trouble. As much as we like to think of ourselves as civilized and all grown up, the temptation remains strong. Name calling and ad hominem attacks do nothing but debase the attacker, obscure the issues, and ensure victory in elections.
I'm not going to spark up the flame thrower. I'll leave starting anonymous flame wars to Ra. Besides, I couldn't be sure if I'd be making ad hominem or ad feminam attacks. Maybe I.F. has a nice rack.
Curvelicious hooters or not, I.F. is still wrong.
Some time ago, in an extended forum thread, I.F. spun a sturdy fabric of rebuttal and assertion that explained how capping malpractice and liability awards was not necessary. The riposte that stuck most deeply in my craw was how liability isn't really an issue, that I was "drastically overestimating the impact of the costs of litigation on the price of products and services". The specific data referenced were "the cost of products liability insurance amounts to only 16 cents per $100 dollars of retail costs (http://www.rkmc.com/consumer_watch.asp?articleId=231) Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending."
I.F's stated position and dismissive attitude rubbed me the wrong way.
Later on, in an entirely unrelated discussion, I.F. noted that, because no rebuttal had been made to his last post, that he could notch up a de facto victory in the debate. This continued the rubbing in the wrong direction. Considering the informality of a forum, maybe a participant just doesn't have the time to cook up a good response. Maybe they're just so exasperated and disgusted that they don't feel a rebuttal is even worth the effort.
So here I am. I'm finally rebutting. It may not be effective or cogent, heck, it might not even be coherent, but I had to say something.
Regarding those statistics on products liability insurance: Numbers are wonderful. You can get them to say anything you want, as Harlock demonstrated in his rant against Newsweek just this week.
First of all, wow, only 16 cents per $100 dollars. That sounds so convincingly tiny. The problem here lies in those two words "retail costs". In the vast bulk of retail commerce, where does liability apply? How much liability is there in toilet paper? In breakfast cereal? In the vast bulk of goods made and consumed in massive quantities. In the items rendered uniform and safe by hundreds of years of convention, market pressures, and their very nature? Or is it more on the cutting edge? The innovative products and procedures that are supposed to improve our lives beyond a dishwashing detergent that cuts grease?
How about the restoration of a historic artifact of aeronautical engineering? The Air Museum Planes of Fame in Chino, CA wanted to put Jack Northrop's developmental flying wing back into the skies. "Northrop had been approached early on but had declined to assist because of the liability involved in a flying restoration" (http://www.mucheswarbirds.com/N9MBart.html)
How about birth and a woman's choice in the matter of her care? "At a growing number of hospitals, women are being forced to schedule a repeat cesarean section just because they already had one. Doctors and hospitals say they fear lawsuits if they allow a patient to attempt a vaginal birth after a C-section - called a VBAC - and something goes awry." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050824/ts_usatoday/battlelinesdrawnovercsections)
How about vaccines? Vaccines are good. Vaccines save millions of lives. There's a lot of talk about vaccines and the inevitable flu pandemic. Unfortunately, there's not much money in developing vaccines, so any potential liability negates the business case. "Vaccines are less profitable than drugs, and drug makers worry about liability issues, such as those that arose when swine flu vaccine, produced in 1976 to avert an epidemic that never materialized, caused a nerve disease." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/ts_usatoday/officialsracetoheadoffabirdflupandemic)
On my planet, the cost of liability, either real or perceived, significantly affects our lives. No glib recitation of statistic obviates the fact that armies of lawyers make piles of money. Maybe limiting settlements or lawyer fees are not solutions, but still say there is a problem I'd like to work out a system where the public good does not rely so heavily on the avarice of lawyers.
At the risk of muddying the waters, I'd like to mention another topic on which I.F. is wrong.
Kelo v. New London
It all boils down to I.F.'s statement: "But the owners of the takings in Kelo were being compensated."
You missed a word there, I.F. As you yourself quoted from the Constitution: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
Something tells me that people are not being justly compensated. As I may have mentioned before, my father and his family were pushed out of house that my grandfather built himself and a half acre of prime land in Newport Beach, CA. The city took the land to build an elementary school. This school was closed 10 or 15 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if the city sold the land to developers to pad their budget. My grandparents were given enough compensation to buy a generic tract home on a postage stamp. If my family still owned that land, I don't think my parents would be worrying about their retirement.
Just compensation should be cash enough to purchase equivalent holdings plus a percentage of the appreciated value and earnings made possible from exercising eminent domain on the land.
Does that sound harsh? Anti-development? Anti-progress? Well, that's the way it would be if ownership of private property actually meant something more than "you own your land until the local government decides they can make more money if your house were a Wal-Mart or a luxury community development."
If that weren't enough, I.F. busts out the patronizing 'tude again: "there's a very simple remedy if you don't like the outcome of this case, and that's to amend the Connecticut municipal development statute."
If we weren't all just thumb-sucking, pants-soiling microcephalics, we'd see that, of course!, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the Connecticut legislature should pass amendments that limit their power to make buckets of money and reshape the landscape. Because, as we all know so well, politicians are immune to the temptation of mountains of cash and they very rarely allow their egos to steamroll entire communities to build highways, shopping centers, and towering City Halls.
Plain and simple, leaving the legislators to determine "just compensation" and "public use" is a bad idea. I.F. writes as if there weren't legions of local governments and developers looking for any excuse, let alone Kelo, to grab land and boost their bottom line.
In the end, there is no end. I.F. and I could sling words and numbers and references at each other for a long time.
None of this would prevent me from buying I.F. a beer. I think it would be fun to talk face to face over a good brew or two. I'd even do my best to not stare at those bodacious ta-tas.
Pakeha