Democrats, can’t you put this on a billboard?

I learned this from a blogger some days back (these stats are from the WallStJ, Jan.20.04):

Average Annual Real Increases in Domestic Discretionary Spending:

Lyndon Johnson (’65-’69) 4.3% (increase)
Richard Nixon (’70-’75) 6.8%
Gerald Ford (’76-’77) 8.0%
Jimmy Carter (’78-’81) 2.0%
Ronald Reagan (’82-’89) -1.3%
George H.W.Bush (’90-’93) 4.0%
Bill Clinton (’94-01) 2.5%
George W.Bush (02-04) 8.2%

It is amazing how much and how little these figures tell us about the political leaders themselves, or about the economic climate of the times. One could almost create an image of GWB as the benevolent president --were it not for the fact that so many social programs remain under-funded. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to put themselves forward as the fiscal conservatives? Something along the lines of “small spenders with a big heart”? Or maybe put up a billboard or two about the GOP throwing stones in glass houses?

Buyer Beware

Killing an hour with the Wine Spectator, I came across a photo of Portuguese men in the process of squeezing juice out of grapes with their feet. This is from the distinguished port house, Quinta do Crasto, which has now also taken on the production of a red table wine. At $100 a bottle, it kind of knocks my idea of what is defined as “table wine” (for me, table wine means cheap, indeterminate blends sold under the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”). I wish I had the capability of linking to it: the photo shows 8 guys in their underwear doing a sort of can can in a vat of purple grapes. They don’t look too happy about it. Is this a promo, or is it the real thing? If so, is there a disclaimer on the label (as in: wine may contain traces of fungus, epidermis, cuticle, toe-nail, etc)? The Spectator, of course, in its usual staid way says nothing on these burning (for me) issues. Instead it assures us that this is a “state of the art” winery. So this is the state of the art...

Croatia at a discount

I have just received a call from someone selling me Croatia. No kidding. The terms of the sale were stated in a language not entirely familiar to me, but when I doubted that the caller had reached the proper number, she asked in broken English “Are you Nina Camic?” I said yes, she said “I have reached the right person and the right number” and then went back to her (foreign language, possibly Croatian) explanation as to why I should purchase Croatia, cheaply. I believe I also heard “Bosnia” somewhere in the midst of it all, but I am not sure that it was for sale. Perhaps she was denigrating the worth of Bosnia, in favor of Croatia.

Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.

Having your tort and eating it too

If you were a personal injury lawyer, wouldn’t you, for the most part, take cases that had merit? Wouldn’t you prefer to use your time to litigate the ones that juries would find sympathetic? Isn’t it interesting that Edwards, the successful litigator-turned-candidate is now described by some as an over-zealous trial attorney, having pursued mostly cases that held the promise of high jury awards (based presumably on highly emotional, meaning tragic, fact patterns). I don’t typically write about other blogs here, but my colleague Ann has a very nice take (based on NYT stories of this morning) on both sides of the debate.

Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?

What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”

I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.