#1
Thanks for posting, but if they can't fund the fense on our own southern border, I suspect there is little hope for anything out of Washington for these proud people.
#2
I'm surprised that the Afrikaans haven't organized discreet death squads against these roving criminals. They could probably get some unusual allies in a mutual defense pact.
The Brits, however, are most likely of the spineless variety as their Rhodesian counterparts, and are willing to surrender everything and die a death of a thousand cuts rather than rise up against oppression.
The next US president may give up on Middle East democratisation, but we shouldn't. It's still our best hope
by Timothy Garton Ash
A central claim of the Bush administration's foreign policy is that the spread of democracy in the Middle East is the cure for terrorism. So what do you do when you get a democratically elected terrorist organisation? Ignore the contradiction. Pretend it doesn't exist.
In the past few weeks there has been something utterly surreal about the US continuing to allow the Israeli military to pummel Hizbullah, and kill women and children along the way, while insisting that Washington's purpose is to strengthen the legitimate, democratic government of Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has been calling desperately for the one thing that the US and Israel have refused: an immediate ceasefire. And Hizbullah, which the US and Britain characterise as a terrorist organisation, is itself an important part of that democratically elected government.
So we must do everything for that democratically elected government except what it asks. We know best what is good for them. Whoever said democracy meant letting the people themselves decide? As Lebanon's special envoy, Tarek Mitri, told PBS, America's publicly funded broadcaster, on Tuesday: "You can't support a government while you're allowing its country to be ruined." Meanwhile, Hamas is not allowed to operate as the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. The Palestinian people spoke. But they got it wrong. They must have been misinformed. They must think again.
Continued on Page 49
#1
The Donks don't support democracy in America [i.e. Washington State, East St. Louis, etc], so why would you expect them to support democracy elsewhere. Its like the old Soviet title for People's Democratic Republic of ..., which was never democratic or republican. The Donks only want power to rule.
#2
Thanks to Swiss Police we now know that what is going on is the implementation of an Islamic 14 page plan cooked up by the Muslim Brotherhood 23 years ago and called 'The Project'. Hamas and Hezbolla and Al Quada are no accident but a well financed conspiracy to effect Islamic Globization. This is a war no different than fighting the Nazis in world war 2. Iran controls Syria economically but lets Al Quada go through Syria to aid the Insurgency. Hezbolla trains Sadr's army. Al Quada trains at Hezbolla camps in Lebanon. They all work together just as outlined in 'The Project' and verified by witness testimony. The author above should do some homework. Democracies do not work in nations with terror intimidated populations. Remove the terror. Then Vote.
#4
"Learn from experience that well-defined borders, the rule of law and independent media are as important as an election - and may need to precede it."
Seems to me, until free and fair elections are established the other virtues of Democracy such as the rule of law and an independent judiciary are unlikely to follow. And depending on who is elected those virtues still may never be obtained. (ie. HAMAS) I dont know .maybe my chicken and egg meter isnt working.
#5
1. Mr. Ash is British I believe, not an American Democrat.
2. He is incorrect in stating that support for democracy requires agreeing to what a democratic govt asks for in foreign policy
3. Given that the govt of Lebanon doesnt control half the country, its not clear its meaningful (yet) to call Lebanon a democracy. One would think those lefties who call the elected govt a "puppet" would at least acknowledge the way Hezbollah force acts as a limit on what the govt of Lebanon can say.
#6
I agree LH. Ash fails to recognize that when a sovereign nation (Israel in this case) is attacked by an organization within another nation (democratic or otherwise) it doesn't really matter how that particular organization got elected or if the gov't/country it belongs to is democratic. The right to self defense is inherent.
Case in point, if a political group within the Mexico were firing rockets into San Antonio or whatever we would be cutting up big swaths of mexican territory and fixing the problem asap. I also highly doubt we'd listen to anyone trying to tell us to use "restraint" when American civilians are being killed by rocket fire from terrorist used civilian neighborhoods across the border.
#7
"if a political group within the Mexico were firing rockets into San Antonio or whatever we would be cutting up big swaths of mexican territory and fixing the problem asap."
Hey, just tell them to make sure not to aim for the Northwest side. I just got my roof replaced.
#8
What we in the community of established liberal democracies should do is not abandon the pursuit of democratisation but refine it. Recognise that only in exceptional circumstances (such as postwar Germany and Japan) do democracies grow from under military occupation, and that the purpose of building democracy does not justify military intervention.
What an idiot: we first BEAT THE CRAP out of them, occupied them in force, got rid of any cultural characteristics incompatible with Liberal Democracy, and then built them up in OUR image. BOTH of those nations now get the hives even THINKING about giving their "armies" REAL teeth and permission to use it in worthy projects.
Being pathological means obsessively repeating the same actions, but expecting a different outcome. Perhaps we haven't succeeded in nation building because we haven't done what's actually WORKED.
If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.
And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.
Continued on Page 49
If the Dems retake the House, Rep. Dingell (D-Mi) will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee. They handle oil and stuff. Well, the guys with the oil will love this:
"I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel," said Dingell on a local TV show. Perhaps hes on to something. Nothing works in the Middle East anymore, after all; perhaps utter neutrality is our best options. But lets review the others first.
The US continues to support Israel. This is becoming difficult, since many important nations with well-dressed, urbane spokesmen have decided that Israel should stop its strange policy of firing rockets on UN-run stem-cell research facilites for no apparent reason. These diplomats will tolerate a little wartime madness we all have our moments, after all but enough is enough, and now they must go home and sit in the basement and wait for more rocket attacks. If theyre good, they will get a snack.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
08/03/2006 11:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I definitely hear the same voices that shout "no blood for oil !"
Shouting " Don't let the Jews mess up our excellent relations with the Arab oil regimes "
or " Jew blood for oil!"
I would prefer DVD's of "The Producers" ('67) w/ commentary from Mel Brooks.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/03/2006 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How many of the people Lileks talks about would recognize this article as sarcasm?
For over 2000 years, Israel did not exist until 1948. Israel has had to fight to maintain it's status as a nation since then, just as it had to fight to establish itself the first time it became a nation, 1500 years BC. At that time Israel even had to fight Anakims (giants) in Southern Lebanon, and today they went into Baalbek, known as Baalgil in the account of that first battle. That also was when Joshua asked God for more daylight during one of the battles, and the "Sun stood still" during the fight in Southern Lebanon.
JOSHUA 11:16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same;
JOSHUA 11:17 Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad (Baalbek?) in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.
JOSHUA 11:18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.
JOSHUA 11:19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.
JOSHUA 11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
JOSHUA 11:21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims* from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.
JOSHUA 11:22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.
JOSHUA 11:23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
#2
If you go WAAAAAY back, it was probably a lot more common to have giants back then. According to Biblical accounts, Goliath (of David & Goliath fame) stood around 9 feet tall. Real Old Testament passages state that people often lived to be several hundred years old. Not sure exactly who these giants' descendants would be today, but they probably came from somewhere in Iraq would be my (non-scientific) guess. Of course, if you go back to the beginning (or almost the beginning) of the Bible, this whole Arab vs. Jew thing started because of squabbles between Isaac (the one God favored) and his stepbrother Ishmael (predecessor of the Arabs basically), whom the Bible calls a wild man and said would war against his brother (and their descendants, the Jews) for almost eternity. The Muslims (in the Koran) changed the God-favored son to be Ishmael (of course), whereas the Torah and the Bible both say it was Isaac (Abraham's son by his wife, Sarai or Sarah). Ishmael was an illegitimate step-son of Abraham by Sarai's maid, Hagar. So, you see, it's all an internal family squabble blown up exponentially.
Posted by: BA ||
08/03/2006 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Giants are thought to be descendents of the Nephilim, rebellious angels who interbred with human women in Genesis 6. This brought on the destruction of the world by the Flood. Somewhere, one of the giants is said to have six toes....my 6' sister-in-law had her's surgically removed as a baby! Actually, the problems today in Israel are because the Israelites disobeyed God's command to destroy the inhabitants and not intermarry with them....it's a curse. Time for Israel to finish the job, I think.
Here's more info on the word translated as 'giants:
(1.) Heb. nephilim, meaning violent or causing to fall (Gen. 6:4). These were the violent tyrants of those days, those who fell upon others. The word may also be derived from a root signifying wonder, and hence monsters or prodigies. In Num. 13:33 this name is given to a Canaanitish tribe, a race of large stature, the sons of Anak. The Revised Version, in these passages, simply transliterates the original, and reads Nephilim.
(2.) Heb. rephaim, a race of giants (Deut. 3:11) who lived on the east of Jordan, from whom was descended. They were probably the original inhabitants of the land before the immigration of the Canaanites. They were conquered by Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:5), and their territories were promised as a possession to Abraham (Gen. 15:20). The Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock.
In Job 26:5 (R.V., they that are deceased; marg., the shades, the Rephaim) and Isa. 14:9 this Hebrew word is rendered (A.V.) dead. It means here the shades, the departed spirits in Sheol. In 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 33, the giant is (A.V.) the rendering of the singular form ha raphah, which may possibly be the name of the father of the four giants referred to here, or of the founder of the Rephaim. The Vulgate here reads Arapha, whence Milton (in Samson Agonistes) has borrowed the name Harapha. (See also 1 Chron. 20:5, 6, 8; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:13; Josh. 15:8, etc., where the word is similarly rendered giant.) It is rendered dead in (A.V.) Ps. 88:10; Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16: in all these places the Revised Version marg. has the shades. (See also Isa. 26:14.)
(3.) Heb. 'Anakim (Deut. 2:10, 11, 21; Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12, 15; called sons of Anak, Num. 13:33; children of Anak, Num. 13:22; Josh. 15:14), a nomad race of giants descended from Arba (Josh. 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen. 23:2; Josh. 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David on several occasions encountered them (2 Sam. 21:15-22). From this race sprung Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4).
(4.) Heb. 'emin, a warlike tribe of the ancient Canaanites. They were great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10, 11).
#6
Interesting side point: Goliath was a Gittite, i.e., he was from Gath. Sometimes called Gath-Hepher. Gues where it is today? That's right. Gaza City.
#10
I hope Danielle has only 5 fingers. Would be hard to get a date with six, wouldn't it?
1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.
1 Chronicles 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot and he also was the son of the giant.
THE LEBANESE MEDIA are the best in the Arab Middle East, and perhaps the freest, not because of any noble principles but because they are so competitive. Every Lebanese media outlet represents a political interest, sometimes several political interests, and all the major political parties own TV stations. (In this regard, Hezbollah really is just like every other political party, though no one else does "martyr kitsch" like the Party of God.) And the people of Lebanon take their cue from the media. Insofar as rumors are also a medium, they, too, represent political interests. My friend Fawaz called last week from Lebanon with reports of a rumor.
"There are lots of stories going around Beirut that Hezbollah M.P. Mohammed Raad is dead," says Fawaz. "And get this--more than 500 Hezbollah fighters have been killed and are lying around area hospitals. That's a lot of virgins on call."
Whether or not such rumors are true, they indicate something about the state of affairs right now in Lebanon. There are many Lebanese imagining, fantasizing, hoping against hope that Hezbollah will be wiped from the face of the earth. Some are even joking about it.
"The new one," Fawaz says, "is that they're going to play the next World Cup in the Daheyh [the Shiite neighborhood]--the whole thing's been leveled nice and flat."
This narrative, including the morbid jokes at the expense of the heavily Shiite southern suburbs and the spectacular number of Hezbollah dead, runs against the current Western news narrative. It seems that U.S. and Western press outfits are determined to claim that the Israelis have driven all of Lebanon, Shiite or not, Islamist or not, pro-Hezbollah or not, into the waiting arms of the Islamic resistance. It is not clear why Western journalists believe this is so, though it seems to comport nicely with the idea that the Israelis are killing too many civilians--a cynical storyline, given that the Israelis are fighting against a militia and without the benefit of weapons capable of targeting only the bad guys. . . .
Michael Totten, blog-sitting at Instapundit's place this week, has this to add:
Lee is right. He and I both lived in Lebanon, and he lived there longer than I did. (He only left a few weeks ago.) Lebanons support for Hezbollah is nothing more than an attempt at national unity during a fight. It will evaporate the instant Israel leaves. It will remain, though, as long as Israel stays and throughout cease-fire talks.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/03/2006 14:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
A friend of mine just sent some EMails in the "What the heck is going on?" category...
To:
Pres Bush
Iranian front man Ahmadnejad
Iranian head magic mulla Khameni
He is curious about a reply?
I told him he would get an auto-responses, but likely nothing else. The Whitehouse, and Khameni have already sent such. Ahmadnejad is probably too busy picking out the new wardrobe for when he is declared the 12th Imam on Aug 22... Those day-glow colored schmocks are, afterall, in need of coordination with the aura he will acquire...
But I did promise him if he gets a reply from anyone that is more than a form letter, I will post both his letter and the reply on these pages. Stay tuned...
#1
I sent an email of congratulation to the WH in november 2004, and all I got was an auto-response. Damn. I expected some cash, I mean, there's so much pork in the US governement, I'm sure they could have spared a few hundreds for a polite guy like me and never even notice it. That's so Cheap from them.
#3
Yes, not only would I be waaaay less expensive than, say, Egypt, but on top of that, I would be much less anti-american, if not downright grateful for that foreign aid! So, if someone at State Department read this, just drop me an email, and we'll work this out. I accept paypal, thank you very much in advance.
In 1973, when a bank robbery turned into a six-day siege, several employees of the Kreditbanken in Stockholm, Sweden were held hostage under threat of death. At some point in those six long days, the psychological pressure so badly twisted some of the hostages' minds that they believed the robbers were protecting them from the police. This emotional pathology became known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Nations have psyches too. And when nations are held captive they can also fall prey to that same emotional disorder. At the national level it deserves another name. Because today's most prominent hostage nation is Lebanon, the emotional disorder should be called the Siniora Syndrome.
Lebanon was, for decades, a model for Middle Eastern democracy. Its collapse into the captivity of Syria, Iran and their terrorist surrogate Hizballah is the operational template being followed by opponents of democracy in Iraq. Under Lebanon's "National Pact" of 1943, ethnic groups - Sunni, Druze, Shia, Christian - agreed that they would form a "confessional" democracy, representation in the national congress for each ethnicity in proportion to its numerical strength. But the most important part of the pact was agreement that no group would ally itself with any group or force outside of Lebanon: "no victors and no vanquished" was the principle uniting the Lebanese. The National Pact began to fall apart in 1958 when Lebanese Arabs responded to calls for Arabic nationalism. The Pact was finally destroyed in the 1975 civil war when Sunni and Druze Lebanese allied themselves with Syria and Arafat's Palestinians. And so began thirty years of domination by Syria which included the creation and rise of Hizballah, which has controlled southern Lebanon since Israel withdrew in 2000. All of this supposedly ended in the 2005 "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon.
Withdrawal of Syrian forces, the election of a "democratic" government and the continued presence of UN "peacekeepers" on the Israel-Lebanon border were supposed to herald the emergence of Lebanon as a lasting democracy. But instead, the Syrians - determined that their influence would not be substantively reduced -- left solid political, intelligence and terrorist operations to keep Lebanon under control. Syria assassinated former Lebanese PM Hariri for trying to rid Lebanon of Syrian domination. Worse still, Hizballah has become a major part of the elected Lebanese government. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government isn't reluctantly accepting Hizballah. They are praising Hizballah's political influence and "accomplishments." Hizballah and the Lebanese people are fulfilling each others' expectations. We are bombarded daily with proofs that Lebanon - its government and its citizens - have all fallen prey to the Siniora Syndrome.
All of Lebanon's top political leaders, from President Lahoud to Prime Minister Siniora to their UN envoy, all echo the Hizballah party line. Siniora parrots Hizballah's demands for Israeli withdrawal and a cease-fire that would allow Hizballah to remain in de facto control of his nation. Siniora - who at times seems to be speaking for Hizballah, not for his people -- proclaims Hizballah as Lebanon's savior from Israel. Once again the hostages are acclaiming the bank robbers for protecting them from the cops.
Lebanese President Lahoud, in a Der Spiegel interview, said "Hizballah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hizballah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hizballah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course [Hizballah chieftain] Nasrallah has my respect." Were he to say opposite, Lahoud knows his fate would be the same as Hariri's.
Under UN Security Council Resolution 1559, the Lebanese government is supposed to be disarming Hizballah. But that is not only beyond Lahoud's power: it is not even his wish. Lahoud's special envoy to the UN, Nahoud Mahmoud, told Tim Russert that Hizballah, "...are part of the Lebanese society and they have their...legitimacy through...fighting, the...occupation [by] Israel..." When asked if the Lebanese Army is too weak to disband Hizballah, Mahmoud said, "It's not on our political agenda to disband them militarily." This is a man representing a government with which he shares a psychological pathology: he counts himself on the side of those who hold him, his people and his government hostage. For the Stockholm hostages - and those such as Symbionese Liberation Army hostage-cum-member Patty Hearst - it required years of psychoanalysis to cure them of their emotional disorder. For Lebanon, there is neither the time nor the means for slow cures.
As the Israelis expand their military incursion into Lebanon and push northward to the Litani River, the strategic stakes are very high. If they succeed, Iran's gambit to take the pressure off their nuclear weapons program will have failed, Syria will be cowed and quiet for a time, and the many pundits who are already proclaiming Israel's defeat will have been proven wrong as they were in 1967 and 1973. The world's focus will, as it must be, be on the dangerous terrorists who comprise Iran's regime.
But if the Israelis wish to crush Hizballah, they cannot do so conclusively in southern Lebanon. Hizballah will be reinforced, resupplied and rearmed by Syria and Iran in a matter of months and Israel will have to mount this sort of invasion again and again. No international force will accomplish Hizballah's destruction, especially one from the UN or NATO. Because the French are still French, neither the Russians nor the Chinese need bestir themselves to doom the operation.
According to a Reuters report, during a visit to Beirut French foreign minister Douste-Blazy said, "It was clear that we could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region." He added, "In the region there is of course a country such as Iran -- a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region." Iran is, indeed, trying to establish a new stability in the Middle East. If Israel fails to force Hizballah out of Lebanon and free the Siniora government from captivity, then Iran will have succeeded. It will have established Lebanon as the first captured nation in its new caliphate. That would be a strategic defeat for Israel, and for us.
To be even partially successful against Hizballah - to do enough to preclude Syria and Iran from re-establishing them quickly in Lebanon - the Israelis have to drive it out of the Lebanese government. To do that, they will need the loud and clear support of America and every other nation that understands the Siniora Syndrome. We, and the Israelis, must force the expulsion of Hizballah from Lebanon and its political life. No nation can pretend to be a democracy when the elected government is controlled by terrorists.
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.
I think it helped me figure out a translation problem I was having, too. All this time, I thought "Arab honor" meant "honor", when it really means "Arab dominance." That's interesting, too, when you think about the instances in which "honor" is most often uttered.
Oh, and Mr. Bolton, you might mention this at the next discussion to find out whether 1559 has been nullified: (Mahmood) "It's not on our political agenda to disband them militarily."
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
08/03/2006 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They should detach half the IDF and IAF from the Israeli Gov. and refer to it as "the military wing of B'nai Brith", then they , like Hizbollah will be invisible uncontrollable and beyond considering officially.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/03/2006 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a few thousand US SOF or ex-SOF to form a retaliation wing to respond to muslim atrocities. Better yet, to push back islam from the borders. There could even be tax deductable charities to fund them.
Posted by: ed ||
08/03/2006 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
>Snippets. You wnt to read the whole thing and draw your own conclusions.
Lebanon-born Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Author of the recent book Future Jihad, he was also one of the architects of 2004s United Nations resolution 1559, which called for the disarming of Hezbollah. NRO editor Kathryn Lopez recently talked to Phares about whats going on in the Mideast, what happened to the Cedar Revolution, and this war were all in.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What is Future Jihad? Are we seeing it in the Mideast now?
Walid Phares: Future Jihad, which has already begun, refers to a new and potent form of Islamic terrorism, characterized by a Khumeinist-Baathist axis. These are the two trees of jihadism, so to speak the Salafism and Wahabism embodied in al Qaeda and the sort of jihadism led by Iran and also including Syria, Hezbollah, and their allies in Lebanon.
The alliance has not been in entire agreement as to strategy. The al Qaeda branch began its Future Jihad in the 1990s; its efforts culminated on 9/11 and have continued explosively since then. The international Salafists aimed at the U.S. in the past decade in order to strengthen their jihads on various battlefields (Chechnya, India, Sudan, Algeria, Indonesia, Palestine, etc.). Weaken the resolve of America, their ideologues said, and the jihadists would overwhelm all the regional battlefields.
Lopez: So did the Cedar Revolution fail?
Phares: Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the Cedar Revolution was failed. Meanwhile, even as they were elected by the faithful Cedar Revolution masses, they engaged in a round table dialogue with Hezbollah, a clear trap set by Hassan Nasrallah: Lets talk about the future, he said with the implication, of course, that they forget about the Cedar Revolution and the militias disarming. While political leaders sat for months, enjoying the photo ops with Hassan Nasrallah, he was preparing his counter offensive, which he unleashed just a few days before the Security Council would discuss the future of Irans nuclear programs.
The Lebanese government of Prime Minister Seniora also abandoned the Cedar Revolution. His cabinet neither disarmed Hezbollah nor called on the U.N. to help in implementing UNSCR 1559. This omission is baffling. The government was given so much support by the international community and, more importantly, overwhelming popular support inside Lebanon: 80 percent of the people were hoping the Cedar Revolution-backed government would be the one to resume the liberation of the country. Now Hezbollah has an upper hand and the government is on the defensive.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America recently changed its name to the American Association for Justice. It may be a smart PR move, because everyone likes the word "justice," and apparently the name "trial lawyers" has acquired a negative tinge. It's good that it has, because although trial lawyers say they "protect the little guy," that's a myth. In truth, for every little guy they help, they hurt thousands.
When those big medical malpractice awards hit the headlines, it sounds like the little guy was helped. "$1 million awarded to victim of medical device!" But the headline leaves out a great deal. First, the suit cost everyone involved and that includes you much more than $1million. In addition to the million-dollar settlement, there were the court costs and legal fees charged by the defense lawyers many defense lawyers, considering the plaintiff probably sued not just the maker of the medical equipment, but the surgeon, an internist, some nurses, the hospital, and G-d knows how many others. Lawsuits routinely name as many as a dozen people, because to not include someone who is later revealed to be at fault may expose the lawyer to a charge of legal malpractice.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Well written and spot on. The true cost of the litigious atmosphere that exists not to pursue justice (as the lawyers would have us believe) but to guarantee income security for attorneys is huge to society at large.
The party which promotes more government and more regulation (hence more laws) is the natural choice for trial lawyers (with notable exceptions) because more laws mean more work and more income security. Hence the support of these folks for the Dems.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/03/2006 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Don't get me wrong I'm not a big fan of lawyers but what other avenue is open to victims of malpractice ?
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/03/2006 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
J D Lux, the concept that you can solve a Doctor's mistake with money is a relatively new one. It wasn't money that the Doctor took out, it was the wrong organ, for example. If malpractice is proven in such a case, the big question is "how do you make it right?" Apart from sanctioning or fining the Doctor, or perhaps pulling his Medical License, the answer in many cases is, you can't. So the multi-million dollar cash awards come out, not to help the victim necessarily, but to 'express our sorrow and empathy'. Tort reform and malpractice damage limitations are a good start.
Another thing not usually discussed is that medicine is not an exact science. Sometimes, bad things just happen. The human body is unpredictable. I'd venture that the vast majority of malpractice judgments, if the truth were known, were not malpractice at all, but just another illustration that we are not God, and we can't always fix it. In our 'It's somebody else's fault' society, people just don't want to hear that.
#8
On the other hand in cases where it was clearly the Doctor's fault (he didn't wash properly or was in a hurry for a golf game and got sloppy) the person may sometimes be stuck with medical expenses for the rest of his/her life - or need to hire an aid to empty his bag, wipe his ass, and feed him. Or they may need a transplant.
I think in those case the Dr. should be held responsible for at least some of the cost.
#9
While ity is true that there is oftden no actiual fix for medical mistakes, doctors as business men and service providers have to be responsible and subject to the same penalties for poor performance as car mechanics or sellers of defective items. Society has decided that the penalties are assesed thru monetary damages.
It is not hard to turn Stossel's argument over and say that makking a limit that is well within the means and insurance policies of most practioners could be seen as a reversal of the restrictions he describes as stifling and turn it into a real cavalier attitude which I think they actually have already.
The laws we have now are sensible. It is I think a side effect of the newness of this concept that maybe broings out the worst in people and probably requires a societal mind-state change.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/03/2006 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Who told you when you were born that you were going to be indemnified from the occurances of life? I have had major medical procedures done. Before each and every one the Doctor defined in realistic terms the risks. How after doing so can I expect that a decision I made should penalise the Doctor?
The who idea of being Indemnified is one foisted off on us by Lawyer.
Sorry I would rather have a living wage job than see Lawyers get the lions share of these settlements.
Piss up a rope if you think a lawyers are a good thing. I would rather have my full liberty and a living wage job than one lawyer in the same country I live in.
#11
Maybe so. Don't get me wrong...as I said, if a Doctor screws up, he or she should be held accountable, and heavily, considering we put our lives in their hands. To whom much is given, much shall be required. But limiting the MONETARY damages would be an important first step. Better screening, training and certification of Doctors, and policing from an outside peer agency would also help. When we throw millions at malpractice victims, we need to remind ourselves that the money comes from somewhere. Ultimately, that somewhere is US.
The current situation is set up to GUARANTEE massive income to the legal profession by perpetuating an environment where it is easy to sue. The more lititgious the society, the greater the profits for attorneys. It's simply too easy to sue and get OBSCENE settlements from carefully stacked juries that cannot by any reasonable historical yardstick be considered proportional. Furthermore, the amount the attorney gets is often half of the judgement, without regard to any prevailing rate of pay.
What is needed is to limit the amount that an attorney can earn from any one case. This is not an unfair restriction of trade, because attorneys working within the court system are actually quasi-government employees. They are not true private sector agents, in the strictest sense of the term.
Set the limit an attorney can earn at $50,000 plus costs per case - a reasonable amount by any moral or decent measure - and you'll see the number of law suits drop dramatically, and a lot of society's problems be worked out privately by individuals.
Right now the law profession siphons off billions annually which could be used for research, infrastructure growth and improvement, and job creation. Attorneys don't deserve that much wealth and it is better spent by the private sector, in terms of overall benefit to society.
"It is I think a side effect of the newness of this concept that maybe brings out the worst in people and probably requires a societal mind-state change."
A side effect?
You're an attorney or law student, or married to one, aren't you?
Please give us a cogent, concise, logical, and workable mechanism which can quickly effect this "mind change" (I'm guessing that you can't, because you just threw that bit out, lawyer-fashion, to cover your butt without actually believing it's true or that it's something that can or should be done).
If you can't then your statement is a load of crap.
The Brits (I believe) have a system whereby the plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendant if the plaintiff loses. This should also be incorporated into our system. Let's free up some of the money that ends up in trial lawyer's (and the Democratic Party's) pockets and set it free to benefit society in the market at large.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/03/2006 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The problem is too many attorneys. 1,000,000 lawyers producing lawsuits to fill their time at a median salary of $90,000/year (2002, average higher). That's more lawyers than police or doctors. Compare attorney impact on your life vs those professions. Compare the contribution of 1,000,000 lawyers vs 1,500,000 engineers (all specialties). Engineering Employment
Posted by: ed ||
08/03/2006 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
"While ity is true that there is oftden no actiual fix for medical mistakes, doctors as business men and service providers have to be responsible and subject to the same penalties for poor performance as car mechanics or sellers of defective items."
Let's hold lawyers to those same penalties for poor performance, too.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/03/2006 19:26 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I personally think that the problem lies with the whole concept of "punitive" damages. I think that most people are OK with the idea that if a doctor or mechanic negligently screws up, you have the right to recover your past, present and future expenses associated with the screw up. What is driving costs up is the ever increasing punitive damages. Tort law was not designed to punish people. That is the role of criminal and administrative law. Tort law should only settle differences and compensate loss due to negligence.
Here's my solution. Eliminate punitive damages and instead of a percentage of the schwag, limit lawyers fees to a negotiated hourly rate. The demand for lawsuits will drop, opportunists will move out of the field (perhaps to something more socially useful like spam), and justice will still be served.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/03/2006 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Scabbard slide rule. How quaint and old fashioned. Switch slide rules RULE!!!
Posted by: ed ||
08/03/2006 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
#20
it's actually a butterfly model. Self-defense math rules!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/03/2006 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I still have my belt-mounted slide rule from high school. The Moon Program was done with slide-rules. I suggest any prospective engineer learn how to use the 'ole slipstick.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/03/2006 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#22
errr.. they have a place...in a museum. I wouldn't accept their level of accuracy in engineering work today
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/03/2006 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
By Walter Williams
Colleges and universities will start their fall semester soon. You might be interested in what parents' and taxpayers' money is going for at far too many "institutions of higher learning."
At Occidental College in Los Angeles, a mandatory course for some freshmen is "The Unbearable Whiteness of Barbie." It's a course where Professor Elizabeth J. Chin explores ways in "which scientific racism has been put to use in the making of Barbie [and] to an interpretation of the film 'The Matrix' as a Marxist critique of capitalism." Johns Hopkins University students can enroll in a course called "Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll in Ancient Egypt." Part of the course includes slide shows of women in ancient Egypt "vomiting on each other," "having intercourse" and "fixing their hair."
Harvard University students can take "Marxist Concepts of Racism," which examines "the role of capitalist development and expansion in creating racial inequality." You can bet there's no mention of the genocide in Africa and former communist regimes like Yugoslavia. Young America's Foundation and Accuracy in Academia publish lists of courses like these, at many other colleges, that are nothing less than student indoctrination through academic dishonesty.
Continued on Page 49
#4
Chalk this up to spineless lawmakers and administration. The are sooo scared about passing any kind of judgment they accept these whacky class antics without a whimper. If any of them still had their cajones these professors and their sick recipe for academia would be flushed down the toilet.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By John Stossel 
By Walter Williams
