| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lars Eighner" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2004 06:10:30 PM |
| Object: |
Tom Frank on NOW |
Bill Moyers has Tom Franks on NOW - and perhaps you can still catch
it, if your PBS station replays it.
I never heard of Tom Frank before, but he has the sharpest analysis
of the current political situation I have ever heard.
Highlights:
* By playing to "cultural" issues, Republicans convince poor and
middle class people to vote against their own economic interests.
* Republicans get it both ways by charging "class warfare" whenever
Democrats raise economic issues, but pander to class warfare by
referring to the "liberal elite" and attacking Democrats who have
money for being rich. (For example, Limbaugh who makes $30 million
per year, deriding Kerry for being a "billionaire" and Edwards
for having a net worth of about $70 million.)
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Frank on NOW |
11 Jul 2004 09:41:19 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncf3i3e.1967.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Bill Moyers has Tom Franks on NOW - and perhaps you can still catch
it, if your PBS station replays it.
I never heard of Tom Frank before, but he has the sharpest analysis
of the current political situation I have ever heard.
Highlights:
* By playing to "cultural" issues, Republicans convince poor and
middle class people to vote against their own economic interests.
Examples?
* Republicans get it both ways by charging "class warfare" whenever
Democrats raise economic issues, but pander to class warfare by
referring to the "liberal elite" and attacking Democrats who have
money for being rich. (For example, Limbaugh who makes $30 million
per year, deriding Kerry for being a "billionaire" and Edwards
for having a net worth of about $70 million.)
Limbaugh earned his money in the private sector. Kerry inherited his, and
Edwards sued doctors on questionable grounds for his. I don't suppose you
can discern the difference between earning one's money, or not... :O|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Frank on NOW |
12 Jul 2004 02:07:15 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<jTmIc.14051$oD3.12238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented Stan de SD
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" < > wrote in message
news:slrncf3i3e.1967.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Bill Moyers has Tom Franks on NOW - and perhaps you can still catch
it, if your PBS station replays it.
I never heard of Tom Frank before, but he has the sharpest analysis
of the current political situation I have ever heard.
Highlights:
* By playing to "cultural" issues, Republicans convince poor and
middle class people to vote against their own economic interests.
Examples?
* Republicans get it both ways by charging "class warfare" whenever
Democrats raise economic issues, but pander to class warfare by
referring to the "liberal elite" and attacking Democrats who have
money for being rich. (For example, Limbaugh who makes $30 million
per year, deriding Kerry for being a "billionaire" and Edwards
for having a net worth of about $70 million.)
Limbaugh earned his money in the private sector.
Perhaps. He is known to have been a trafficker in prescription drugs.
Kerry inherited his,
Kerry doesn't have nearly a billion. His wife and her children's
trusts might add up to a billion.
But is there something wrong with inherited wealth? That sure
sounds like class warfare to me.
and Edwards sued doctors on questionable grounds for his.
Edwards cases are on the public record. Where is one with
"questionable grounds"? How is it that you know more than
the juries in these cases who had the evidence before them
in an adversorial process?
I don't suppose you can discern the difference between earning
one's money, or not... :O|
Again with the class warfare!
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan de SD" |
|
| Title: John Edwards - ambulance-chasing shyster trial lawyer represents the true heart and soul of the Democratic Party... |
12 Jul 2004 03:12:47 AM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncf4e1e.1avk.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<jTmIc.14051$oD3.12238@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented Stan de SD
broadcast on alt.atheism:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncf3i3e.1967.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Bill Moyers has Tom Franks on NOW - and perhaps you can still catch
it, if your PBS station replays it.
I never heard of Tom Frank before, but he has the sharpest analysis
of the current political situation I have ever heard.
Highlights:
* By playing to "cultural" issues, Republicans convince poor and
middle class people to vote against their own economic interests.
Examples?
No answer, I see...
* Republicans get it both ways by charging "class warfare" whenever
Democrats raise economic issues, but pander to class warfare by
referring to the "liberal elite" and attacking Democrats who have
money for being rich. (For example, Limbaugh who makes $30 million
per year, deriding Kerry for being a "billionaire" and Edwards
for having a net worth of about $70 million.)
Limbaugh earned his money in the private sector.
Perhaps. He is known to have been a trafficker in prescription drugs.
Again, proof? Conviction? Didn't think so...
Kerry inherited his,
Kerry doesn't have nearly a billion. His wife and her children's
trusts might add up to a billion.
In other words, he inherited his money, right?
But is there something wrong with inherited wealth?
If you're a liberal, I guess not.
That sure sounds like class warfare to me.
I merely pointed out that Rush earned his money, so he feels no guilt over
it. Perhaps the reason the Lefties support socialism and redistribution of
wealth is because they realize they didn't earn theirs?
and Edwards sued doctors on questionable grounds for his.
Edwards cases are on the public record. Where is one with
"questionable grounds"? How is it that you know more than
the juries in these cases who had the evidence before them
in an adversorial process?
Do some research on the specious claims regarding birth defects that Edwards
based most of his fortune on...
Edwards's career tied to jury award debate
By Wendy Davis, Globe Correspondent, 9/15/2003
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina lawyer running for
president, built a career out of winning historic jury awards for children
who suffered birth defects allegedly because doctors mishandled their
deliveries -- from a record $6.5 million in 1985 to a new record of $23
million in his last trial in 1997.
ADVERTISEMENT
His summations became legendary, with lawyers crowding the courtroom to
listen to Edwards move jurors to tears. "What value do you attach to the
emotional suffering that this little girl will have for the rest of her
life?" he asked in his breakthrough case, in 1985. "I wouldn't take $10
million for it." Edwards also persuaded the jury that the hospital was
responsible, even though the doctor was not an employee.
But in a precursor of battles to come, the trial judge set aside a portion
of the $6.5 million verdict as excessive, and an appeals court agreed. The
North Carolina Hospital Association filed an unsuccessful protest brief,
claiming Edwards had opened a new avenue for malpractice cases.
Now, spurred by President Bush, Republicans are seeking to limit awards for
pain and suffering, saying juries are driving up the cost of health care. On
Saturday, Texas voters narrowly supported a $750,000 cap on pain and
suffering awards. Today, North Carolina is scheduled to consider limiting
such awards to $250,000. While Edwards helped block a similar bill in the
Senate last July, Republicans are vowing to take it up again, putting
Edwards -- and his career -- back in the spotlight.
"To the extent that he's been able to persuade a jury, he's succeeded," said
state Senator Robert Pittenger of North Carolina, referring to Edwards's
ability to make a jury cater to his client's needs. But Pittenger, a
Republican supporting limits on jury awards, insists, "That's not, to me, an
equitable way to try to stabilize the health care industry."
A Globe review of Edwards's career from the mid-1980s through 1997 reveals
that he was more than just a practitioner of medical malpractice law. He was
one of its most prominent specialists, stretching the reach of the law for
nearly two decades. But he also came to personify some of the alleged
excesses that reformers have sought to curb.
For instance, his summations routinely went beyond a recitation of his case
to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of
injured children.
"I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right
now I feel her, I feel her presence," he said in his record-setting 1985
lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being
deprived of oxygen during labor. "She's inside me and she's talking to you.
.. . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don't ask for your
pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy,
but I do ask for your courage.' "
Critics say such emotional appeals can lead to pain-and-suffering awards
that go beyond what's warranted. "There's a feeling that jury verdicts are
not based on just the facts," said Nick Ellis, president-elect of the North
Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.
Edwards, who declined to comment for this report, has said he opposes
limiting awards for pain and suffering because they "will affect a situation
where a child is blinded for life, where a child is paralyzed for life," and
compensating them for medical costs or lost income wouldn't account for
their hardships.
In some of his cases, the awards for pain and suffering exceeded his
clients' economic losses.
For instance, in a 1994 case, one of Edwards's clients had a double
mastectomy based on the doctor's mistaken belief that she had suffered a
recurrence of breast cancer. An arbitrator awarded her $850,000 for
emotional distress. Without a pain and suffering award, her damages would
have been limited to medical expenses.
In other cases, Edwards argued that decades of medical care should justify
enormous damages.
Edwards's largest malpractice verdict involved a child who was brain-damaged
at birth. At trial, Edwards presented expert testimony that the child might
live for more than 40 years and incur lifetime medical expenses of tens of
millions of dollars. Defense witnesses testified that the child might die
within a few years.
The jury awarded $23 million in 1997. Afterward, both sides settled for an
undisclosed amount. As it turned out, the child died at age 6 from her
injuries.
Her death spurred critics to propose another change in the law: allowing
defendants to pay in installments rather than a lump sum. "I don't know what
the downside is," said Ellis.
But making payments in installments could cause a significant drop in fees
to plaintiffs' lawyers. Most personal-injury lawyers get a percentage of
what their clients receive. Edwards's firm typically received between 25 and
40 percent of the verdict, according to his former partner, David Kirby.
Plaintiffs' lawyers say they depend on contingency fees because many clients
can't afford the high cost of hiring specialists and taking depositions;
under a contingency fee, the lawyer pays those costs upfront. Contingency
fees "provide access to the court system that would not be available to a
huge segment of society," said Kirby.
Critics counter that jury verdicts are supposed to compensate plaintiffs,
not their attorneys. Edwards, according to financial disclosure forms, is
worth between $12.8 million and $60 million.
Beyond obtaining large awards, Edwards expanded the limits of
personal-injury law. The Campbell case, for instance, involved an expansion
of liability for hospitals, even when the treatment was by a private
physician.
Six years later, in 1991, Edwards won a $2.275 million verdict for the
family of a woman who killed herself in a hospital a few days after she was
taken off a suicide watch. The case appeared to be the first time in North
Carolina that a hospital was found liable for a patient's suicide, according
to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
In 1994, Edwards won a lawsuit against a doctor who failed to diagnose
prostate cancer, even though his client allegedly missed several follow-up
appointments.
But the case remembered as his biggest win came in 1997 and involved a
5-year-old girl who was injured by a swimming-pool drain. The drain cover
was off and the girl was trapped by a suction pump with enough force to
extract her intestines. The manufacturer argued that if the cover had been
installed correctly, the accident would not have happened.
Edwards countered the company should have provided better warning labels.
"Some of the covers say nothing," he said during his summation. "If that
continues, it's not a question of whether there's going to be another child
hurt. It's just a question of when."
Later, he pulled a newspaper out of his jacket and started to read.
"There was a wonderful, wonderful thing written this past spring. . . . It
involved the death of a young boy who shouldn't have died, and what he wrote
was this: `We have to gather around this family not because we understand
what they're going through, but because -- but because they have to know we
share their pain. Our feelings -- our terrible, terrible feelings prove that
we really all are part of the same family. Their loss was our loss. Their
child was our child.' "
What Edwards did not tell the jury, although some lawyers in the audience
knew, was that the piece referred to his own son, Wade, who had been killed
in a 1996 car accident at age 16.
When the jury came back with the $23 million verdict, 10 of the 12 jurors
were crying, recalled the judge who presided at the trial.
To those who had worked with Edwards for years, the result was familiar. So
was the familiar air of empathy.
Said Wade Byrd, a fellow plaintiff's attorney, "John then and now had almost
a Clintonesque ability to understand a complex subject and break it down to
very simple terms."
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/15/edwardss_career_tied_t
o_jury_award_debate/
In other words, he's a shyster ambulance-chaser. I realize that lawyers are
a necessary evil, but this guy is a real bottom-feeder. It's slimeballs like
this that drive up the cost of health care to everyone - rich, poor,
in-between, all to line his own pockets.
Forget any type of Tort Reform with 2 multi-millionare Democrat laywers, and
count on more legislation (and more of the taxpayer's money) for the
solution to all problems... :O(
I don't suppose you can discern the difference between earning
one's money, or not... :O|
Again with the class warfare!
Hardly, twit...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: John Edwards - ambulance-chasing shyster trial lawyer represents the true heart and soul of the Democratic Party... |
12 Jul 2004 03:46:48 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<3KrIc.926$Qu5.276@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
the lovely and talented Stan de SD
broadcast on alt.atheism:
But is there something wrong with inherited wealth?
If you're a liberal, I guess not.
So, if you are a conservative, you think there is something wrong
with inherited wealth? Then why is repealing inheritance taxes
(now called "death taxes" for propaganda purposes) such a big
Republican issue?
You see what they have done to you? Probably you don't.
Your basic sense is that inherited wealth is not quite the
same thing as earned income. Yet, you have been tricked into
supporting a party which favors people with riches derived
from inheritance over wage earners. They have even convinced
you that it is "liberals" who favor inherited wealth.
You drank the whole pitcher of Kool Aid.
And tomorrow, if a Democrat in the Senate proposes that in light of
the budget deficit (which will be paid for by everyone who has to
borrow money at interest) perhaps now is not a good time to reduce
inheritance taxes, Republicans will call that "class warfare" and you
will side with them. People with inherited wealth don't have to buy
houses or cars on credit. But you do. And your children will. So,
you will be convinced to support the Republicans although it is
against your economic interest to do so.
And that, my friend, proves the point I made when I started this
thread.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Frank on NOW |
12 Jul 2004 01:50:16 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:41:19 GMT, "Stan de SD"
<standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncf3i3e.1967.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
Bill Moyers has Tom Franks on NOW - and perhaps you can still catch
it, if your PBS station replays it.
I never heard of Tom Frank before, but he has the sharpest analysis
of the current political situation I have ever heard.
Highlights:
* By playing to "cultural" issues, Republicans convince poor and
middle class people to vote against their own economic interests.
Examples?
I'm not sure if I yet share Thomas Frank's assessment of how and why
the Democratic party abandoned/betrayed its traditional base, but
there's definitely an interesting thesis there. I agree that he was
sharp on Moyers, and he may be onto something. I'm looking forward to
reading his book.
Excerpt here:
http://www.ruralwomyn.net/kansas_quote.html
Interview here:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June04/Frank0614.htm
Kronk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Frank on NOW |
14 Jul 2004 05:13:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:50:16 -0500, Kronk wrote
(in article <40f2dab3.14203924@news.gvtc.com>):
I'm not sure if I yet share Thomas Frank's assessment of how and why
the Democratic party abandoned/betrayed its traditional base,
Which one of its "traditional base(s)"?
I grew up with the Dixiecratic/Democratic support of the Ku Klux
Klans.
Then the Democrats flipped to being integrationists and the
Republicans - starting in 1964 - were the new home for the
"social Republicans" as well as for the Klans themselves.
In my senior year of high school, I was sitting in the school
cafeteria when the announcement of President Kennedy's death was
announced.
Out of more than a hundred students, there were four or five of
us who weren't jumping up and down for joy and screaming,
"Hooray! That *****-loving communist is dead" and phrases not
quite as strong as well as phrases /much/ stronger.
So - or so it appears to me - that "tradition base" has as much
sensibility as "liberal" and "conservation have beome, i.e.,
meaningless.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
