Juror#8

She satisfies the first few of my very reasonable criteria: 1. Neonate-type large eyes 2. Dark limbal rings 3. Small nose 4. Elevated levels of yellow-red antioxidant carotenoids within supple-textured skin It is difficult to judge her further because of the limited camera view. However, based on how she scores in the remainder of my "would-ya" criteria, this could very well be a "yes."

Concessions....when, where, why, how? I addressed your initial thread about 10-20% success rate by plaintiffs in medical malpractice instances by mentioning the affect of settlements on that number - essentially advancing the point that of course the cogent legal claims are going to be diluted, because many of them settle and a good amount of those who remain after that are either the bull-headed or the bullschit. You responded with some blurb about how the settlement figure was already contemplated by the statistics that you were parroting. Really? In a way that challenges my claims? I read the same info that you did and arrived at a completely different conclusion. In fact, it supports my position that the good stuff settles out and the chaffe that remains is what comprises the 10-20% figure. So if "successful litigation" means what is not settled before opening arguments (and afterwards, in fact), then you're arguing against imagined straw men - if you're using those percentages to support the thesis that most complaints shouldn't be allowed to come forward to lady justice in the first place. It's also interesting to note that the journal that you're using to support your position, is actually betraying you in many respects. And lastly, and just as a technical point, if a complaint makes it through SJ, then it should be there and it is not, by definition, frivolous in the eyes of the law. It has satisfied a certain threshhold of legal criteria to be entertained by judge and jury. That may not mean anything to you - but it does to me, and I imagine that it would to most attorneys/legal professionals.

Ooooooh, snarky. Hehe. Anyway, I read your studies....twice. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa054479#t=articleMethods I read your link and study and can't find anything that directly contradicts the points I made in my post. If there is something in your studies that contradicts what I mentioned in my previous post, please point it out. I can simplify my thesis if it makes it easier for you to address (I understand that it was a long post). Apropos....whose position do you feel that this supports, mine or yours? "However, plaintiffs rarely won damages at trial, prevailing in only 21 percent of verdicts as compared with 61 percent of claims resolved out of court. Administrative (or overhead) costs associated with defending the claims averaged $52,521 per claim, with the mean administrative costs for claims that were resolved by trial ($112,968) nearly three times those for claims resolved out of court ($42,015)." "Our findings point toward two general conclusions. One is that portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown. Although one third of the claims we examined did not involve errors, most of these went unpaid. The costs of defending against them were not trivial. Nevertheless, eliminating the claims that did not involve errors would have decreased the direct system costs by no more than 13 percent (excluding close calls) to 16 percent (including close calls). In other words, disputing and paying for errors account for the lion's share of malpractice costs. A second conclusion is that the malpractice system performs reasonably well in its function of separating claims without merit from those with merit and compensating the latter. In a sense, our findings lend support to this view: three quarters of the litigation outcomes were concordant with the merits of the claim. However, both of these general conclusions obscure several troubling aspects of the system's performance. Although the number of claims without merit that resulted in compensation was fairly small, the converse form of inaccuracy claims associated with error and injury that did not result in compensation was substantially more common. One in six claims involved errors and received no payment. The plaintiffs behind such unrequited claims must shoulder the substantial economic and noneconomic burdens that flow from preventable injury.33,34 Moreover, failure to pay claims involving error adds to a larger phenomenon of underpayment generated by the vast number of negligent injuries that never surface as claims." You're up counselor.

I think that your figures may be somewhat misleading and not representative of the point that you're trying to make. What do you mean "thrown out before court"? Do you mean cases tossed during the pleading stage? You're saying that only 10-20% of cases that are decided on the merits win? If so, that seems a bit low. But I'll try to "explain those figures." Do your numbers account for cases that are settled prior to opening arguments? Methinks that there is where the disconnect is, and why your numbers don't accurately reflect the breadth of cases with legal merit. "Settled" cases are traditionally settled after discovery and before the contentiousness begins. Those cases are generally decidedly legally sound and articulate colorable legal arguments. Once those cases are removed from consideration, you're typically left with the cantankerous or the frivolous. It is suspect to indict tort jurisprudence based on that. Now if you would have said (and could prove) that only 10-20% of all medical malpractice cases survive summary judgment or a motion for a directed verdict, then that would be persuasive. And that would be a pathetic percentage of cases that couldn't satisfy the basic threshold of articulating a legally cognizable claim. But that is not what you're saying. To say, though, that only 10-20% of plaintiff cases are successful, and that percentage may or may not be comprised of cases that are tossed in the pleading stage (incidentally, the judicial system's self-regulating mechanism and a tool to avoid protracted legal expense for either party), and those that lose on the merits, but doesn't contemplate the large volume of cases that are settled in the plaintiff's favor, is truncating the numbers - and with it, the argument. You've basically disqualified a robust number of legally cogent cases - the majority of which likely had the proponderance of the evidence on their side - in order to make a point. As an aside, and as an ancillary follow up point: I've represented 3 plaintiffs in tort litigation matters. I've won once (libel claim against a mid-size city newspaper) and have been told to "try again" twice (GM kicked my ass on SJ and a movie theater company was victorious because they had a better audiologist, who was well endowed, and who happened to be on the take). The point is that taking on corporations and large entities is difficult enough. They can bring to bear resources that the working stiff just doesn't have. That is their strength. Why make it any more difficult for someone without resources to take on the hegemony? The balance is already in the hegemony's favor because they have the resources to suppress even the most fruitful of claims. Do a study on how many legally significant cases have never seen the inside of the courtroom because people don't have the resources to go against the apes. Find out how many aggrieved plantiffs lose because the only attorney that they can afford, a guy two years out of law school, is working on contingency and doesn't have the resources to hire a good enough audiologist and Carmike has a cadre of 3 attorneys wearing Brioni suits and Allen Edmonds Park Avenues. But even if you're not compelled by the lawyerly "what about the little guy" argument, at least don't indict tort jurisprudence based on sketchy percentages - which is what I feel you did above.

1. Who wants to deny you damages? Do you equate parameters on awards, or having the judge adminster awards based on precedence or something else even marginally jurisprudential, a taking or a denial? Because that is what I'm advocating - parameters. 2. You have a right to have a physical capability valuated by a jury, and to be entitled to receive the product of that valuation? What canon(s) did this derive from? Has it been codified? Interestingly enough, I think that we're about 80% in agreement on these points but we're arguing along the periphery. I think that there should be boundaries that reasonably relate to the economic decision to introduce negligence into the marketplace. Example: McDonalds serves coffee that is 50 degrees hotter than industry standard and that they know, to a reasonable certainty, will cause third degree burns that require skin grafts if it is spilled and makes contact with skin (which is entirely forseeable because they serve the same through the 'drive through' window at their establishments). McDonanlds figures that the price of arbitration and litigation expenses is 5 million annually but they stand to make 15 million in increased revenue by continuing to serve the hottest - and consequently, the most flavorful - coffee. In their cold, deliberate, estimation, some people's deformity still nets them 10 million - so it is good business. I believe that that 'net' number should be multiplied by 3, 5, or 10 - depending on egregiousness - to arrive at a punitive damages figure that has an economic relationship to the harm done. In the McDonalds case, they were being !@#$s. They knew the issue. They had a chance to settle and save the taxpayer time and money. They had a chance to pay her medical expenses. They knew that it wasn't a "one off" instance. They had thousands of similar complaints. They ignored her. They treated her like schit. They calculated the risk of litigation against the revenue and saw a significant enough margin to continue serving scalding hot coffee to people as they're driving and likely using one hand to balance the container. They ascribed a value to people's very forseeable injuries and bet low. So multiply the net number by 5, award her 50 million in punitives, plus NEDs and EDs, for a total measure of damages. How do you arrive at a baseline "net" amount? Well, discovery usually. The financials are a good start. And it is amazing what CEOs, CFOs, and marketing people discuss via email and memoranda. All that schit is discoverable. And then there are the obligatory whistle-blowers and other witnesses. It almost always comes out in the wash what the business justifications are for a certain decision, and how much extra they stood to make from introducing some negligence into the marketplace. For complex tort litigation, it provides a square way to assess punitive damages. NEDs should be decided by a judge for the reasons that were discussed in a previous post. Smaller litigation contexts (malpractice, some products liability actions [defective assembly, but usually not defective design], etc.) can be scaled and considered differently with more emphasis on a calculation that valuates the deviation from a standard or acceptable level of care. Otherwise, the arbitrary $500,000,000 verdict for loss of a thumb nail is gonna get pimp slapped on remittitur. And the only one who loses is the taxpayer and the plaintiff (and for the sake of tense correctness, "plaintiff" is probably now the "respondent") who can't collect because the matter is tied up in protracted appeals.

Actually, losing your eye/eyesight is very much a primarily economic hardship....unless you're claiming a resulting deficit in quality of life or loss of comapanionship, etc. I still feel that NEDS should better reflect the reasonable and foreseeable impact that it has on the plaintiff. It is difficult to quantify how many fewer instances you would have gotten laid had you not lost your middle finger, or what not playing basketball means pecuniarily. It is very inexact for a jury, as finder of fact, to quantify, monetarily, those pasttimes. I'm not saying that they over or under value the award, only that the valuation is arbitrary. Therefore, I feel that a judge may be better able to dispassionately opine with respect to the pecuniary value of reduced personal ________. Judges also have the benefit of precedence to guide them in that calculation. I actually feel that the jury is in a better position to award punitives than NEDS (but still feel that punitive damages awards should be within a governing parameter [a very liberal parameter though]). There is no way that a jury can understand how someone not being able to do _______ will impact them personally - and consequently monetize that. I have more confidence in a jury to appreciate a wrongdoing, appreciate the impact that that negligence has within the marketplace, appreciate the economic justification for maintaining the negligent business practice, and render a corresponding economic penalty.

Re: Tort Reform Caps on non-economic damages should be about as far as it is allowed to go - though I'd imagine that the AMA lobby would disagree. The McDonalds coffee case is the perfect example of how people will sensationalize a rather pedestrian legal fact pattern, demonize a woman who was only seeking status quo ante, and exonerate (for all intents and purposes) a company that made a calculated business decision that was contrary to the well being of its patrons. Caps on punitives should even be within reason. For all the hullabaloo about exorbitant jury awards - they at least represent a deterrent for companies and individuals that introduce negligence into the marketpace. And it does happen (negligence in the marketplace). Indeed, if it weren't for exoribitant jury awards, you'd have more placenta accreta, no seatbelts, and more Bendectin generational casulties. Those jury awards have inspired many an evolution in industry standard and course of dealing. I may be biased, but tort reform is not as per se necessary as some would have you think.

Michael Jordan will always top my list of greatest athletes but I think some honorable mentions go to: 1. Hershel Walker 2. That Karelin guy who didn't lose a wrestling match for like 15 years 3. And the only person to successfully outrun 3 angles in a single play, Michael Vick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFaPFXLK3ZE

Thanks everyone for the kind words. Yep, she is an awesome woman. She always assured us that our station in life would be what we endeavored to make it. Anyway, the point that I was making is that parents are so influential in what their kids ultimately accomplish. Though Tom's point is a good one - that mixed and matched demographics have parenting and motivation issues - GG's point is also quite true. It is unfortunately the case that a disproportionately large amount of minority folks in urban environments end up stuck there - and blame external factors for that condition. Though it is true that motivation/success will be less so in school environments that have dilapidated buildings and antequated materials, it is also true that some of those environmental factors can be overcome with supplementary parenting effort at home. We had that. Other's didn't. They believed in the classic hood pronouncement: "The only way to get out of SE is to slang crack rock or have a wicked jump shot." I'm now a proponent of an 11 month school year. It is slightly less of an academic year than is the Japanese model, but it allows for a smoother, less segmented transition between grade levels and more overall time for the breadth of material that should constitute a student's annual learning experience. It sounds draconian, or as if would put undue academic pressure on a developing mind, but I sincerely believe that it is the only way that we'll bridge the intellectual gap that exists between us and the rest of the developed world. And consequently our institutions (academic, business, research and development, scientific, etc.) should experience a direct and proximate benefit in about a generation or so from that bit of paradigm shift. U.S. competitiveness should reap the benefits not long thereafter. Unfortunately it probably won't happen. Some lobby (toy, cartoon, videogame) will have a schitfit and make sure such a directional shift would never happen. They'd create some superpac, and cloak it under the auspices of "don't take sports from our children."

Very well put. Reflects my thoughts exactly and I couldn't have articulated it better. I firmly believe that it starts with the parents and how the youth are raised at home. We grew up in SE DC and spent a couple of years in Baltimore city while my mom managed a Wendy's in Essex. My mom didn't want me and my siblings playing outside during the summer or after school because of the neighborhood rif-raf. Instead, we had to do 25 (100 when we weren't in school) dictionary words a day (word, part of speech, definition, synonym, use it in a sentence, single-space, next word). We did 200 words of one letter, then to the next letter, and to the next letter, etc. until we reached "Z," and then we'd start again at "A" for 200 more. When we'd complain, she'd ask us if we liked being poor, if we liked not having a tv, if we wanted nicer things. When we'd answer "no/yes," she'd say "if you do your words for a year, you'll get those [that]shoes/tv/nintendo/watch/money..." She kept a list on the fridge of how many words we did each month and put sticker stars throughout the year as we'd get closer to some goal item. The goal item (usually nintendo, starter jacket, Jordan shoes) didn't materialize but she repeated the process the following year with the same promise. After a few years we stopped believing her cause we never received any recompense. We did, however, tackle the words like clock work, as required. When I graduated from UVA, my gift from her was a framed collage of 5 years worth of those monthly word count lists. She also added my year-end school report cards. She put a sticky note on the outside of the frame that read "I told you so." We need more of that foreshadowing in this country - not necessarily the ascetic approach that my mom took (which was probably necessary considering the Barry Farm crack environment in the 80s and 90s) but an absolute dedication to learning, teaching, discipline, and successful outcomes.

To the OP, American Competitiveness is going to continue to struggle so long as we are so pathetically lacking in our core competencies. This may seem real "captain obvious," but it used to be that we produced things in this country - cars, watches, electronics, appliances, etc. Now, 2/3 of the U.S. auto industry is emerging from taxpayer resuscitation, Toyota and Honda make the best vehicle on the road, and Japan and Korea make the best electronics and appliances... Heck, even our manufacturing industry is being incrementally shifted to South America. Our service industry is being incrementally shifted to Southeast Asia. We produce soooo little comparatively. Add into that that we're 17th in the world in math and science...it's no wonder that we're flailing with respect to competitiveness. We need to invest in this country. We need 11 month K-12 education initiatives. Some Asia-style economic protectionism would be nice too(but not practical - because we have zero leverage).

They say the same thing about lawyers. What a croc of **** huh?

How so? With so many leagues in soccer, doesn't the talent pool necessarily become diluted? I may be analogizing this wrong, but isn't that like saying that an NFL team won the Superbowl, and then played teams in the CFL, USFL, NFL Europe, D-League, etc. and won on those levels as well? Also, what was their record during their best season(s)?

O.K., that is impressive and I wasn't aware of that.

Good point that I hadn't considered initially. The Bulls teams were dominating against the best competition in the U.S. and internationally. The early 90s began the explosion of international competition into the NBA (majority European players). The Bulls dominated against a wider range of competition. I think it's also compelling that those Bulls limited the success of so many established Hall of Famers. The case for the UCLA Bruins, the Yankees, The 40s-era Browns, the Taurasi/Bird UConn Women's team, etc. is extremely compelling, but were they dominating Hall of Fame players during those player's career quintessence? I'm surprised that there are so few votes for a college football team. Some of those 80s/90s Miami, Florida State, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas programs were overwhelmingly dominant and have treasure troves of talent. I think that the discussion has remained consistent and with consistent criteria. The first post lays out the question and some measuring sticks fairly plainly. I don't know where the geo-political angle came from.

I'm on record as being a fan of H.W. He was a good president who ran up against a superior politician. But Clinton presided over one of the most prosperity laden times in this country's history. Whether fortuitous or not, that was a period of strong economic growth and the street was a fan for his impact on business and policies that facilitated economic development. Of course you can find something here or there that would allow you to nitpick his tenure, but in large measure, that is how those 8 years went.

I apologize if I was unclear...I'm not trying to make the question deeper than a discussion of what is the best sports team ever, given their impact on their sporting contemporaries/generation. In the first post I provided some criteria with which to judge different teams across sporting genres. The question really isn't to solicit a discussion on geo-political implications or around which team galvanized the country more. Rather, I'm interested in who you feel is the best sports team based on how they dominated their contemporaires, the competition, the score, stats, margins, etc. That is why the 95-96 Bulls ring so loudly. They (and to a large extent, simply Michael Jordan) denied multiple hall of famers championships (Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Reggie Miller, etc.). They dominated statistically. They won at a near 90% clip while playing 82 games. They went on tears of three weeks, four weeks, five weeks, six weeks, etc. without losing on multiple occassions during that season. The 1927 Yankees won 71% of their games. The Bulls won 88% during the regular season and went 15-3 in the playoffs with two of those losses coming in the championship game. Is there really a team that, in their respective sport, dominated in that fashion?

I had never even heard of them until this morning. Granted, I was 5 at the time, but still... You don't think that the only team to win 70 games in a century of that sport is more impactful? This is a team that didn't lose a game at home until the last week of the regular season. They won almost 90% of their games. They went 15-3 in the playoffs and had the greatest sports player on the planet, ever, at the helm. I'm not saying that the U.S. Hockey team wasn't culturally impactful, or nationally redeeming...but were they even the best hockey team to ever put on skates? Good points, but didn't the 1998 Yankees win more games and won't they have four or five Hall of Famers when it's all said and done?

I agree with you and you are correct - it is silly to say one team would beat another team from a different generation because it kinda goes without saying. The original question surrounded the greatest team based on their impact during the generation in which they played so we'll stick to that. Agreed.

Dr. J Cradle Jam: Have to look them up. Never heard of the Wild Samoans.

I'm in my mid-30s. I've been watching sports since the early to mid-80s. I've been a Bills fan since 1984. I'll get grilled here but I just don't believe that the quality of sport was as good in the 40s, 50s, 60s, than in the 80s - current. I base that on archived footage of influential sporting moments. The hits weren't as big. They weren't as fast. They didn't jusp as high. They weren't as quick. Case-in-point: check out this level of athleticism, mechanics, and body control (a 720 Dunk): Now compare that against the quintessential "dunk" of the 60s and 70s: Dr. J three step cradle jam (link on the way) Players are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic today. They can hit farther and and are more agile than their counterparts from 3 decades ago. Those traits have impacted the game for the better. A college football team from the 50s could never compete with the 2011 Crimson Tide. Similarly, West's Laker's would be lost against Durant's Thunder. Butkus would be petrified of a Michael Vick.

Having a little debate hear at work. The question: "What was the Best Sports Team of ALL TIME" Answers around the water cooler: 1. 4 for 1992 Dream Team 2. 1 for 2001 Miami Hurricanes 3. 1 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers 4. 1 for 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers or 1996 Gators 5. 1 for 1998 Yankees 6. 2 for 1980 U.S. Hockey Team (to which I laughed hysterically - but I admittedly know nothing about hockey) 7. 3 who abstained because they don't feel as if you can compare teams from different sports 8. 1 for 2001 Redwings 9. 2 1972 Dolphins My vote was for the 1995-1996 Chicago Bulls. Period. I think that they were the best team to step foot on a hardwood floor and couldn't be beat by any of the NBA champions who preceded or followed them. They won 72 games and against a more discplined style of team play that was less regulated by refs and more contact oriented. Jordan or Pippen missed a couple of games that they ultimately lost so those wins could have been 75+. Do I feel that you can compare teams from different sports? Yes, because there are factors that they have in common or that can be used as a point of comparison - players, depth, competition, domination of competition, creativity, culture, scoring output, coaching, margin of victory, injuries, record, number of games played and corresponding win percentage, etc... Just interested in your thoughts and why.

1. Kennedy's speech concerning the Cuban Missle Crisis simply because we were on the brink of nuclear catastrophy and he piloted us through and won a high stakes game of "chicken" with the Cubans. 2. And if any single moment ever won an election, and presented a bright line contrast between two individuals, it was Bill Clinton's "tell me how this has affected you..." moment in 92. It wasn't a "speech," per se, but it had profound political impact. I watched it live and it made Clinton seem so real, understanding, and sympathetic, and Bush seem so foreign, unrelatable, and confused. This 5 minutes should be required viewing material for any candidate. Neither of them answered the actual question - but Clinton's unique compassion obfuscated that fact. Bush's first action, to look at his watch (though there are counter's everywhere for time checks). Clinton's first action "tell me how this has affected you again..." Clinton is still the best pure politician that has ever played the game. He is Michael Jordan circa 1996. I voted for him in 1996 and I probably would again if it weren't for that pesky 22nd Amendment:

Yep...because much of the media and most of the far left progressive caucus are hypocrites...at least with respect to prosecuting the war on terror.

I don't care who it is...I'm just glad that someone is systematically getting these !@#$ers. Before the Obama Administration, we were much too soft on prosecuting the war on terror. Just glad that someone is doing it and I hope the focus remains in a Romney Whitehouse. Good job Obama.