• I always thought that there should be a warning label on those vitamins that are supposed to enhance your brain functions. The label would read like this:
    WARNING: Use of this product can result in an increase in the user’s I.Q., which may result in the user being expelled from the Democrat Party.

  • I dunno, there’s a saying among some academics that “The idea is so dumb only an academic would believe it.”

  • You are right. I should have substituted “common sense” in place of “I.Q.”.

  • Jim, you are very mistaken….

    Republicans LOVE to claim that they are pro tort-reform, but in reality they are only slightly (if at all) better than Democrats in that respect.

    Did you notice the sweeping federal tort reform which happened when Republicans controlled the government? Me neither.

  • @someone The GoP faction in congress yes, the general membership/supporter base is something else entirely.
    The GoP (like many kindred parties abroad) has a major internal problem and that’s a near total disconnect in philosophy and overall policy from their voter base, most of whom vote for them because they’re ever so marginally better than the alternative (thus, to avoid Dems from winning, not to get the GoP to win).
    I’ve voted for our equivalent (I’m not an American) of the GoP for 20 years because of that. Smaller parties that more closely match my ideas never stood a chance so voting for them was damage control/mitigation rather than a vote of conscience.
    Among left wingers (Dems etc.) this is less of an issue.

  • “And there’s a legal limit to the snow her, in Camelot.”

    “If I was warned, then I wouldn’t have …” comports to the requirement of law for provable elements. One can look at an insert on a drug, for example, and a warning is there or it is not. But the claim that the plaintiff would have done something else is belied by the clamor of many, particularly cancer, patients to be included in studies of potential therapies. People become risk adverse after the fact and meeting with a lawyer.

    There was adequate warning in the Levine case, but the plaintiff was appealing to her state jury, and that jury granted an adverse outcome payment that was good for Ms. Levine but terrible for other women whose intense distress would have been ameliorated by the drug in question.

    The problem is that law should be tightened up to more rationally conform with reality. Unfortunately even really smart guys, in a SAT sense, like Senator Al Fraken will go along with the self serving and obnoxious views of the plaintiff’s bar.