We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Lucky lawyers Never mind the ‘luck of the Irish’, what about the luck of the lawyers? I ask you, has there ever been a group of people so consistently blessed by the fickle finger of fate? Somebody ‘up there’ must like them, that’s for sure.
‘Not so’, I hear you cry? Well, how’s this for proof? No sooner has the legal profession turned its formidable guns on the fast-food industry than, flash-bang-whallop-wham-as if by magic, some learned scientists turn up with a whole bunker full of ammunition:
Women with a high-fat diet may increase their risk of developing breast cancer later in life, say researchers.
A study of more than 13,000 women from Norfolk found that women who ate the most saturated fats – such as those found in chocolate snacks and fast food -were almost twice as likely to develop cancer, compared with those who ate the least.
I am sure it is nothing more than coincidental. Honestly. Really. But, you must surely concede, the timing could not be better.
And is that lucky or what?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
A study a few years ago by Singer and Grismaijer found that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.
Women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer.
Women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
Women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
Women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer.
The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.
I understand the theory is that bra wearing reacts negatively with the workings of the lymphatic glands. Obviously women who consume more fat will tend to be fatter and have tighter fitting bras, with more negative consequences for the wearer.
Still, it seems to me that besides going short on Kraft and Nestle, it would be worth a punt on short selling Gossard and Berlei.
BTW, if you think lawyers have it lucky, imagine how Irish lawyers feel.
As one of the hated trial lawyers – paid up ATLA member- I wanted to say that I had the exact same thought when I saw this on the news the other day. For the record though I don’t think these cases will get very far. In order to really bring these cases and get big money (thus give lawyers incentive) must be class action. Weight problems are by definition, individualized issues and thus not really amenable to class treatment in most jurisdictions in U.S. This doesn’t mean that some greedy lawyers will not try and end up costing the food industries anyway just by having to defend frivolous suits.
“Weight problems are by definition, individualized issues and thus not really amenable to class treatment in most jurisdictions in U.S.”
Not like health problems relating from smoking, I suppose.
Academia, being essentially a microcosm of the real world, I am sure that it would not be too hard to find some third rate, egocentric professor who would be prepared, for a fee, to publish a paper proving that the world is flat, or whatever idea some scheming lawyer came up with .
Such pronouncements from, the supposedly educated sector of our society, do nothing but to convince and persuade the rest of us that most of the professorial persuasion are no more than self-serving, greedy little people who will do, or say anything for a buck.
How many times have researchers made profound statements, only to reverse their findings at a later date, it just proves that given enough (too much) data, you can make any outrageous finding seem logical.
After all they have nothing to lose, most have a poor, or no reputation to begin with, and such nonsensical pronouncements can not not be expected to enhance their, or their colleges, standing.
The law has evolved to make individualized damages much harder to “class” exactly b/c the courts reacted to the abuse that occured in the asbestos and smoking cases. Those cases are the ones that now make it much more difficult. The days of products class actions that are health related are numbered except prehaps when the states do it to fatten their already bulging coffers. Then all bets concerning precedent are off.
“Then all bets concerning precedent are off.”
I feel much better, then.
T. Hartin quoted Amelia:
“Then all bets concerning precedent are off.”
I feel much better, then.
ROFLMAO!
Has anybody else noticed that passenger-side automobile airbags, when used as intended, have the nasty side effect of decaptiating some of the users, yet because it’s Big Government forcing us to use this defective product, we don’t hear the trial lawyers going after those who deny us the right not to use it?
No surprise on the fat, that’s been out there for a few years.
Ted – there have been tons of side airbag cases.
T. Hartin – when the states sue they become even bigger whores than the lawyers. I cannot eleviate pain on that front.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see the “fat” cases succeeding. I didn’t think the gun cases would succeed and they haven’t. I don’t do products cases anymore, but when I first got out of school I had some asbestos cases. One of the reasons I quit and switched to another area is that I don’t believe in destroying an industry simply b/c you can get very wealthy. I worked for one of the richest tobacco trial lawyers in the country and he certainly wasn’t in it for altruistic reasons. I agree that many cases are all part of the failure to take personal responsibility for individual actions. I was just trying to point out that there has been some, if not enough, legal backlash. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but more and more courts are simply not buying the BS anymore and one of the ways to hinder these cases is to refuse to grant class action rule 23 status.
Amelia quotes Longfellow: the wheels of justice may grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.
Sounds to me like what’s needed is a truckload of sand.
No idea that was Longfellow! My dad, another lawyer, says it all the time. My mom even needlepointed it for his office wall. It comes in handy when clients want work done yesterday.
And I always thought the slowness was just to bump up the hours!…
Silly me… note: must learn to trust my lawyer…
Amelia:
Are you certain those aren’t prosecutions of people who put their kids in the passenger seat? Or civil suits against the company that make the (front) passenger-seat airbags (not side impact)?
I ask because the cigarette makers are sued for putting out a dangerous product that nobody’s forced to use, yet the government, which requires us to have an airbag in the passenger seat if we want to drive, gets off scot-free despite the fact that the airbags they force us to use have been known to decapitate children.
I also find it interesting that suggesting individual responsibility regarding smoking will get you laughed at by Big Government types, but they’ll turn around and say you should have known that the airbag they force you to have in the dashboard in front of the passenger seat could decapitate your kid (or short adult travelling companion for that matter).
This may be old hat to most but…
Nobody’s mentioned that (despite being a world-leader in victimhood and risk-inflation) Britain hasn’t had similar suits, even on an individual basis.
We don’t really have class actions. But that’s a consequence as much as anything of the first real saver.
Reasons:
1. The costs rules. In British courts the loser is expected to pay the winner’s costs. (Judges will occasionally decline to make an order for costs, if they think the winner is merely a technical winner and is very much morally in the wrong.) Solicitors can offer conditional fees, but you need to be very sure of your case and/or to insure against losing. That’s a pretty severe brake on frivolous actions.
2. The damages rules. We don’t have punitive damages. Damages in British courts (except for libel) are assessed to compensate for the injury suffered, nothing more. Any element of punishment is suffered through paying the costs of the action. Lawyers can’t share in the award: they’d be taking money from their client, not the opponent, if they did.
It follows that the only rich sources of speculative suits in Britain are: libel actions; cases where the government is paying, either for itself or meeting the bills of someone else–you should be more frightened if sued by a pauper than a rich man over here; or in forums where the costs rule doesn’t necessarily apply. Employment tribunals are the main example of the latter, and do suffer some appaling abuses.
British lawyers don’t do too badly. Plenty make a lot of money. But none of them is a billionaire.
The following substances or behaviors can fill the endorphin receptors in the brain:
Food
Exercise
Sex
Heroin
According to the idea of addiction all these things or behaviors are subject or ought to be of government regulation.
As long as the we call on the government to fight the addiction demon we will have lawyers tryng to cash in on the fight. One superstition leads to another .
And your complaint was?