Edwards!

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Whether it makes things easier or streamlines the system just belies that the system is already fucked up and needs to be overhauled - capping or setting compensatory limitations is a very futile attempt at rectifying the situation. It's trying to cure a symptom - NOT the problem.

Well go back to the 1970s when killing people was acceptable. Cited previously was the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds of victims were blamed for their own death. Reasons for those deaths and resulting judicial actions were reported deep inside the New York Times because human life was not important. Where we only learned how to maybe save your life because of lawyers filing suit against everyone involved in that building construction.

Same time was the Ford Pinto - a two dollar solution that was not implemented because it cost too much. People burned to death inside a car because the problem and solution was understood long before the first Pinto was ever sold. A lawsuit filed by State of Indiana that also remained buried deep inside the NY Times because human life had so little value - until lawyers started taking on these issues big time.

Same time was the Firestone 500 - a well known problem that was creating paraplegics and quadriplegics all over America. Firestone was paying off these people if they remained silent. Firestone refused to fix the Firestone 500 design because it was cheaper to pay off victims rather than fix a tire design. When government did a study, radial tire failure rates were on the order of 50%. House subcommittee determined that 13 million of 23 million Firestone tires needed immediate recall. So tire companies went to the Supreme Court to have that study quashed. Clarence Ditlow of Center for Auto Safety photocopied (a new high tech machine) and distributed the report to every reporter as fast as possible until handed a copy of the Supreme Court order. Ditlow is why we know how aggressively Firestone tried to kill Americans. That report was buried inside the NY Times. But something radical and new – Consumer Reports – told us including that seven of their own tested tires failed catastrophically. Still Firestone kept selling the 500. Financial damages were minimal.

Meanwhile you do remember the Firestone Wilderness tire that also was defective, Firestone knew it was defective, Ford then demanded Firestone recall all those tires, Firestone refused, and many reading this never learned the complete story. Ford got stuck paying $billions to fix Firestone's intention and MBA inspired murder. A problem that could be fixed only by lawsuit had Ford not been so responsible.

You know each story? You had better before deciding whether lawyers are a problem or a solution.

Tell me about the Macdonald’s coffee. If you have woefully insufficient facts, then you have believed the commonly acknowledged myth. I leave it to you to learn facts in that case - or do you quickly blame lawyers only because you read about it in a tabloid (too much summary and too few details)? After hundreds suffered, finally lawyers sued to get MacDonald’s to fix a well known problem.

So now you would cap judgments? Or would you instead empower juries to make a logical decision? Capping judgments is like blaming judges for ruling on torture and international kidnapping. It neither addresses nor solves the problem. A problem that will worsen as more Americans are trained as Communication majors or MBAs.

Again, facts bluntly said an Iraq invasion was unjustified. Could you see facts logically, or did hype, myths, outright lies, and propaganda confuse you? This post begs you to address the problem – not cure its symptoms.

Is this long? Yes, because logical thought it not found in Daily News tabloid type reasoning. Provided are four examples. You knew each or did you simply fall for highly hyped tabloid propaganda?