A few minutes ago, the Lemming opined about Big Cheese and a threat to the status quo in America. Looks like the Lemming isn't the only one who's become disenchanted with lawyers, as a group:
Before someone who knows a nice lawyer has a fit, please note: The Lemming knows that quite a few lawyers are honest folks, doing a job that's necessary in most contemporary societies. On the other hand, too many lawyers seem to have realized that other folks can be convinced that they deserve to get money as a compensation for doing something daft and self-destructive.
The Lemming's aware that some lawyers offer their services free of charge, as a public service. On the other hand, the Lemming suspects that there's more than altruism behind those advertisements for class-action lawsuits on national television.
"The massive explosion Thursday evening in San Bruno, Calif., which killed at least four people and leveled 38 homes, was apparently sparked by a ruptured natural-gas line. Now, as authorities and residents deal with the aftermath of the gas explosion in San Bruno, attention is turning to the regulators and the regulations that govern the massive skein of pipelines moving natural gas in the United States.
"The national regulatory program to assure the safe transportation of natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials is administered by the Department of Transportation - specifically, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, acting through the Office of Pipeline Safety.
"These regulators oversee more than 2 million miles of pipelines throughout the United States, which provide 25 percent of the nation’s energy, according to the American Gas Association (AGA). More than 650,000 miles of pipeline were added between 1984 and 2004...."
Despite the article's title, there isn't all that much detail on how the San Bruno explosion and fire will be investigated. Naturally enough, for an article that's probably intended as a quick introduction for a non-technical audience. Here's a sample:
"...A key part of the investigation will be finding the precise point of the explosion. Additional things to look into, say 'fire and explosion' Michigan attorney Mr. Stuart Sklar and others, include: Has the pipe failed before? Was the explosion a result of faulty pipe fittings, corrosion, or nearby excavation?..."
Aside from providing gainful employment for lawyers, investigating this sort of accident is important - so that the odds of similar events happening can be lowered.
The Lemming suspects that there will be a bit of hand-wringing about dangerous technology in general and fuel like natural gas in particular. The stuff's dangerous, no question about that. But even back in the 'good old days' it was possible to hurt yourself by falling into the cooking fire - or cutting yourself while knapping a new spearhead.
On a more positive note, there's this paragraph, at the end of the article:
"...According to the AGA, reported explosions have declined 28 percent from 1986 to 2004. Natural gas causes an average of about 2,000 home fires a year, according to the National Fire Protection Association."
One of the down sides to natural gas as a fuel is that it's a gas - and isn't necessarily visible if it's leaking into a room. And then there's the occasional fellow who'll go looking for a gas leak with a lighted match.
"A central London restaurant has insisted that diners sign an indemnity form before eating Christmas puddings, some of which contained silver pieces.
"Some 350 diners at High Timber signed the waiver before eating the desserts, which contained silver charms.
"It read: 'I absolve High Timber from blame should I come to harm including a chipped tooth, or any injury as a result of swallowing it.'
"Restaurant owner Neleen Strauss said it had 'created a bit of a stir'.
"She said: 'I thought it was going to be a pain but decided to do it to cover my backside....'..." A tip of the hat to irish_brigid, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this holiday legal oddity.
"A New York City teenager says she was text messaging while walking down the street — and the next second she was down a manhole.
"Alexa Longueira was walking down a Staten Island block and was getting ready to text message when she fell into an open sewer manhole, MyFOX NY reports.
"Longueira suffered mild cuts and bruises and is expected to recover.
"The teen's mother says workers told her they left the manhole open and unattended for just seconds while they went to fetch some cones from their truck...."
This shouldn't be a surprise:
"...The Longueira family says they plan on filing a lawsuit."
It's an interesting news piece from a few points of view:
As a case of
Teenage obliviousness
America's lawsuit-happy culture
The need to put cones up first
You never know when a teen will wander over the hole
The slapstick aspect of falling into a manhole
As an opportunity to pass a new set of laws to protect texting teens from manholes
My guess is that the Longueria family will get some money out of this: maybe even enough to cover what the lawyers will charge. Fact is, those traffic cones should have been up.
"Proposed congressional legislation would demand up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to 'coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.'
"Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag.
"The proposal by Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Los Angeles, would never pass First Amendment muster, unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing. So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal, are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.
"The meaasure, H.R. 1966, is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. It's designed to target the behavior that led to last year's suicide of the 13-year-old Meier....
My take on this is that H.R. 1966 could be a well-intentioned bit of legislation - and a potential threat to free speech.
I know about Megan Meier. What happened to her is very sad:
But, I think that anyone who's been even moderately active in online communities knows that there are people who are very good at being offended. As an active blogger, I don't want to face prison time because someone, among Earth's billions, (1) Read my blog; (2) Felt bad after that, and (3) Blames me.
Ridiculous? I'd like to think so, but I live in a country where this sort of warning label is fairly common:
Never mind how good H.R. 1966 may make legislators and their constituents feel: Americans live in a country where manufacturers have to warn consumers that a jar of peanuts contains peanuts: or face ruinous lawsuits.
Make it illegal to make someone feel bad, with "intent" or not, and I think there's reason for concern. Except for the hypersensitive and their lawyers, of course.
"Jessica's Law" is named after a Florida girl who was kidnapped and buried alive, with a stuffed animal, in a trash bag, by a sex offender. She died before help arrived. State after state has made "Jessica's Law" their own.
Some seem to have a harder time accepting it than others.
I can see why. "Jessica's Law" is quite harsh, by some standards. For example, it would require a 20-year sentence for the rape of a child under age 12: with no wiggle room for a compassionate judge.
Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan is doing his best to protect his constituents from what he sees as a harsh, draconian law. When he's not protecting Massachusetts citizens in the state capital, he's a defense attorney.
Here's what he's promised to do, if any of those alleged kid victims try to hurt his clients: "I'm gonna rip them apart," he said. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."
The Boston Herald's article on Massachusetts' Solons was much too proper and polite to print Representative Fagan's passionate words. Another Boston news service wasn't quite so inhibited, and aired a video of the worthy representative's statement:
(YouTube) video 1:29
The video is also available on the news service's website, with additional written content: "Outrage Over Rep. James Fagan's Comments" (myFOX Boston (June 17, 2008).
I have a great deal of respect for the efforts of those who set up America's legal system. As what happened to the Duke lacrosse team showed, it's vital to have protection for the accused in a criminal case.
On the other hand, I think that there should be serious sanctions against people who have kidnapped a little girl, raped her, and buried her alive in a trash bag. Even if she did live in a trailer.
I'm with Jessica's dad on this one. "Why doesn't he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica's Law?" Mark Lunsford fumed, slamming recent remarks by Rep. James Fagan. "These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?" ("Jessica’s Law dad blasts Mass. rep" Boston Herald (June 24, 2008))
"Blasts," "fumed:" Is it just me, or is the Boston Herald portraying Mark Lunsford as an overly-emotional fellow. It's clear that Mr. Lunsford isn't the best-educated person around, as evidenced by the grammar in his statement, "...that nobody wants to take serious."
The article quoted Fagan's pithy comment on Jessica's Law: It's "knee-jerk" legislation and said "every time the Legislature has named a law after somebody, it has been a failure."
To the Herald's credit, the article also cited some opposing views.
So far, 33 states have enacted some form of Jessica's Law. My home state of Minnesota isn't one of them, and somehow I suspect that the state of Massachusetts may not be one, either: at least, not for a long time.
I should warn you, though, that the Foundation has some rather definite views. They're pushing federal legislation that should suppress the rape and murder of children in America. I've indulged myself, by putting the main points of the proposed legislation first in the way I think it will be attacked, and then more reasonably.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. In brief this legislation will:
Invade the privacy of American citizens
Create a national public sex offender registry
Giving the public better and more uniform information about sex offenders
Letting all communities benefit from the same kind of information
Requiring states to list all, not just some, sex offenders on their web site registries
Impose draconian limits on judicial decisions
Give consistent sex offender requirements in all states
Stopping sex offenders from choosing from a diverse selection of state requirements to avoid registering
Requiring that sex offenders be registered before they are released from prison or three days after a sentence of probation (what a concept!)
Subject former sex offenders to harsh restrictions
Make failure to comply with registration duties a state and federal felony
Improving the law enforcement's ability to track sex offenders when they move
Reducing the number of "missing" sex offenders in the system
Requiring sex offenders to verify registration in person to law enforcement rather than by mail (Scary, isn't it?)
Establish a Big Brother network
Change the way law enforcement handles missing child reports
Establishing that reports must be entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center within 2 hours (Remember: this is the Information Age)
Prohibiting the removal of missing child reports when the child turns age 18 and is still missing
Criminalize free speech and expression
Make it harder to run online kiddie porn services, and reduce the amount of online child abuse
Increasing the number of Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces across the nation
I hope that state legislators will give Jessica's Law and its variants due consideration, molding it to their state's needs.
As for the federal legislation, I certainly don't want a "knee jerk" reaction: one way or the other. Each of the points should be carefully considered. There are real concerns, as well as the all-too-familiar fears, about tracking American citizens, imposing limits on individual action, and attempts to control free expression.
On the other hand, children have been raped and murdered who would be alive today, if more attention was being paid to protecting non-rapists, and a little less to maintaining the freedom of repeat offenders.More, at:
"Victim's brother files tort claim" SpokesmanReview.com (October 7, 2005) (About the infamous matter of Judge Thomas Schroeder, Joseph E. Duncan III, and dead kids)
"When I heard $67 million, I said to myself, 'Nonsense'... How could he claim this much over a pair of pants?" Remember Jin and Soo Chung? They're the mom & pop dry cleaners targeted by a judge with $67-million-dollar pants.
They're not the only people who have been hurt by a lunatic lawsuits.
"I Am Lawsuit Abuse.org is a project of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). ILR is a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone. ILR was founded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1998 to address the country's litigation explosion."
Lawsuit-happy lawyers, people willing to admit being outwitted by a coffee cup or a flaming pickle, and judges who take them seriously have created a new sport in America: loony label spotting.
My favorite of the current lot is an honorable mention: a warning label on a letter opener that says: "Caution: Safety goggles recommended."
M-LAW isn't all fun and games. They're trying to fix a whacked-out legal system that has manufacturers putting "Do not use for personal hygiene" labels on toilet brushes.When lunacy is the order of the day, it's tempting to try acting crazier than the lawyers who made "Caution: Coffee is Hot" labels necessary.
Going out on a limb, I'm going to guess that these labels haven't been used yet.
Lawnmower:
Not A Hair Care Product
For outdoor use only
Not a food processor
Bottled Water:
Not a substitute for food.
Potentially dangerous in high doses, or if inhaled.
Consultation with a licensed nutritionist is recommended before use.
Printer paper:
Caution! Paper cuts may result from improper use.
Persons with a family history of hemophilia should wear protective clothing and gloves during use.
The manufacturer is not responsible for content placed on this paper by any third party.
Printer ink cartridge:
Not for internal use.
May leave marks on paper or cloth.
Not intended for use as paperweight.
Now, my own warning label:
Don't blame me if some beleaguered company has to use one or more of these warnings.
"These are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place."
Whether you call it trafficking in persons, human trafficking, or slavery, buying and selling people isn't nice. And, in quite a few cou...
Today's News! Some of it, anyway
Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's. The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not. The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)
