Re Contributory Negligence

NC is one of only 4 states that continue to have a "contributory negligence" civil statute. That means that , if you in any way contribute to your own injuries in an accident or whatever, you can't sue the other party for damages.

Now, I don't know if that discourages injury suits from fights in which a beat up party could not maybe collect because he made an offensive remark to a "friend", but it surely does apply to auto accidents where insurance companies are always involved. It cuts down on insurance costs and of course the insurance industry has always supported this kind of thing.

There has been on exception that I know of that was written into the law: If you aren't wearing a seat belt and received injuries exclusively due to negligence on the part of another, you COULD sue. That's an interesting exception. You have to argue that you would have contributed to your injuries if you were not wearing a seat belt except in maybe some extremely rare situations. Such an exception shows just how poorly constructed is a law such as this in general. You could imagine many more such innocent contributions to injury than seat belts in which a person could not collect under the law.

NC is about to change that law. They're adding some other political tradeoffs at the same time such as requiring multiple people who have responsibility to have to bear proportional responsibility rather than to go after the most wealthy in the bunch...also a good change.

Contributory negligence laws are a good example of how money influences politics. Fair examinations of the rate of return for political contributions to politicians shows more than a 20,000% rate of return. It is legal bribery and the public has to begin to throw its weight behind demands for good government. There is a sea change about to happen, I feel sure and I'm happy to be a part of seeing it come into being.

How do you abandon a lost cause?

There is a basic concept in economics known as “sunk costs”. The term describes the reluctance of an investor to get out of an enterprise in which a large investment has been made, but which is losing money and has little prospect of recovery. An example of this would be someone who invested a few years ago in Enron, saw his investment climb, then drop like a rock as the company’s true financial picture came to light. At some point, you realize that it’s not coming back, but, since you have so much invested, it is difficult to sell and try to salvage something. Psychologicially, it is also an admission of failure and that adds to the reluctance to give it up. You are tempted to believe you made the right choice and it’s going to come back, given enough time.

The “sunk costs” concept can be applied to other investments we make that are not strictly financial. For example, the Iraq War, once it was determined that the whole idea on which it was based was a fraud, a simple and maybe a logical conclusion would be to withdraw as fast as possible to reduce further expenditures on an invalid enterprise. Such decisions aren’t really that simple.

The ability to recognize failure, admit it, then change course is difficult because pride is involved. Let me propose that we need to change course in the “war on drugs”. In this case, the purpose is noble: to reduce the use of illegal drugs. We chose a “logical” solution by locking up folks who use or sell illegal drugs. Our prisons are full of them. 60% of folks in the Federal system are there on drug-related charges. Many others are there because of a criminal enterprise they were involved in to pay for their drug habit. Examples: breaking and entering, possession of stolen goods, and passing bad checks.

Our investment has been in enforcing drug laws, investigating drug related crime, and prosecuting and locking up drug related offenders. Just how wise is this? We have a sunk cost (billions upon billions) that we’ve invested in this problem. The net result is drug use is about the same as it’s always been and our incarceration bills are out of sight.

We need to change course, but what is holding us up? Is it pride that we picked a path and it has been a total failure? Is it that we are more interested in punishing than in fixing the problem? Is it the fear that someone who is even more ignorant than you are will claim that you are being “soft on crime”?

Or, will we keep holding on to that Enron stock until it costs more to sell it than it’s worth?

Conservative are wimps

One of the interesting theories I've been thinking about lately is the pattern of wimpiness of conservative leaders. They talk tough. They act tough, but their record shows relative fright. The position of conservatives who support torture is simply disgusting to me. It is a vengeance and bullying kind of mindset. It has no regard for efficiency and is based on gut emotion, not factual information. The idea that they'd squeal under torture is all the thought they put into it....so it must be effective.

It interests me to realize that the Supreme court decision to require Guantanimo prisoners to have legal representation and be tried by a jury of their peers had a dissent from (guess who?) Antonin Scalia who said, quaking: "Allowing federal judges, rather than military officials, to release terror suspects could have disastrous consequences.

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the nation's commander in chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

This is based on simple unreasoning fear and nothing else.

Conservatives don't want Guantanimo prisoners moved to US prisons. They'll break out and harm us seems to be the "fear". Even though McVeigh and company were housed easily and successfully. What a joke. NIMBY. They're scared.

I think conservatives generally are the victims of projection. They accuse you of doing what they themselves are doing. Look at the ration of public officials who divorce (conservative vs liberal). Look at their strong objection to homosexuals and then start counting the homosexuals among them .... it's hard to do since you're out of the party pretty much once you are outed.

Look at the Focus on the Family and the Fallwell group's list of miscreants. Susan Smith's dad was head of Fallwells group in SC, yet it was determined he sexually molested Susan when she was a teen. (I swear I didn't see him prosecuted for this).

I am wondering if there simply isn't a serious character flaw in the right wing mindset? Are they hard right conservatives because of their messed up set of genes? It's beginning to seem so.

Great Campaign for America's Future Convention

Had a great visit to DC to attend this convention early this week.  Emphasis was on support for Obama and pushing him to go further than he might normally do given political considerations. This is a unique opportunity in this country to establish a progressive approach to governing. We must not let it slip away.

The emphasis was on universal health care with a public insurance component.  Single payer is preferred, but being able to counter the push and money of vested interests who will try to derail this ship is what this convention is about.  Grass roots is why it will work.

The other incentives emphasized by attendees:

Employee Free Choice Act passage

Green jobs to push for energy independence

Attack the problem of global warming and environmental issues

Do more to change the influence of credit card companies, banks, etc.  Example: Cap on interest

Reform the justice system especially in regard to drug penalties.

Push for public financing of political campaigns

It was nirvana to talk to and listen to great ideas like this.  What a  great experience.