I say this with my oldest daughter 5 months away from graduating from Law School too.
I have been working in my town of helping people “clean out” their homes as part of a larger effort on PAYT and Recycling. We have spoken to many types of venders who will accept old appliance, scrap metal… and recently spoke to The Salvation Army concerning old baby furniture, car seats…. Sally’s does not accept these things because of deluge of lawsuits from people who have been injured and are citing the used furniture/car seats from Sally’s. Sally’s needs to hire attorneys now to defend them from these large suits. I asked about children’s toys or clothing and they said they can’t take them because the toys may be from China and lead paint is a problem. Also, some clothing has applique which may also have lead paint so due to concerns about LAWSUITS, they will not accept these items. Not only do the donors lose out but how many children and families will go without these items due to the concern from LAWSUITS.
We also contacted a company about having a “shredder” day where town residents could come in and shred large volumes of personal papers. The Town will not participate because their attorney is concerned about personal papers being left for shredding and finding their way out of the building and being used by some leeches (ID theft…) and the town would be liable in a LAWSUIT.
Lastly, I belong to the Town Energy Committee and we were working on a program to help the elderly by checking their weatherstripping, CFL bulbs… and the town contemplated the risk of committee members going into these people homes and maybe requiring CORI checks on people… and nixed the program.
Something needs to be done to remove the “threat of a lawsuit” from so many well intentioned efforts. I don’t know the answer so I guess I am just ranting a little since I know the Lawyers are just doing their jobs but it just stinks!!!!
You’re right–the lawyers are just doing their job! Unless you want to eliminate liability for lead poisoning or negligence, I’m not sure what you’re really worried about.
<
p>Who bears the risk of the lawsuit? Right now it’s the town and the Salvation Army, or rather, their insurers. If you’d like to encourage them to take the risk they’re not willing to take now, why don’t you just indemnify them–promise to hire them lawyers and pay any damages if they get sued? That would solve the problem!
<
p>TedF
Babies will go with less clothing, less car seat protection, less high chairs, less cribs… because people like you want to make a point. And I’m sure you have no problem sleeping at night. You have not helped anyone today TedF, NOBODY is feeling better because of your attitude. Change the laws.
<
p>It is too bad some lawyers give the vast majority of lawyers such bad reputations.
The kibosh should be put on not because of the lawsuits, but because the good they are trying to do could lead to harm.
<
p>Rather than pay higher premiums or take on lawsuits, why not invest some money into ensuring toys or clothes aren’t dangerous? Why not have volunteers submit to CORI checks if they’re going into someone’s house? NOBODY recommends putting your child in a used car seat. And it sounds like a smart attorney that warned the town against people bringing large volumes of documents with personal information to be shredded.
<
p>In fact, it sounds like you’ve got a crew of lawyers doing a good job to protect the interests of these organizations.
<
p>How do you know TedF hasn’t done anything to help anyone today? Seems to me he’s helping you work out your anger over this issue…without worrying about you filing some sort of lawsuit about practicing therapy without a license!
If the trunk is full of asbestos, that would be really great. If there was a set of Jarts in it, that would be even better.
on the Jarts reference. Wow. I used to play with those things as a kid, too. Well done!
The taking of jarts off the market was the first time I realized as a child that government over-reaches. My parents still own Jarts and we still play with them. They are awesome.
It’s all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. With a Jart. Or gets a Jart through the brain. When lots of kids start getting seriously injured or killed by the same product, common sense dictates that the product is inherently unsafe for children, and it is not just an instance of a sudden onset of stupidity.
<
p>Concern over Jarts and other lawn darts started in 1970. From what I understand, the product was banned by the FDA that year, but a lawsuit by manufacturers resulted in a compromise to take the darts out of toy stores and instead sell as a “sporting good”. Do you know what the president of the Jarts company (Robert Barnett of R.H. Jaris, Inc.) said when all the injuries started popping up?
<
p>
<
p>Sure. Jarts are just like a family boat. Everyone here raise your hand if your family only allowed the adults to use Jarts.
<
p>In 1987, 7-year old Michelle Snow was struck in the head with an errant lawn dart while she played with her dolls on the front yard of her house. She died three days later. Her father was the person who led the charge to get them banned. True, she was just the third reported death from lawn darts, though a newspaper columnist wrote these words:
<
p>
<
p>Guess who the columnist was. If you guessed conservative George Will, you’d be right. The column appeared May 8, 1988. He was in favor of the ban,
<
p>I think the problem with the lawn darts is that it was usually not the person acting foolishly that was injured. It was usually an innocent bystander, some kid playing in a sandbox nearby. Sure, skateboards probably cause more injuries than lawn darts, but you can point your finger at the injured and say “I told you so”. Not so when your kid gets a Jart in the skull thrown by the neighbor’s kid — as over 3,000 children under age 10 had happen to them in 8 years.
…is small potatoes compared the governmental over-reach that was the invasion of Iraq. Ya gotta admit. I mean if we’re going to rage against governmental over-reaches, lets concentrate on the big ones.
It’s also a weapon. When I was a kid, I wanted an assegai, but none of the toy makers ever offered one.
<
p>I really wanted to find the Calvin and Hobbes that went like this:
<
p>CALVIN: Hey Dad, will you buy me a flame thrower?
DAD: Of course not. Don’t be silly.
CALVIN: Even if I didn’t use it in the house?
Calvin: Where do we keep all our chainsaws, Mom?
Mom: We don’t have any chainsaws, Calvin.
Calvin: We don’t? Not any?
Mom: Nope.
Calvin: How am I ever going to learn how to juggle?
It tasted great; well worth dying of cancer. Damn lawyers.
Of course I’m to blame! I mean, what kind of world are we living in where people think its okay to sue someone who gives a child a toy that can cause “irreversible neurological damage as well as renal disease, cardiovascular effects, and reproductive toxicity, or that it’s okay to sue someone who carelessly leaves another person’s personal information lying around to be taken by identity thieves. This is America, gosh darn it!
<
p>TedF
Too bad some will go without because your acceptance of the status quo. Most people buy a car seat and it works marvelously, then they use it for child #2 with no problems and then they try to donate it to charity but suddenly it has become unsafe. In your remark “NOBODY recommends putting your child in a used car seat.”… did you think of how many people “hand down” their car seat to their next child? Is that “NOBODY”? Used does not mean obsolete since a car seat from 2008 is completely safe. Noternie, TedF, Kirth and KBusch should be remembered when you see a car going down the street in Worcester with no car seats and kids bouncing around. Thanks for doing NOTHING.
<
p>Luckily the world has a lot of doers who help people vs. the naysayers who sit on their arses and say we can’t. You have won some for sure but realize people in need suffer, not me. My wife found a place in Worcester which helps low income families who will take the car seats, the furniture and children’s clothing/toys. Luckily there are some people (none of you) who care.
Who manufactured and sold poisoned furniture to people in the first place? Who manufactured the poison paint? Who sells the flamable clothing, exploding computer batteries and lethal toys? Who imported all of this crap? Love WalMart and hate lawyers? You have it all wrong.
<
p>John, you should realize that lead paint isn’t good for your kids or my kids and that putting it in cribs where children can gnaw on it is bad. Lawyers keep us free and try to keep us safe as well. Had the poisonous furniture and flamable clothing had not been sold in the first place there would be no need of intervention by the tort bar.
<
p>BTW we should not be dumping our expired medications in Africa either. They need medications of all types but our shipping poisonous or degraded medications over there is wrong. I am sure that you do not oppose the sale or donation of dangerous materials to foreign children since you seem to support the sale and donation of such items to American children. I don’t understand you at all.
Except, I suppose, those who are working for the other side (tobacco companies, Vioxx, the manufacturer of Bag ‘o’ Glass, etc.) Not all lawyers are selfless altruists.
a town too small for one attorney is the perfect size for two, but, that doesn’t make my statement false, lawyers do keep us free and try to protect us harm.
His interests are pure at heart. Money means nothing to him compared to keeping Americans safe. The epitome of an “ambulance chaser”.
<
p>Lawyers work for a living plain and simple. They are not on a mission from God, they are not holy men in three piece suits… they work for hundreds of dollars per hour.
<
p>Now is the point where someone chimes in with “… if your child was injured due to a product design defect, you’d be rejoicing over having a good lawyer…”
If my child was injured, I wouldn’t be rejoicing about anything, much less having a lawyer. Maybe things are different in the JohnD household.
Why are you trying to paint “me” as a villian? I don’t make toys with lead paint…
<
p>And yes I do believe lawyers froth at the mouth over potential lawsuits on personal injury and yes I do believe that families who have sustained a horrible accident or injury will “rejoice” over getting a lawyer who will “get you the money you deserve..”
<
p>Here are some “Victories” where the BOLD LETTERS amplify how much MONEY they will get you.
Labor unions and tort lawyers stem from the same “anything goes” form of capitalism that has made America the economic giant that it is. While you may not like what labor unions and tort lawyers do, their existence is directly related to the actions of corporations. Had corporations not used child labor, (the typical child had a life expectancy of 7 years once he started in a mill) there would have been no need for child labor laws or lawyers who seek to make a living bringing that kind of suit. Had corporations treated its employees fairly in the olden days they would not have had the need to organize (you know, workers compensation, overtime, 40 hour week etc.). You blame the lawyers because corporations engaged in American commerce have manufactured, imported or sold defective goods to the American public. Lawyers are just cleaning up the messes made by others. It happens every day. You have a problem and some lawyer makes it his because you need their help. Your hatred of lawyers is akin to a sick man hating on doctors. It makes no sense.
The anything goes form of capitalism DID make America the giant it is. If we had these lawyers back then we would NOT have been the leader we became and probably would have allowed Japan and Germany to win WWII. Don’t laugh.
<
p>Your justification for lawyers and unions back when my Father was a young boy is also a wonderful story but loses relevance in today’s world. We now have laws to protect children, workers, spotted turtles and mating plovers during mating season. Shit happens everyday and lawyers try to assign blame (with financial awards) whenever it happens. If a meteor hit he earth and injured anyone they would be looking for financial awards from God… if they believe in one).
<
p>My disgust at lawyers is NOT like a sick man hating a doctor. My hatred at lawyers is often due to them making people pay for things who are not directly related tot he damages. I like PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and lawyers assuage people of it. If I get drunk and crash my car into a house killing someone… IT IS MY FAULT… PERIOD!!! Lawyers go chase the bartender, the bar, the car manufacturer, the town for having a raised sewer cover, the home owner for building his house too close to the street and anybody else they can find to blame because I GOT DRUNK and crashed into a house. When a company build a product which is safe, and can be proven to be negligent by ignoring safety warnings and then someone gets hurt then I agree with financial awards (although they should be reasonable and not excessive such as hundreds of millions of dollars).
I’d like you to show me a case where lawyers chased after a city for having a raised sewer cover in the case of a drunk driving accident. I seriously doubt that has ever happened. I also doubt that lawyers have gone after car manufacturers in drunk driving cases. If you really believe this to be true, then you need to educate yourself — and if you can find proof that it is true, you need to educate me rather than just claim it is true.
<
p>I do know that lawyers go after the bar — and why shouldn’t they? Who is more equipped to determine if someone can be served another beer (since it is against the law to serve a drunk person) — a trained sober bartender or a drunk individual? If they did not go after the bars, then bars would have no reason to serve as much alcohol as possible to every patron through the door. They are businesses, they have no morals nor are they expected to. They only know profit/loss, and unless they are threatened with a big loss for acting badly, they will not change their behavior.
for which municipalities have very limited liability and for which damages are capped at $5,000.
Steve Martin invents an eyeglass holder and rakes in millions, it was the new pet rock. A few weeks later everyone who used his product developed crossed eyes and the jerk lost everything.
Although I recall one of the first threads you and I had a back-and-forth on you came out very much in favor of CORI checks even to the point of denying employment. Standards do evolve too, although sometimes I do feel like saying if it were safe when I used it what’s the problem now. Just because there’s a threat of a lawsuit doesn’t mean it has to prevail.
What he seems to be saying is this: I want to be able to “donate” potentially dangerous items to places like Sally’s and have them distributed to financially distressed individuals because it makes me feel good. The fact, of course, that these items may be defective, toxic, or dangerous doesn’t really matter. Beggars can’t be choosers.
<
p>The people whose stock and trade is charity–like the Salvation Army–are well aware of reasonable risk when it comes to meeting the needs of a particular group of people. To their credit, they have decided, rather responsibly, against taking the sort of items noted in this post.
It’s just that I can understand the frustration that some might have with evolving standards. An example from my own life is the crib I used as a baby (~30 years go). The bars on it are too far apart by modern standards because of concern that a baby might put his head between them and get stuck, but it was fine for me to use it and I did without incident.
<
p>It was fine for you so long as you didn’t stick your head through the bars. Unfortunately, many babies did and the outcomes were tragic. Instead of being frustrated by the “evolving standard,” perhaps you might feel both lucky and grateful that you are not one of the unfortunate ones who fueled redesign so that future children would be safe? I suspect many families would rather have their babies back or their children whole than have the distinction of such a legacy. As well, I don’t imagine you’d feel all that comfortable in expressing your frustration that the crib was “fine” for you to a family who lost a baby in that same crib model.
I was just trying to provide some insight into the thought processes of others. Medicine is another category in which this works. A few years ago much of the cough/cold medicine was reformulated because an ingredient common to such medicines was found to be hazardous. We happened to have a supply of a particular cold medicine in the house when this news came out and my mother thought we should throw away what we had. I convinced her otherwise saying that while I’m glad this was caught and hope that medicine from now on was made minus the offending ingredient, the particular supply we had been using without trouble wasn’t going to go from just fine one day to a death sentence the next because a study said so. I agree with you more than I’m probably coming across here, just offering a slightly different perspective.
…okay. Lawyers love you anyway.
I believe Lucifer was pro-se.
….someone needs a hug.
I was also worried about personal liability in my civic office and my personal life. Got a million $ umbrella policy of liability insurance. Now I can sleep at night
I’ve thought about posting on this before. I understand there was some law that passed quite recently that made retailers responsible if lead-tainted items are sold from their store. I believe this was in response to the recent scare of lead-tainted items coming out of China about a year or two ago.
<
p>The result of this law is that most of the charity shops, church rummage sales, and other vendors of used baby items in our area on Cape Cod have stopped distributing all baby items altogether for fear of a lawsuit. JohnD’s point is quite valid, and timely. What was a truly thriving market for recycling children’s items, including clothes that have no metal on them, has been disrupted if not extinguished.
<
p>Sure there was some small fraction of old (and new) stuff that might have lead. One remaining used baby store retailer around here says that these other charity organizations are overreacting, and that its possible to use a quick pen-like test to check if needed. If we had to buy all new stuff for our baby, we’d be out a serious amount of dough. We did a lot of shopping in charity shops out of state recently to stock up on kids clothes.
<
p>I think Bob should change his negative headline comment, this is a real Massachusetts issue. This is an example of a law having unintended consequences that is really hurting the pocketbooks of young families, who we all know have a hard enough time in this state.
However, there have been some horrible deaths from flammable clothing [so flammable a cigarette leads to horrible burns when the child’s clothing bursts into flame].
<
p>I think clothing manufactured in the USA, from cloth manufactured in the USA should be exempted.
<
p>I also think toys manufactured in the USA from materials manufactured in the USA should be exempted.
<
p>The majority – vast majority – of the poisonous, dangerous items actually came from China.
<
p>But then – disclosure – two of my cats were poisoned and died because of the melamine contamination in catfood including Chinese “glutens” which were artificially enhanced with the poisonous melamine. So I am on a personal “no Chinese fabric, food, etc.” crusade. Lack of regulation leading to cheap, dangerous, toxic exports – TO THE USA.
<
p>Wonderful.
if the tag clearly states where the country is clearly marked. For toys, often the “Made in __” has been rubbed off. Plus, I’m not sure if “Made in the USA” has to be stamped.
<
p>So, if you’ve got a piece of clothing or a toy, and it says “Made in (not USA)” you can’t redistribute it. If it says “Made in USA” you can. If you can’t find the label, you can’t redistribute it because you don’t know if it was made in the USA or not.
<
p>Trouble is, if nothing is marked “Made in USA” you’ve got to trash all of it, because you don’t know what was made in the USA and unlabeled, and what was made elsewhere but the label rubbed off or was cut or whatever.
Amberpaw – I’m very sorry to hear about your cats, that is tragic.
<
p>It is true that safety and environmental impacts on imports can be seriously lacking. But it also seems like so many manufactured goods are coming from abroad. It’s difficult to find clothes not made in China, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, and so on; buying only US clothes is actually very difficult. This is true for so many goods now.
<
p>Banning the sale of all used childrens products in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is how these charities are interpreting the law, is not the solution to the trade imbalance or the lack of environmental and safety regulation abroad.
<
p>I remember a year ago going to a swap at a church completely packed with parents and their kids. Around here, this is how many parents get (or used to get) their kids stuff. The costs of living are expensive on Cape Cod and many parents are eco-conscious and amenable to recycling kids stuff.
<
p>If our state legislators did not intend this draconian interpretation of the law that is causing charities to choose to stop collecting and selling any childrens items (even paper books last I checked), they should step in and have the health departments educate the charities on how to sell children’s items safely.
…if we just stopped importing from China!
I would have chosen a more useful title than picking a fight with all lawyers if I had written this post (e.g. “New Law Hurts Young Families”, instead of “I hate Lawyers”).
When it comes to any criticism of Obama’s, the House’s or the Senate’s Healthcare reform the response it “SO you’re happy with the status quo… you like having 45 million people uninsured…” And now because of my criticism of lawyers scaring the bejesus out of charitable organizations concerning children’s items… I therefore WANT kids to eat lead paint. What a bunch of donkeys.
<
p>Why do you have to take such an extreme view of things? Can’t people not like a detail of something YOU happen to support without being labeled “Draconian”? Can’t I object to so many “needy” people being denied help from charitable people who want to pass on perfectly good item which they no longer need without being labeled careless?
<
p>Thanks to Mak for having the guts to say something in support. I have been shopping at Sally’s (and dropping off at Sally’s) for years. I still use a chair from Sally’s which I bought 10 years ago. If your child is using a car seat today and you decide tomorrow that he/she is big enough to not need it anymore, why is it suddenly “unsafe”? There is a big difference between someone at Salvation Army “sorting” old from new car seats from Jarts (I loved Jarts), asbestos, Iraq, Vioxx, and expired prescription drugs… Wonderful but irrelevant. I am NOT advocating the release of these and so man other “mistakes” to the general public. I am advocating reusing items which are deemed safe and sometimes there needs to be a little pragmatism.
<
p>I don’t want this to go off on a tangent but maybe the example of “expired” drugs in Africa is open for debate. If there was a disease ravaging a country in Africa and the only drugs we had to treat it were “expired”, how do you think the “sick” people would chose? How would their government chose? How would the regular “guy on the street” chose? However, what would the pharmaceutical company owning the “expired drugs” say… “Sorry, we cannot ship this life saving drug to Africa because of the threat of lawsuit for delivery a product that could cause harm to a “miniscule” percent of the sick/dying victims. Please direct all your questions to our attorneys “Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe”.
<
p>I don’t want lead paint given to children and please don’t accuse me of such lunacy. Remember, I am almost alone in this discussion in caring enough about people to help needy people get used items. The charitable organizations bear some of the blame for this as they could do a better job of sorting items and taking risks however it appears their lawyers (and maybe their executives) are scared shitless about large lawsuits from Socolove and company.
You want a productive discussion. So let me ask you: what are you proposing? Should the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which President Bush approved a year or so ago, be repealed? Should the CPSC’s guidance for retailers be changed in some way? What, exactly, are you suggesting? Or are you just venting in a general sort of way?
<
p>TedF
not only at NOT being able to help people but for many of you jumping on the “this is a stupid comment” wagon simply because JohnD said it. There were NO pragmatic suggestions or solutions, just “Do you want babies eating asbestos hamburgers for breakfast while they get their head wedged in a crib…” comments.
<
p>Indemnify the charities with a “limited liability” which might make them take the risk of sorting good/bad items (toys, clothing, furniture, car seats, strollers/carriages…). Instead of shutting them down, let them take a measured risk and let them do their jobs of “helping people in need”.
<
p>And thanks for being reasonable. Sorry if I called you a jerk or anything and I promise to throw away the Voodoo doll I made with your name on it.
“The charitable organizations bear some of the blame for this as they could do a better job of sorting items and taking risks however it appears their lawyers (and maybe their executives) are scared shitless about large lawsuits from Socolove and company.”
<
p>This was my point. If they cared to, they could take the necessary steps to eliminate good from bad, then throw out the bad. And before you jump all over the lawyers warning them against this or that, consider that it may be the insurance company telling them the risk is so great their premiums are going up. Perhaps if their procedures were improved, their premiums would be more reasonable.
<
p>My real problem with your tone in this entire discussion is illustrated in this statement: “I am almost alone in this discussion in caring enough about people to help needy people get used items.”
<
p>You simply don’t know this to be true. Speaking for myself only, I can unequivocally state that you could not be more wrong. I have gone well out of my way to donate new and used items to children in need and to encourage others to do the same.
<
p>While I appreciate your passion and frustrations with limits that organizations have set ON THEMSELVES to protect their financial standing (in your view) or the children they serve (in my view), I think your tone and chest beating is off putting and a very poor example of charity, especially in regards to children.
<
p>By the way, some thought Jan Schlichtmann was a Sokolove.
my bark is far greater than my bite. There are many issues on this blog which bore me to tears and almost hurt to read. You can tell by the fact that they will have ZERO or very few comments (nor should they). I like to spice it up a little and start with a punch in the nose to get people’s attention. Sometimes I also go to the extreme view but with a pragmatic real world flavor. If I piss you off and you reply from your soul then I have accomplished my goal. If you give me one of those measured boring answers I might call you a coward. Race is a great example of people replying in a way they “believe” they should reply. Even regarding this discussion about Sallys/LAWSUITS… I am trying to help people not hurt them and I get esoteric responses (words)… but no ACTIONS.
<
p>In the past I have asked people the litmus test question of “Do you care about starving kids in Africa… Why of course I do… What have you actually “done” about it… Nothing, I guess… THEN YOU DON’T CARE!!!!!”
<
p>Many here talk a good game and I would hate to physically debate them since in all honesty I can’t compete… but there is a sense of phoniness when I hear such beguilingly answers. Let my “one and chest beating” get your attention to this diary and then answer from your soul with your truth. That’s what I do and I take a beating for it but at least I get to talk about emotional issues like racism, poor people, criminals, raising kids… from a “real” level. And to be slightly narcissistic, I think my views on issues more closely mimic the general public’s than many bloggers here. I am not implying this makes me correct on the issue but it does provide a good sounding board to the throngs here who are cut from the same cloth (albeit different ends/corners but still the same cloth).
You’ve got an awfully high opinion of yourself. Not only saving the poor children more than anyone here, but also saving this blog itself from boredom inflicted by the blogs own bloggers.
<
p>If your style is so engaging and your views so much closer aligned with the general public, I’d think a blog of your own might be quite a draw. Not to suggest you should give up your efforts to save us, who apparently are unaware of and inaccessible to the opinions of what we must considered the dirty masses. Just to give you a broader platform. Why be kept down by “the man?”
But we are in a time of need for people to be saved from themselves. Smokers can’t make their own decisions so we will tax them to death till they stop smoking. No, you need me noternie and I will be here for you.
<
p>I don’t wear a cape but I do have a house down there. Getting these poor children food and clothing and Jarts toys is all in a days work. Us good guys will continue the fight until we can regroup and take back the Oval office. We will fight the fight and help you BMGers busy until you regain minority status.
<
p>I’ve thought about a blog of my own (Someday I Will), got any suggestions for a name?
abandonhopeallyewhoenterhere dot com
<
p>?
…to help me practice patience in dealing with foolish, obnoxious behavior.
<
p>…to remind me that everyone looks at things differently, but not necessarily logically.
<
p>…to show me that there are many different tactics available to grab attention, make a case and inspire action, but some of them are not effective at all.
<
p>…to make me reflect on times when I only wanted to shout about, rather than discuss something.
<
p>You should start a blog of your own, JohnD. And every once in a while, have a lawyer review it so you don’t get sued for libel. They’re pretty damned liberal, those free speech protections, but they are not absolute. (Probably because they were written by lawyers!)
<
p>But I guess since you haven’t done it THEN YOU DON’T CARE.
I realize you may not be the brightest bulb on the tree but the world will always need people who can work with their hands or the fast food industry. I hope someday, when you grow up, you’ll understand the concept of working for what you have instead of the current Obama/Democratic credo of “if you’re too stupid or lazy to succeed, we’ll send a government check/rebate to you”.
<
p>I also appreciate that you are trying to comprehend that there are differing opinions out here and because they differ from you, they are NOT necessarily wrong. That stubbornness will also disappear with maturity.
<
p>When you finally “stable” that high horse of yours, we look forward to seeing you at the food kitchens (they have food for people who need food), the elderly centers and the State Republican Part meeting (currently held at a very small restaurant). As for the liability issue with charities, many needy will suffer because of you and I hope you are happy. Genuine Liberals of the past will weep. I did find a place in Worcester where people will now get children’s items and we are going to help them advertise it. Thanks to all who helped (NONE HERE).
<
p>I may start a blog (How does “JohnD’s USA” sound?) and if I do I’ll send you a candy-gram with the URL. I looked at your blog and never realized how low the bar was. I’ll have a lawyer AND I’ll have a very competent IT person. That way I’ll capture any controversial LEFTY comments IP and send them to your place of employment to see if they really want to employ people with such “extreme” views (now that it’s ok to fire people for their personal views which WON’T happen in my REAL USA).
<
p>Until then, I’m going to send out a few more emails to Congressmen in states/districts who are on the edge on Healthcare reform (masquerading as one of their constituents), go out to play some golf and then take the clan out to dinner. I’m heading down the cape tomorrow for a long weekend so could you cut my grass while I’m gone? Do a good job and I’ll drop another $20 in your hat.
oooooo
I’m dumb
I’m not a professional
I’m not “grown up”
I don’t understand the concept of working for what I have
I’m stubborn
I’m immature
I have a bad blog
I cut other people’s lawns for money
<
p>Have fun down the Cape. I’ll try not to ruin your time if we bump into each other.
Didn’t you downrate my DFTT above?
He’s insulted me so I shouldn’t have engaged in a debate with him on an issue?
<
p>He’s crass so I should avoid him?
<
p>If I wanted pleasant conversation that always led to consensus, I’d sit at home in a roomful of mirrors. I admire his commitment to a very worthy issue. We just disagree on where the potholes are and how to fill them. (also he doesn’t think that much of me as a human being)
<
p>So it wasn’t the most productive conversation ever, this thread. Was there really any harm done me? Do you think my psyche is as frail as JohnD does?
<
p>If I’m willing to put up with the bother, why shouldn’t I?
What kind of opponent do you want? How do you encourage him or her to show up?
and his opinions may in fact be very similar to those of roughly 49% of the population (+/- 2%)
Attempting to influence those views is indeed a heroic endeavor, though perhaps a bit Sisyphean.
…doesn’t mean I’m ready for a club. i haven’t even started reading the book on chess i got from Twice Upon a Time in Middleboro.
<
p>Seriously, it’s an open site. I don’t see where it harms anyone if JohnD and I want to engage each other in a debate that doesn’t benefit anyone else. Everyone is free to continue ignoring our back and forth as they have him individually, if that’s the way they like it.
<
p>Anyway, by the time it got really snippy at the bottom I doubt many people were still following. If we’re chewing up too much space on BMG and they’re going to have to institute a talking weirdos inane windbag tax (twit), I’ll reconsider my behavior.
<
p>As to Farnkoff’s point below, I agree with the first part. On the second, on some occasions the goal is not victory, for nothing is at stake. The goal is practice or fun. (and helping someone work out some anger)
<
p>The biggest thing I’ve learned in is that JohnD is not easily discouraged, even by lack of success.
<
p>I do wish he would’ve actually publicized the organization in Worcester he found that accepts and distributes used children’s items, though. Then some folks actually could help out his cause, which I still say is worthy.
We have a tragedy of the commons problem here.
<
p>You’re right that discouraging is not easy but it takes a collective effort.
<
p>e4
Burt, on your last point (just about the only salient one)… I am going to ask the place in Worcester if they are ok with me doing this before I publish. My concern is (believe it or not) that they will get a call from a Lawyer (the actual “point” of this diary that went astray). If they are wit it then I absolutely will publish their name for everyone.
I do get a little “testy” here and one reason is I can be frustrated on a subject and another reason is you’ll notice people (you included) engage in their own snitty little remarks and I respond (sometimes snarky).
<
p>KBusch and I tried to debate some issues in the past. KBusch verbally flicked my nose and I replied with a punch (verbally). We disagree almost completely across the board on every subject and can’t discuss things anymore. KBusch went too far though and tried on numerous occasions (unsuccessfully) to “silence” me by shutting off my account.
<
p>AS you say, what fun is it to discuss many of these controversial issues with a bunch of mirrors saying the same things back. I have actually learned quite a bit about things by listening to many bloggers here (KBusch and others). I’ve said on many occasions that I was wrong and feel more “enlightened” by virtue of blogging here.
<
p>That said, I think you were wrong about lawyers. However, I do believe, after reading comments here that a “limited liability” clause would be a workable solution vs me simply “hating all lawyers”.
<
p>Thanks and see you on the next “thang”.
It sounds like you want to cap damages that could be awarded against someone who gives a toy with harmful levels of lead to a child. Do I have that right?
<
p>That’s a perfectly respectable, though wrong, approach. By capping damages, you are, in effect, saying that in the case of a serious injury, you prefer to place the cost on the child who gets lead poisoning rather than on the business or charity or manufacturer from which the child got the toy. Presumably you think this makes sense because you want to encourage businesses or charities to distribute toys to children and you want to lower the cost to them in order to encourage greater supply, and maybe because you think that it is better and more efficient to let people obtain first-party insurance (health insurance, in this case) against these kinds of risk than to put the risk on liability insurers.
<
p>I think that kind of argument makes sense in some contexts, e.g., damages against vaccine manufacturers should be capped because of the overriding social imperative to vaccinate everyone, and because the government has set up a compensation program for victims of harmful vaccines. But I don’t see that the argument makes any sense when we’re talking about providing children with toys containing harmful levels of lead. What’s the social value in that? And besides, needy kids who get toys from charities are probably among the least likely to have health insurance, and even if they did, health insurance covers only the cost of health care, not diminished earning capacity and other economic injury that can result from lead poisoning.
<
p>So I don’t think what you are suggesting makes much sense.
<
p>TedF
I am not advocating ANY indemnification for business OR manufacturing companies who violate our LAWS and use lead paint… nor did I ever imply that. I would love to see massive fines which could fund indemnification programs for charities). Any legal actions from the lawyers (who no doubt would sue for only noble causes) could still go after a Chinese manufacturer, an American importer or any other “for profit” corporation who willfully breaks the law.
<
p>I am suggesting the charitable organization (and their Insurance Company) be indemnified with a cap. Please tell me what “good” comes from getting money from a charitable organization which is trying to help thousands of people? Or put more sensibly, does it make sense to award $3 million to a child injured by lead paint from a donated toy slipping through the quality control of Salvation Army OR letting Sally’s spend $3 million on food kitchens, flood victims and domestic abuse programs? You may call that a straw-man and dismiss it but that is exactly what occurs.
<
p>We can disagree on this and I’m sure we will but I believe my solutions helps far more people than your answer and BTW, your solution is in place now and thousands of people (mainly very needy people) are suffering but James Socolove is doing just fine.
It’s clear that you know that the Salvation Army has insurance (or at least that you assume it does–I assume it does, too). So you know that the Salvation Army will not actually be paying out $3 million in the hypothetical case you raise. And you may or may not know that the Salvation Army would not have strict liability (i.e., liability without fault), but rather, that the plaintiff would have to prove that it knew or should have known that the product was poisonous. But in any case, given that the Salvation Army is insured, why is the damage cap important? Are you really this worked up about the S.A.’s insurance premiums, which is what is really at stake as far as the Salvation Army’s pocketbook is concerned?
<
p>TedF
have chosen to NOT accept ANY items for children because of this. I personally spoke to the manager at the Worcester Salvation Army on Friday and he told me “We will take no baby items due to the amount of LAWSUITS we are defending ourselves against right now”. What are the mechanics inside of SA regarding liability, insurance… I don’t know and I doubt that this manager knows either. All he knows (and now I/you know) is they won’t and don’t take the items and consequently will not have these items for needy Worcester families (which tere are oodles and oodles of). Bottom line is people are suffering due to lawyers suing (due to children getting hurt… due to illegal/dangerous items being bought/donated…
<
p>Look, we found a small place in Worcester which WILL take ANY baby item so this problem is somewhat solved for me. I am in the process of tellig people where they can donate baby items, where needy people can GET used babay items for very low prices and where other charitable organizations can donate baby items they end up with.
<
p>But… I feel like this solution is yet a “finger in the dyke” concerning the larger problem since big name organizations like Salvation Army attract most needy people instead of this small shop in Worcester.
<
p>To go back to my litmus test… nothing got done here (no actions) ergo NOBODY CARES!!!