To Greg London:
Well, first, I don't know that I ever advocated "scrapping the system." I presented reasons why tort _reform_ ("reform" being construed in its perfectly innocent dictionary definition, not as a code word for Nefarious Actions by Big Corporations) resonates among lots of people. I would like to believe that it's just a matter of consistently enforcing extant procedural rules, but I must admit to some skepticism there.
As for my "subjective opinion"--well, all I can say is that it's widely shared. In the case of the Black Rock spring, for example, the area is widely known, and popular sentiment was decidedly negative toward the individuals involved. I believe, also, that there are legal standards for "rational behavior", depending on the level of knowledge that should have been possessed by the individuals involved, and that's what seems to be missing here--particularly in the light of the additional information pericat tracked down. For example, I _know_ there are different standards for chemical reagents, which I believe goes back to their not being "consumer products." Any reagent bottle will have boilerplate that it's only to be used by competent personnel and to refer to the MSDS (Materials Safety Data Sheet) for details. If I poison myself in my lab at the university, it _is_ my responsibility, because I'm supposed to be a competent professional. Conversely, if Joe Blow gets hold of a reagent and poisons himself, the boilerplate is supposed to protect the reagent company because the label _says_ that the compound's only to be used by trained personnel.
As for "jury trials"--again, I don't believe I ever said to scrap them. To get back to the issues with small businesses, though, often settlements are made out of court simply because the business can't afford to do otherwise. It never even _gets_ to a jury, and if it does there's no guarantee that you won't still have to pay all the legal costs even if you win. So yes, that _is_ a problem. I don't know how to solve it--but problems have first to be recognized before solutions can be contemplated. Someone upthread said that in Britain the loser _does_ pay the legal costs, which seems sensible to me.
And as for quantifying all this--I think that's a great idea. Didn't Heinlein once quip that analysis without numbers is just opinion? I'm sure that small business organizations, AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Assn), AAHA (American Animal Hospital Assn), and many others have lots of data on legal costs to their members. I suppose, however, that one could accuse such organizations of being biased sources.
Thanks much to pericat for refreshing me with the details on the story. I did remember that it was the _dogs_ that jumped in first, but I--perhaps incorrectly--didn't see that as germane (trying to keep posting length down, after all). When I was there with my dog--in fact, in general when I'm in any area containing potential hazards with my dog (cliffs, mine shafts, etc.)--he's not running around. So, yes, the pets being boiled alive would perhaps trump clear thinking--but the pets shouldn't have been running around in the first place.
I did remember that the second person in the hospital died later.
And apparently the real version is even worse than I remembered. I did _not_ remember that the BLM actually paid out our tax dollars. So perhaps we can chalk this one up as a junk lawsuit that _worked_, huh?
I've been to the pool in question. (It's one of the Double Hot Springs, btw.) Several times (even camped there once). It does not look like an inviting body of water--it looks scary as hell, in fact. The water is so hot that there's not even thermophilic algae in it, and it's covered (along whichever edge toward which the wind is blowing) with dead moths that had blundered into the steam. To my knowledge there'd never been a sign, moreover, saying "scalding water" or some such, at least since 1996 when I first went there.
It's true that the hot springs in the back country are the targets of aficionados. But--good grief!--those are the sorts of people who should be _especially_ cognizant of the potential hazards. Just like my kicking around in the backcountry--I _should_ be a person who knows the risks and knows what he's doing. So again it's even worse than I remembered.
By the way, re fences and such: this is _wild_ country; in fact, it now lies on the edge of a defined wilderness area! I still don't think that the BLM, or anyone else, has an obligation to (in effect) turn the back country into a theme park, complete with warning signs and such.
Kimberley: I'm all for "consistent enforcement of procedural rules" if that will help fix things. How does that happen?
Um-- a "corporate entity" is an organization. Suing the government because you hurt yourself on public land is trying to offload your responsibility onto a corporate entity--what a lawyer friend of mine calls the "deep pocket."
That is a "real example"; I presented it in enough depth that it shouldn't be hard to Google the full story if you want to verify it--and I really don't understand why the concept seems to push such buttons ("twaddle" and other such reasoned responses). But that such reactions get elicited is itself of interest.
By the way-- From a discussion with my attorney many years ago I gathered that "fraud" is a very specific concept with specific legal tests (and no, the action I wished to initiate against someone wasn't "fraud," though it sure _seemed_ like it). Now, there are attorneys here who will know a h*ll of a lot more about this that I (and who I'm sure will be more than happy to set me straight :) but I would gather that an "abusive lawsuit" is _not_ fraud, in contrast to what Patrick said in his post above. Trying to dismiss them in this way just begs the question.
One more thing, w.r.t. that whole seemingly controversial concept of "individual responsibility"; if you go back and actually _read_ what I said, one of the notions I specifically took issue with was the idea that if someone gets hurt, even through some negligent action of their own, "someone" should pay. The specific example, _which was originally brought up by another poster_, was someone breaking their neck by diving into shallow water. So no, in contrast to what Patrick implied, this was not a red herring I gratuitously introduced into the thread.
Patrick:
I'm not sure where or how I implied that corporations should _not_ be responsible. I _was_ responding to the point made up-thread about being smart enough not to spill hot coffee on ourselves. There are things that are just not a corporate entity's fault. Yes, Taco Bell should not sell spoiled tacos. But no, the BLM is not responsible for your jumping into a hot pool on public land. My point was simply that there is a disturbing trend to offload _all_ the responsibility onto some corporate entity, to the point where purportedly serious lawsuits are filed that are beyond the borders of common sense. It would be difficult to find a way better to play into the hands of those who advocate tort reform for nefarious purposes.
And if that strike you as a "moral lecturette", sorry, but so be it.
Actually, asbestos in general is an example of where the system has run amok. I don't know the details of James Hardie, but I do know something about asbestos itself:
(1) Not all forms are equally dangerous. Chysotile is much less dangerous than tremolite and other amphiboles. But, at least till recently, the Law just lumps "asbestos" (which is actually an industrial term, not a mineralogic term) all together, irrespective of mineralogy or grain size.
(2) No form is dangerous in bulk. The danger comes from finely broken fibers, mostly though inhalation, but perhaps through prolonged skin contact as well. The people at risk were those who came in contact with tiny _fibers_ routinely, through cutting, grinding, or whatever, or though installation of aerosol or slurry-based insulation or fireproofing.
Asbestos siding, shingles, etc. are not only perfectly safe, they're fireproof. That's why asbestos was a wonder material up through the 50s! After all, things _burning_is a serious hazard, too. But once you fan up hysteria about Asbestos, then suddenly _all_ forms of asbestos become potential liability-fodder, even if they're perfectly safe where they are, and even if replacements are both expensive and not as fireproof.
This _is_ the sort of thing that makes grist for propaganda about Greedy Trial Lawyers. It's also created an artificial market for asbestos removal; perhaps an example of Greedy Corporations exploiting fears fanned up by the Greedy Trial Lawyers.
There was a popular article in _Scientific American_ about asbestos a while back (Alleman & Mossman, Jul 1997), if anyone's interested. It talks about some of these issues.
Anent frivolous lawsuits: I do have trouble with the notion that people should get something because they got hurt through their own stupidity, carelessness, or whatever. A very open-ended principle, that: what about the people who impoverished themselves betting on the dot-com boom?
But for some more traditional examples. I live outside Reno, Nevada (where yes, businesses have been fleeing to from California--but that's another story). Although a reasonably good-sized urban area (maybe 350,000 or so, including all the outlying areas), it lies on the edge of some of the wildest country left in the lower 48. It ain't Disneyland, but every year a few people manage to die treating it so.
Several years ago a couple of California visitors died of burns resulting from diving into a hot spring on public land near the Black Rock Desert north of town. Now, to get to the spring in question requires driving 50 miles on _dirt_ roads, the last 5 or 10 of which are 4wd trails--without a pickup or SUV you won't make it. (You might not make it even then if the playa's wet.) Nonetheless, the survivors had the effrontery to try to sue the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) for not warning them of a (natural) hazard on wild lands. In a burst of common sense, it _was_ laughed out of court, but the BLM has put up some billboards along I-80 earnestly warning people to "stay out of hot springs on public lands." Somehow that just seems obvious, and (to be really Politically Incorrect) those who don't realize so are proper candidates for Darwin Awards.
Back around 1990, during a major winter storm that shut down all the roads in or out of the area, an out-of-town couple with a baby decided They Were In a Hurry and Couldn't Wait. So they decided to bypass the main roads (!), and of course got stuck. They were fortunate; as I recall they lost some fingers and toes to frostbite, but they--and the baby--survived. Then, they tried to sue the state for not warning them that the back(!) roads were dangerous(!!). Again, it was laughed out of court, but last I heard these t/w/i/t/s/ people managed to sell their story to a movie studio. For all I know some silly made-for-TV was based on the story. (I do feel sorry for the baby; not only the epitome of an innocent bystander, but obviously a big loser in the Ancestor Lottery, too.)
(Just a note for those from out of the area: northern Nevada is a steppe desert cut by a large number of north-south mountain ranges. It gets _cold_ here. Sometimes the area outside Reno would work fine as a set for Dr. Zhivago. My yard is covered with 6 inches of snow even as I write.)
A couple of winters ago some folks managed to get stuck on a little road somewhere off I-80 about 100 miles east of town, and (as I recall) one froze to death. The Pershing County Sheriff's reaction was, "well, yes, it was tragic, but no one _made_ them go out there." (No sign on the road saying "If it's cold and you get stuck and you don't have the proper equipment, you could die!" Given the other demands on public funds, there's not likely to be, either.)
I'm an experienced and reasonably competent outdoorsman; a time or two I've managed to get myself into potentially life-threatening situations (I was actually pulled out by Search & Rescue once when I was in my teens), but otherwise I was well-enough prepared to get out by myself. (One session ended in a fun-filled session at the ER in Reno on Memorial Day, but that's again another story.) In any event, it would not occur to me to blame anyone else for a situation that was _my_ responsibility. (To be sure, if I tried I suppose any opposing attorney could rightfully say, "This guy's been mucking around in the Nevada desert since he was a kid and he certainly _should_ have known what he was doing." To which I could only agree.)
Finally, about breaking your neck while diving: California has earnestly made diving in state waters "illegal." Not only is it basically unenforceable (somehow the few park rangers that California can still afford probably have more important issues to work on), but it's hard to see what difference it makes. Does having someone become incapacitated because they were doing something that was illegal, rather than merely gratuitously stupid, somehow absolve the public of that alleged moral responsibility toward them?
One last observation (though the tale has certainly grown in the telling--sorry about that). There are lots of ski resorts in this area, some in Nevada, most in California, and their existence shows that, if enough people want it, legally enforceable waivers of liability can exist. Every year a couple of people in the area manage to kill themselves skiing or snowboarding, and numberless others manage to hurt themselves seriously, and if the resorts were subject to the same risk of lawsuits as are many other activities (recreational and otherwise), they'd go under in an instant. Somehow that disclaimer on the back of your lift ticket really means something. (I'm an enthusiastic if rather putzy skier, btw.)
Folks, the Gummint and/or Society and/or whoever can't save you from yourself. Reality is too complicated and too multifarious and--perhaps fortunately--people themselves are just too fundamentally ornery. A society ultimately has no choice but to foster individual responsibility, because reality is ultimately self-enforcing.
Trent Goulding said:
"I'm getting a little tired of hearing about all the 'greedy trial lawyer' propaganda, though."
Well, I don't recall that I mentioned it. I mentioned actual circumstances under which lots of small businessfolk (!= those Big Heartless Corporations) find that the notion of "tort reform" resonates.
By the way, my surname is "Gillett", not "Gillette".
Sorry, but I'm afraid I'm on the other side of the ideological fence here.
Big Faceless Corporations with Lots of Money are such an easy, strawman target. In fact, _because_ they have all that money the junk lawsuits, overregulation, etc. are much easier for them to deal with. Such burdens fall much more heavily on the local small businessperson, who doesn't have the army of lawyers and accountants to deal with them. (In fact, in my more paranoid moments I think it's the Big Corporations that are _encouraging_ the lawsuits, regulations, etc. because they realize full well that they're proportionately a far bigger burden on their smaller competitors. If someone falls on the sidewalk in front of Wal-Mart and sues, it's no big deal. Heck, WM's paying lawyers anyway! If someone falls in front of the local ma'n'pa retailer and sues them, though, it could put them out of business just through legal fees-even if a court should eventually conclude there's no tort involved.)
My wife was in private veterinary practice for many years, and saw this firsthand. There _are_ people out there who (yes) will try to cheat you. You're a Business, after all. You can afford it. They will try junk lawsuits just to make you pay protection money to avoid harrassment. (My attorney charges $400/hr. She's good-but at that rate she'd damn well _better_ be!) Of course, the attorney on the _other_ side is working on contingency, so it costs nothing to file the suit.
At the very least, the loser of a suit should have to cover all the legal fees-but even this eminently sensible suggestion is resisted tooth and nail by the tort lawyers.
And we won't even get into officious Public Servants who have, de facto, all sorts of extra-legal powers to harass you, even to putting you out of business. All in the public interest. Of course. Your Taxes at Work...
(In a later career my wife was also a Gummint Inspector--for USDA--so yes, we've seen the other side, too.)
Go check with any of your local retailers, or professionals, or other small businessfolk. I'm sure they've tales they could tell.
xeger asked:
"Unless I'm completely confused, Andre Norton initially wrote under "Andrew North" - which goes well beyond hiding behind initials."
Only the "Solar Queen" series was originally published as "Andrew North", and it wasn't her first publication by any means. Her first SF story, as I recall, was _Star Man's Son_ (a.k.a. Daybreak - 2250 AD), which was published in 1952. "Andrew North" was probably some weird marketing gimmick (c.f. Isaac Asimov as "Paul French".)
_I'd_ mentioned Andre Norton! :) And one of the things I liked (and [guilty pleasure] still like) about her classic stuff is the description. She has very few peers, at least for me, in evoking the feel of an alien world, and I remember responding to that strongly when I was ~12. The different worlds in _Galactic Derelict_. The first view of Astra in _The Stars Are Ours!_ Janus, especially in _Judgment on Janus_. And so on...
Poul Anderson was another such world-evoker, and James H. Schmitz at his best; but there are very few others indeed. Heinlein and even Hal Clement aren't even close, IMHO. Too much of the CRC tables still flavors Clement's prose...
As for "finding out that girl leads would sell"--I suspect it may have been a matter of her _editors'_ finding out. My impression (based on hit and miss reading in the history of SF) was that a strong female lead was perceived as a story-killer in The Bad Old Days.
I've also heard that few people realized that Norton herself was female back in those days. She chose her pen-name subtly; evidently few picked up on the difference between "Andre" and "André". At least she didn't have to hide behind initials completely ("A. M. Norton"?), as did C. L Moore...
The Time Traders ("Ross Murdock") series consists of:
The Time Traders
Galactic Derelict
The Defiant Agents
Key Out of Time
and there's been a recently written sequel that, alas, just doesn't fit. Too much has changed in the last 35 years. They're period pieces...but then, so is Nesbit! And Norton was explicitly anti-racist (e.g., using Native American characters) long before it was Politically Correct. In fact, I believe that _Star Rangers_ (a.k.a. _The Last Planet_), published in 1953, has been interpreted as a civil rights allegory.
An early one with a female lead that I can think of off the top of my head is _Ordeal in Otherwhere_.
And on a different note--
Obviously, the follow-on to _Cricket_ must be _Locus(t)_.
(Dodging frantically, he makes his escape...)
Has anyone mentioned Andre Norton's classic SF from the 50s and early 60s? (i.e., before the Witch World took over) I discovered them in 7th grade, so maybe they're a couple of years too old yet, but I devoured all I could find. (I've even had my teenager read a few, and once he gets into them he devours them too. He's at the age that if _Dad_ likes it it's not a recommendation :) She also had a number of well-done historical novels (e.g., Shadow Hawk) in that timeframe. Norton also commonly had strong female viewpoint characters back when that was at best eccentric in SF and at worst a threat to getting published.
They're at least as good as Heinlein's, which I discovered about the same time, and not so grating politically, if a bit more rubber-sciency.
Renbourn and McShee were both members of the Pentangle, which did everything from traditional folk tunes to (acoustic) jazz and blues. Their album Sweet Child (ca. 1970), in particular, is a lot jazzier than their earlier ones.
The Renbourn Group version of JB uses Traffic's minor-key tune and darker lyrics, but they sing it kind of as a round, with McShee's vocals lagging the male voices by about 2 measures (! - it does work). Talk about fusion, too-one of the accompanying instruments is a sitar.
Btw, if the Pentangle hasn't already been mentioned in this sub-thread, it probably should be.
The Barleycorn versions I've got are:
Steeleye Span's (from Below the Salt)
Traffic's (from John Barleycorn Must Die!)
Heather Alexander's (from Wanderlust)
Golden Bough's (from Celtic Music) (similar to Steeleye's)
John Renbourn Group's (from Live in America) (somewhat similar to Traffic's, except for Jacqui McShee's vocals!)
Wayne Erbsen's (from An Old-Fashioned Wingding) (instrumental)
all in a nice .mp3 playlist!
Just goes to show there's no such thing as a "canonical" version of a trad song...
Thanks much to everyone for all the suggestions--
Lisa Spangenberg wrote:
>I also like Altan, and Steeleye Span (I've been collecting versions of Tam Lin and Thomas the Rhymer),
You must have Fairport Convention's version of "Tam Lin" off "Liege & Lief" then, with Sandy Denny's vocals, also Tempest's on "Serrated Edge," and Tanya Opland's "True Thomas", off her "Renaissance Fair" tape.
I've been collecting versions of "John Barleycorn."
Steeleye Span's been a favorite of mine ever since I first encountered them in the mid-70s, on a tape I heard in Chinle, AZ, in the middle of the Navajo reservation(!) I was visiting a friend there who was a teacher in the ESL program. She spoke fluent Finnish, and she'd gotten the job because since she had demonstrated fluency in a non-IE language, they figured she could learn Navajo. (Turned out she could.)
Thanks, Lisa. “Cat” was in the Lesson 1 vocabulary, as in the example sentence:
“Tha an cù dubh ach tha an cat bàn.”
so I wondered! I’ll also update my mental etymology for “cat.”
Have you heard Capercaillie? There's something decidedly surreal about electrified Gaelic lyrics... Some are electric renditions of traditional songs, a la Steeleye Span in English, but others are contemporary original compositions; e.g., "Breisleach" ("Delirium"), the title track of the eponymous (in English) album, ca. 1995. It's probably not as good as "Pangur Bàn"--it's just a schmaltzy love song--but it's saved by (a) being in Gaelic; and (b) Karen Matheson's vocals.
Of course, there are a number of bands (e.g., Altan, Clannad) doing similar things in Irish, although perhaps with a bit more traditional emphasis.
Xopher said, re "cat:"
"Naw. It's English from the Germanic side, (unattested) kattuz. Whether the Romans borrowed it from the English and then the Irish from the Romans, or the other way 'round, I don't know."
Webster's (Merriam-Webster's 7th Collegiate ed., 1971) claimed that "cat" is from "a prehistoric NGmc-WGmc word probably borrowed from LL _cattus_, _catta_," but perhaps they're not the most current ref. (I _did_ check :) Certainly German _Katz_ shows that the borrowing, if such it was, occurred before the High German sound shift.
To Lisa Spangenburg anent "Pangur Ban"
Thanks for the info about a nice poem. Question, though: In modern Scots Gaelic "cat" is just "cat." Presumably it's ultimately a loanword from Latin, perhaps by way of English.
Is "pangur" an older loanword (as suggested by the initial "p")? Did the Scots at some point just supplant an older word by borrowing the English one?
(I got interested in Scots Gaelic after hearing the Scottish folk-rock group Capercaillie in the mid 90s--not, to be sure, as exalted as a medieval poem! :)
To Jon Post--
"Theophysics." I like that!
Yeah, I'd kinda remembered your knowing Ingersoll.
And as far as commune conflicts: of course, if you're in a Regular Household issues such as cooking, cleaning, shopping etc. never arise. Nope. Not possible... :)
More on the glory: Moderns get a chance to see it more often. Next time you're on a plane, check out the plane's shadow against a cloud. It's rimmed by light.
I managed to see a ground-based glory one time that I can remember, at Orycon a few years back. I was on a bridge over the Columbia River, with the sun behind me. Although I was in full sunshine (remarkably, for Portland :), there was a low layer of fog over the river, and my shadow on it was nicely limned. (No special revelations accompanied the sighting, though :)
Anent halos: In my undergrad atmospheres class back in the l/a/t/e P/r/e/c/a/m/b/r/i/a/n/ early 70s the professor claimed that the whole stylized representation of the halo around someone's head comes from a rare atmospheric phenomenon called the "glory." (Note for Jon Post: I think the prof was Andy Ingersoll.) Someone silhouetted against clouds (which, yeah, means you have to be on top a mountain or something, with a nearby cloud or fog bank behind) will appear limned by bright light. What's happening is that water droplets along the line of sight send some of the sunlight back almost the way it came, due to a near-total internal reflection in the drop. (It's easier to explain with a drawing :)
Anent opening knives one-handed: Out here in the wilds of northern Nevada switchblades--i.e., spring-loaded folding knives--are perfectly legal. I usually take one when I'm in the backcountry. It _is_ kind of surreal; push the button--THWACK!--and then just cut your salami or cheese. Make sure you've got a firm grip, though; it's embarrassing, not to mention potentially hazardous, to have the knife flip out of your hand when it opens! They didn't mention _that_ in West Side Story... More Hollywood license, no doubt, kinda like Clint Eastwood hitting running targets with one shot from a handgun.
I don't take it into California, though :)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 27 |
Total: 27 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Steve Gillett:
Show all comments by Steve Gillett.