Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (90882)	12/16/2004 7:08:07 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

And another POV I agree with. Romenesko Unions for journalists seem odd, he says 12/15/2004 6:38:13 PM From TERRY STANTON, managing editor, HedgeWorld: John Parker's letter about newspaper strikebreakers and loss of objectivity is rather striking in its failure to see just the other side of its point. I've always felt that unions for journalists are a rather odd thing. Few other similar categories of employees are unionized, and I've always thought it rather bothersome to hear journalists involved in labor disputes decry the evil, penny-pinching ways of the companies that employ them. From these folks I find it hard to expect balanced coverage of corporate and labor-management issues. I know it's a generalization, but joining a union does seem to engender a hostility toward business in a lot of people. Participation in Guild activities often seems awfully similar to the kind of overt political stuff that newsfolk are supposed to avoid.

To: LindyBill who wrote (90882)	12/16/2004 11:45:55 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793809

It amazes me that the Virginia delegates are thinking about special med mal courts. Local delegates met with the VWAA in November, and I was astonished at how inexperienced they were when it came to Virginia tort law. We've had tort reform here for years. Even Dave Albo, who has been around forever, was floating the idea of mandatory med mal review panels, apparently unaware that Virginia used to have mandatory panels, but got rid of them because neither the doctors nor the plaintiffs wanted to have mandatory panel review in every case. Some cases are clear cut that there is no negligence, some clear cut that there is negligence, why bother with the panel when you can go straight to the result? But we still have voluntary panels, which is as close to a special med mal court as makes no difference. There are special experts who regularly sit on the panels, two doctors appointed by the Virginia Board of Medicine, two trial lawyers appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court, who hear and decide the panel cases. I know that once they get input from members of the public who have institutional memories and knowledge, they'll learn. And I know it's impossible for them to know everything about everything. Dave Albo specializes in criminal law, but at least he's a lawyer. The trend these days is to elect non-lawyers, even anti-lawyers. This may sound like a good idea to non-lawyers, but I hate to see non-lawyers writing law, especially trial laws and tort law. I think they should form committees of experts in the field to give them advice before they mess with changing the laws.