#tort reform

[mourning-again-in-america]

people keep talking about how conservatives use all sorts of coded messaging to communicate and that seems to be much less true than them, like most people, being loud about what they want & in much disagreement if you go where they speak comfortably

[missamyrisa2]

oh but miss amy i think I do need to press all those ticklish buttons! getting your belly button all nice and wet from sloppy tickly kisses and then slipping a finger inside, the nail probing and scritching away at that ticklish little knot inside. My tickly kisses and licks can move their way up to those cute nipples, my tongue flicking over them and swirling around them while i make out with your ticklish chest. Oh and my other hand? Well that's going down to tappa tappa tappy tappy on that pretty belt buckle of course. Awwww you thought I didn't know about that hotspot? Soooo silly of you. Just tracing over the flower petal design and drumming my nails softly against it while I toy with your ticklish little navel and nipples.

Nnnnnhhh~!!! This is a thousand billion percent to the limittt of illegal short circuiting and I'm gonna take you to short circuit courtttt over thissss I'lll mmmhhhh tort reform your stuuuuuupidddd nailsssss for touching my buttonsss with recklessss impunityyyy what the hell is impunity anyyywayyy ghhhhh you canntt do this to meeee I'm the ticklemama I'm the ticklerrrr nnnnhhhh your liiiiipsss those liiipss stopppp kissing meeee!! I don't take affection I don't processs this doesn't processs I'm closing the sockkkketttt mgmmmhhhhh oh my gooooshhhhh you can't tappp don't tapp pleeease don't tappp you don't even knowwww you don't know oh my goooosdhhh you doo you know you you're sooo meeehheeann I wouldn't do this to youuu okay okay okay okayyy okayy I would I sooo would but what's good for the goose amy isn't good for the gander amyyyyy gander thisss gander thatttt I hateee the flowerrrrr stoppp itttttttt no more toyingggg you can't toy meeee I'm faulttyyy merchandiseee stooooppp toying with meeeeee ooooohhhh you're only winding me uppp I'm a tickle machine I'm the tickle machine I willll tackle you and make you payyyyyy with your gigglessss until you're nothing but squeaking wannnttttttt and then we'll seee who tapps the tapp a tapppp flowwwwerrr!!

[brightlotusmoon]

"25 years ago today, a jury in New Mexico announced its verdict in one of the most infamous and misunderstood cases in recent memory: Liebeck v. McDonald's, also known as the "hot coffee lawsuit."

This case is held up as one of most egregious examples of frivolous lawsuits. The story goes that a woman bought coffee from McDonald's, drove with it between her legs, spilled it on herself, sued McDonald's because it was hot, and took a cool $1 to $5 million (depending on who's telling the story) off of them. "Wait, she sued because coffee was hot? And she was driving with it between her legs? What did she expect? Anyone can sue for anything these days."

Guess what? That story is almost completely false. I mean, Stella Liebeck did have hot coffee spill on her. That part is true. But here's what's not. Liebeck wasn't driving. The 79 year old was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car. He pulled into a parking spot, where she was trying to add cream and sugar to her coffee. The car didn't have cupholders, so she put it between her legs, and when she pulled the lid off, it spilled all over her.

The spilled coffee wasn't just unpleasant; it was served at nearly 190 degrees, which caused 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, required multiple skin grafts, necessitated further care after she left the hospital, and left her permanently disfigured. She originally tried to settle with McDonald's and asked for $20,000; they responded with an offer of $800.

At that point, she hired an attorney who discovered that 1) McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee between 180-190 degrees 2) no other coffee in the city was served at more than 160 degrees 3) 190 degree liquid causes third degree burns in less than 3 seconds and would burn the mouth if consumed at that temperature 4) 160 degree liquid takes over 20 seconds to cause third degree burns and 5) McDonald's had been sued over SEVEN HUNDRED times in the prior decade for coffee being too hot and had settled up to $500,000 in cases and been told to lower the temperature.

Ultimately, McDonald's refused an arbitrator's suggestion of a $225,000 settlement and the case went to trial, where a jury ultimately awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitive damages. "A ha!," you sa, "so she still got millions! That's still frivolous!" Well...no.

First, the jury found Liebeck was 20% at fault, so the compensatory damages were reduced by that amount, to $160,000. Then the judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the compensatory, or $480,000, for a total of $640,000. We don't know how much Liebeck got because they eventually settled for less than $600,000, but between medical expenses and legal fees, it's a FAR cry from the millions she got for a slightly warmed leg in the well-known story.

So how did this become so legendary? Simple. McDonald's knew the case was going poorly, so it looked to the one thing it had that Liebeck didn't: a bully pulpit. They started a massive PR effort that was basically a smear campaign, painting Liebeck as some irresponsible scofflaw trying to take their hard-earned money. And it worked, to the point that the annual "awards" for frivolous lawsuits are known as "The Stellas."

As for Liebeck? The then 81 year old didn't have the money, platform, or desire to fight back, and used the money to pay for a live-in nurse. She watched company after company use her case as an excuse for tort reform, to stop the big bad consumers from hurting the poor, poor multinational billion dollar corporations, before passing in 2004 at age 91."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid021Lfd937eiZt1XprMuMMjjDEaUwG8qC97ENcgpoGfCd2rhczgPjW7RSDybjDU3iZ2l&id=5708003

[tanadrin]

law and economics-type conservatives aren’t just partisan hacks hiding behind insight porn (though they are that, too), they are self-evidently liars who believe in nothing, because they will support tort reform and limiting damages for corporate malfeasance and come up with elaborate policy justifications as to why this won’t have severe public policy consequences when it turns out you can dump basically unlimited quantities of crude oil in prince william sound with no consequences, and then turn around and endorse three strikes laws, which take the exact opposite tack (the only way to ensure law-abiding behavior is to increase punishment without limit), despite the raft of social science showing such legislation is totally ineffective at deterring crime

because what’s really underlying their decisions is the same loose bundle of biases that governs most people’s initial appraisal of similar situations: deference to preexisting structures of power (Exxon is rich and important; therefore Exxon can’t be punished too harshly), contempt for the powerless (anybody actually at risk of being punished by a three-strikes law), and an energetic desire to create a post-hoc rationalization for this worldview, even if it makes no sense under the ideology that they themselves espouse

and that’s a forgivable enough sin in your average citizen, who has not thought too deeply about these issues, but for the people who are supposed to be at the apex of the legal profession and who are hailed as luminaries of conservative legal thought, it’s absolutely pathetic. but then again, the strongest intellectual american conservative jurisprudence could produce in recent memory was antonin fucking scalia, a moron with the moral sensibilities of a playground bully, so i guess it’s unfair to expect too much. but i wish onlookers who were not part of the conservative legal movement at least had the intellectual sophistication not to be so frequently taken in by this nonsense.

[theehorsepusssy]

What are some of your favorite documentaries?

Hmmm...

Errol Morris ones like Vernon Fl, Gates of Heaven, Thin Blue Line

one called Sound and Fury about a deaf community

one about tort reform called Hot Coffee

that one about the Scripps spelling bee

Capturing the Friedmans

Only ones I can think of now. Probably more

[deathbecomesthem]

The narrative about Americans being overly litigious is propaganda to aid the passage of tort reform legislation, by the way.

[ramblingandpie]

She also went to the bookstore and picked up my Surprise Pre-Order!!!

(When I see a book for pre-order and I want it I email our local bookstore with ZERO idea of when the book is actually coming out and then promptly forget about it so I can surprise myself. Highly recommend! It's enrichment for my enclosure!)

I Am An Adult Who Can Be Trusted To Go Alone To The Library And Not Return With Even More Books (and other lies I tell myself)

[thewhumpcaretaker]

⚜ 𝕋𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕎𝕙𝕠 ℍ𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕊𝕠𝕞𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕠 𝕃𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝔽𝕠𝕣 - ℂ𝕙. 𝕏𝕀𝕍: 𝔽𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖𝕕 ℂ𝕙𝕠𝕚𝕔𝕖𝕤 ⚜

*✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ ✧.*★ Thank you to @kavalyera for the beta read!

Summary: After realizing that Chidi genuinely loves him, Vincent can't resist him anymore.

TW: brief mention of suicidal ideation, brief mention of drug use, rampant codependency, unrealistic anal sex

Blue sky and yellowing brickwork flooded through each other in the motions of the Tiber, dancing in repetition. The mind could lose itself in their merciful meditation, not at all the way it might be lost in intoxication, but rather with a sobering effect. With the temptation towards reflection. There was Vincent’s reflection again, forming and reforming, just as it had done in the fountain in France, only now it was all the more broken by this faster current with its deeper disturbances. Chidi’s words played in his head again: “Realmente lo amo, Mo. No me iré hasta que él también esté libre. [I really love him, Mo. I won’t leave until he’s free too.]” He’s really staying. I’ve been such a fool.

Vincent could hear the low chatter of two Myrmidons who had followed him out the door and now hovered near the food carts on the bank, concerned but not concerned enough to approach, their words indistinguishable at such a distance. They clearly were debating what to do - whether to call him a full security detail as would be standard for an outing, or to leave him alone with his thoughts. He had not bothered to dismiss them. Let them protect him. Best not to worry Chidi any more today. Such a fool, he repeated internally, a hand covering his face for a moment.

When he straightened up again, there was Chidi himself, approaching with confident strides, that grey suit as knightly as a suit of armor. Turning the corner, passing the food cart and catching sight of him on the bridge. Coming for him, to check on him, to talk about what had happened. Vincent’s heart contorted against the double bind of shame and nervous exhilaration. He straightened his jacket. Chidi exchanged a brief word with one of the Myrmidons, patted his shoulder in thanks, and they dispersed, leaving their leader to meet with Vincent unwatched.

Tentatively, Vincent put out a hand to him. “Mon chevalier, viens à mon secours. [My knight, come to rescue me.]”

Chidi bowed deeply and kissed it. “Mon roi a-t-il besoin d'être secouru ? [Does my king need rescuing?]”

He turned from that overwhelmingly gallant picture, back towards the water, where Chidi’s broken reflection now joined his own. “Pour une fois, non. Je suis désolé d’être à court, mais je ne me sens pas… destructeur. Juste… ah… je prends un moment. [For once, no. I’m sorry for running out, but I’m not…feeling destructive. Just…ah…taking a moment.]”

“Je suis plus que ravi, monsieur. [I’m beyond glad, sir.]” Chidi’s thumb moved over his knuckles and something warm gushed out of his heart in response. “Alors, vous nous avez entendus ? Combien? [Did you overhear us, then? How much?]”

“Assez pour savoir que je t'ai fait du tort. [Enough to know I’ve wronged you.]” It was blurted out before he could stop himself, staring desperately up at Chidi again. “Pourquoi diriez-vous tant de choses gentilles ? Pourquoi resterais-tu avec moi ? [Why would you say so many kind things? Why would you stay with me?]”

“Je te l'ai dit, Vincent. Je t'aime. [I told you, Vincent. I love you.]”

“Pourquoi? [Why?]” He’d never asked any of his conquests why they wanted him, or thought they loved him. Nothing could be more obvious – he was powerful and rich and famous and handsome and skilled at lovemaking, and they were a lot of shallow sycophants. Simple enough. But someone who had seen the reality of him? Someone competent and confident and of good taste? Someone who he’d hurt and pushed away in such weak, foolish, irrational ways? That didn’t make any sense.

“Parce que je n’y peux rien ! Parce que dès la première fois que je t'ai vu, j'ai été attiré par toi. Pas à votre force mais… à vos désirs, à votre incroyable désir. Personne d'autre ne semblait le remarquer, mais cela m'a captivé d'apercevoir de petits aperçus de toi, volontaire et têtu et doux et blessé et triomphant face à tout ce qui essayait de t'étouffer dans un stoïcisme muet. Ça m'a rendu fou de vouloir te protéger. Je n'avais réalisé que récemment à quel point tu as absorbé chacune de mes pensées pendant trois années consécutives, rêvant de te rendre heureux, me tourmentant pour chaque tort que tu as subi, attendant le jour où je pourrais servir d'instrument à ton moi le plus vicieux et le plus tendre- expressions pareilles. J’aime la soumission, la douleur, l’inquiétude – Vincent, c’est ce que je suis censé être : le tien. Cela me ravit de pouvoir ressentir une telle sympathie pour mon propre maître. Que n’importe qui puisse me posséder si complètement. Je suis captif de moi-même quand je suis avec toi, parce que je me sens comme une partie de toi. Ta douleur m'enrage, ta joie m'enivre, tu es moi-même. Je t'aime. Je ne pourrais pas arrêter de t’aimer si je le voulais, et je ne veux pas. La force de ton besoin m’oblige, et je m’abandonne à cette contrainte. Je suis forcé et je choisis. A toi et à toi seul, je décide de plier le genou. Il ne pouvait en être autrement. [Because I can’t help it! Because from the first time I saw you, I was drawn to you. Not to your strength but…to your desires, to your incredible want. No one else seemed to notice it, but it captivated me to catch little glimpses of you, willful and stubborn and sweet and hurt and triumphant in the face of everything trying to stifle you into mute stoicism. It drove me crazy, wanting to protect you. I didn’t realize until recently how you consumed my every thought for three straight years, daydreaming of making you happy, tormenting myself over every wrong you suffered, waiting for the day I could serve as the instrument of your most vicious and tender self-expressions alike. I like the submission, the pain, the worry – Vincent, this is what I’m meant to be: yours. It thrills me, that I could feel such sympathy for my own master. That anyone could possess me so completely. I’m captive to my own self when I’m with you, because I feel like a part of you. Your pain enrages me, your joy intoxicates me, you are myself. I love you. I couldn’t stop loving you if I wanted to, and I don’t want to. The force of your need compels me, and I surrender to that compulsion. I am forced, and I choose. To you and you alone, I decide to bend the knee. It could not be any other way.]”

“Pendant… aussi longtemps ? Tu as « rêviez de me rendre heureux » ? [For…for that long? You ‘daydreamed about making me happy’?]” Everything was coming out small and choked and deliriously happy. “Je ne… je ne peux pas… [I don’t…I can’t…]” But it was true: he couldn’t. Couldn’t resist any longer. The words tore something from his body, tore out any possibility of disbelief, of protective denial. And with it, an answering confession. “Tu gagnes, salaud : je t'aime. Je t'aime. Je t'aime. [You win, you bastard: I love you. I love you. I love you.]” How could I not? And how could I not want to? I am forced, and I choose.

He crashed into Chidi – open mouthed, teeth colliding, fists dragging on fabric to the point of strangulation. An open expression of want. In the water below, their images churned together in that broken self-dissolution which allows for a total merging. It was a two-headed creature that stumbled home, hand in inextricable hand, half angel and half god, throbbing on both sides with a lust fueled entirely by submissive awe.

Was there a comedown, from his early morning drug binge? If so, Vincent never felt it. He felt his cock trying to escape the center fold of his slacks just to stand a few inches closer to Chidi’s searing flesh. They didn’t make it upstairs. Chidi dragged them into his own, humbler bedroom, suffused with the scent of his body. A diary still lay on the nightstand from Chidi’s early morning hours of brooding over his beloved Marquis and Vincent felt a horrible, wonderful pang at the thought of him alone with his thoughts down here. He made a whimpering, distraught noise and started devouring Chidi’s mouth again. “Je suis désolé [I’m sorry],” he whispered between kisses. “Je t'aime. Je suis désolé. [I love you. I’m sorry.]” His face was wet, he realized.

Chidi snarled against his lips and pushed him backward onto the bed, straddling him. “Tu veux me rattraper ? Alors laisse-moi te réconforter maintenant comme je le voulais hier soir. [You want to make it up to me? Then let me comfort you now like I wanted to last night.]” Vincent let himself go limp, eyes closing into a moan. Chidi’s hand was braced against the pit of his neck, holding him securely down, and it felt like the only heat in the world.

“N'ose pas faire autrement. J'ai besoin de toi. [Don’t you dare do otherwise. I need you.]” God…was he allowed to say such things now? It felt so good to say them.

“Je ne pouvais pas. Vous êtes irrésistible. Je t'aime mieux comme ça que tous réunis. [I couldn’t. You’re irresistible. I like you better like this, than all put together.]”

Fire flared up fiercely in his cheeks. He remembered his appearance – makeup stained with tear tracks, hair mussed, total discomposure ruining the charm of his nicest suit. “Quelle pagaille? [What, a mess?]”

“Oui. Mon désordre parfait. [Yes. My perfect mess.]” As proof, he straightened up and parted his fly, stroking himself to Vincent’s pornographic dishevelment. His pretty brown eyes darkened with want. “Ce matin, quand j'ai vu à quel point tu avais l'air intouchable, ça m'a fait peur, car tout ce que je veux, c'est te toucher. Votre corps, votre vie, votre esprit. Jusqu'à ce que tu te sentes bien. [This morning, when I saw how untouchable you looked, it scared me, because all I want is to touch you. Your body, your life, your mind. Until you feel good.]”

Affection overwhelmed the Marquis and he sat up to kiss the tip, as if in pity for its reddened, aching longing. When had he ever liked someone so much or so innocently? So this was the gentle fervor of love. Chidi’s gasp rewarded him, but when he slipped the full head into his mouth, Chidi pushed him back down.

“Non, je te réconforte, tu te souviens ? Tu me dois la chance d'être gentil avec toi. Bande. [No. I am comforting you, remember? You owe me the chance to be good to you. Strip.]” Oh god. Commanding Chidi, powerful Chidi. Commanding him to be well, to be comforted. Gentle all the while, still gentle enough to make him want to relent. This was a side of him Vincent had never seen, and it brought out a correspondingly unfamiliar side of himself. He trembled with grateful desire. His hands caught at his many buttons, fumbling in his rush to do justice to this newfound connection. And there was Chidi’s touch on his wrist, steadying him. “Prends ton temps, mon amour. [Take your time, my love.]” But whether it made concentration easier or harder to feel Chidi’s lips brushing softly against the crown of his head, he couldn’t say. Everything was turning frail and soft.

Chidi supported that softness, with his pillows under Vincent’s pelvis. With his arms around Vincent’s torso from behind, cuddling him into his chest. With the steady, pounding hardness driving relentlessly into him, jolting sobs of pleasure-pain out of him. With gentle whispers that Vincent could answer only by nodding and crying harder. “Êtes-vous d'accord? Est-ce comme ça que tu le veux ? [Are you okay? Is this how you want it?]” Yes. You have no idea what this bliss is like.

And he couldn’t not be happy. Couldn’t not kiss at Chidi’s fingers or angle upward into his thrusts, wanting to be joined deeper, even more forcefully. Couldn’t not tighten around Chidi’s solid length in fluttering ecstasy. Until he lost all control once and for all and couldn’t not spill out across the bedsheets with all the force of the Tiber river. And he wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.

Chidi wrapped around him as they rolled over sideways, equally spent. “Ai-je réussi à vous réconforter ? [Did I succeed in comforting you?]”

“Oui. Dieu oui. Je ne peux pas dire si mon visage me fait plus mal à cause du sourire, ou si mes fesses sont à cause de... [Yes. God yes. I can’t tell whether my face hurts more from smiling, or my ass from – ]”

“Très bien alors. Votre dette est payée. Je vous pardonne. [Very good then. Your debt is paid. I forgive you.]”

“Hmmm. Je devrais te repousser plus souvent, si telle est la punition. [Hmmm. I should push you away more often, if this is the punishment.]”

“Seulement si j'arrive à te ramener vers moi comme ça. [Only if I get to pull you back to me like this.]” He rolled Vincent closer, showering his neck with kisses until he squirmed against the delicious sensation. “Comment aimerais-tu qu'à chaque fois tu sois tiré du gouffre? [How would you like that, to be pulled back from the brink every time?]”

“Mmm… ce serait… sympa. Mais peut-être pas aussi agréable que de se tenir ainsi pour toujours. [Mmm…it would be…nice. But maybe not as nice as just holding each other this way forever.]” Since when did I say such sappy things? But Chidi nuzzled against him so affectionately that it seemed alright. No matter what he said or did, Chidi would turn it from a disaster into peace. Safety and gratitude flooded through him.

“Tu sais, en termes de travail et de famille, tout va mal pour moi. J’ai tellement perdu en si peu de temps. Mais je pense… de toute façon, je suis plus heureux qu’il y a quelques mois. Je découvre des choses qui comptent pour moi et je me sens libre pour la première fois. [You know, in terms of business and family, everything is going wrong for me. I’ve lost so much in such a short period. But I think…I’m happier than I was a few months ago anyway. I’m finding things that matter to me and feeling free for the first time.]” He stopped, bliss giving way to a bitter laugh. “Et maintenant que j'ai une raison de vivre dans ma vie, je pourrais vraiment être tué. N'est-ce pas ironique ? Si je n’ai pas les Myrmidons, le siège Gramont pourrait s’effondrer. Et puis… [And now that I have something in my life to live for, I could really be killed. Isn’t it ironic? If I don’t have the Myrmidons, the Gramont seat could collapse. And then…]”

“Certains d'entre nous vous resteraient fidèles, monsieur. Je voudrais. [Some of us would remain loyal to you, sir. I would.]”

“Mais tu n'as pas le choix, tu m'aimes, tu te souviens ? [But you have no choice, you love me, remember?]” he teased. “Les autres – [The others - ]”

But it was at that moment that an idea began to take shape. “L’illusion du choix… Chidi, aujourd’hui, tu m’as appris quelque chose d’une grande importance politique. Nous sommes de tels génies. Debout, je dois rédiger un discours. [The illusion of choice…Chidi, today, you’ve taught me something of great political import. We are such geniuses. Up, I need to draft a speech.]” How many ways could one man save his life?

◃ Back ⚜ Next ▹

Image Sources: One (mine) | Two

[azspot]

The policy prescriptions sounded like something out of the 1980s or 1990s — the death penalty as the solution to mass shootings, end the revolving door at prisons, tort reform to cut healthcare costs, fight the war on drugs, more oil drilling and coal, etc.

The Worst Debate Ever?

[dankxsinatra]

Insurance companies set the price so they can 'negotiate down' as part of their service. Medical service providers who don't involve insurance companies (and open themselves up to huge legal liability) can sell products for way cheaper. An article I read on it years ago said a $90 blood test with insurance becomes like $7 without.

Wuht???

I was just talking to a former coworker who now works for a local home medical supply store. It's not an independent entity it's owned by the some healthcare network that owns the hospital I work at. Anyway I told her about how I no longer do business with them for home cpap supplies. Anything I need I can get cheaper off the internet paying cash than buying from them using my insurance. She said that they "can't undercut the insurance company." Like... WTF does that even mean???? Wouldn't insurance companies want you to sell at a cheaper price so they don't have to pay out as much. WTF is going on?????

[benzedrine-calmstheitch]

just saw some troubling posts in a discord server I’m in but I don’t have the brain power left to engage in direct conversation re: interpreting another person’s text and responding so I’m just gonna throw my thoughts here :

you cannot, CANNOT, let your anger and fury at Greg Abbott’s heinous policies and positions transmutate into any position that blames him for being paralyzed, argues he should not receive financial compensation for getting paralyzed, or any other form of ableism against him. I mean, I guess you can, arguably, but I find it an inherently unethical stance, and it also undermines any sort of argument one could make to be in favor of universal healthcare and UBI (which I also find to be baseline ethical things to be for, more or less).

Yes, he supported the tort reforms in Texas that put limits on damages plaintiffs can receive, which makes it very unlikely a future Texan unfortunate enough to be in a similar situation that he was in will be able to have the same level of financial security via a settlement (although I do think it’s worth noting that he had no direct involvement in the passing of these reforms - both of these were done by Legislature). And it is fucking garbage that he doesn’t think other Texans deserve financial security in the face of injury and loss! And yes, there are nine million other awful awful stances he has, and having him in a position of leadership is not just abhorrent on principle but incredibly dangerous. These things ARE infuriating and terrible! He sucks really!

But the thing about universal healthcare is that it is universal. The principle behind it is that no one should have to worry about healthcare costs for any reason. To be in favor of healthcare for all, you must, must recognize that, short of unconditional access to healthcare (as well as related accessibility needs, such as equipment, renovated housing, in-home health care, mobility aids, etc etc), anyone suffering such a devastating and life-altering injury at least getting a settlement that takes care of these ongoing costs, is a good thing. and to be in favor of, again, universal, health care, is to sincerely want that for anyone. no conditions!

Being furious at him is, frankly, how we should feel right now. But that fury simply cannot mean deciding he is to blame in any way for his paralysis. First of all and most importantly, because conceptualizing disability in terms of “blame” just feels like a really, really dangerous thought. This tie back in to the fundamental idea that universal healthcare means exactly that, universal, but is a bit deeper also. Even if the actions Abbott took that led to his injury were ill-advised (and I’m not saying they were, more on that in a moment), he still should have full access to care, because the idea that someone can become unworthy of access to care through their actions is troubling! When we draw lines, someone always has to decide where it is, and if we can draw it once, someone else can redraw it later, and this time you might find yourself on the wrong side of it. We must, must, refuse to allow “fault” to determine access.

Also, and this is just me being pedantic, but I have seen some variance in the recounts of what exactly happened, and I have also seen folks taking those summations and shifting them, just a bit, to make it easier to find him at fault and thus deserving of his disability (this also touches on the whole other concept of disability itself being considered Less Than, which is ofc gross, but I’m not going to dive into that aspect). This is something we all need to be so, so careful about these days. Yes, it does fit your emotional response better if he was out jogging under a big tree while it was actually storming, which I think we can all agree is a Silly Idea. But the little bit I have read says he was jogging after it had stormed; ok, maybe a small difference, but are you telling me you don’t know a single person who would take a run the morning after it had stormed because it was still too dangerous? Suddenly his actions seems less silly and more everyday. Also I read that the homeowner (who himself was a wealthy attorney, which also complicates things!) had been made aware the tree was rotting a year and a half beforehand, and the inspector who told him this recommended the wrong treatment for it. So we have gone from “god this dodo went jogging during a storm under big trees well yeah of course one fell on him” to “oh actually he was just out for a run the day after a storm and a rotten tree that had been improperly treated happened to fall on him in a very bizarre coincidence.��� and for the record, I have almost been taken tf out by a tree randomly splitting in two and falling while I was on my daily walk on a sunny day. no idea why and it scared the bejesus out of me, but like. it weirdly happens!

but my point in being pedantic is this : facts fucking matter! changing them, no matter how slightly, to fit the narrative that matches your emotions, is not the route to take, because you end up taking a kind of fucked up stance in the process. this is what we as a culture are fighting so, so much right now. it’s so hard to hold on to nuance, to contextualize and allow for complexity, when we have all been trained by twitter and tiktok and fucking clickbait to be sensational and brief. but my friends, we have to retrain ourselves. we have to do better. We cannot paint in broad strokes, because we will lose the ability to focus on any one thing we can push back on and fight for.

So yes, be angry at Greg Abbott. Be fucking FURIOUS, really. But please, please, know why, and stay focused on that.

[nlti2025]

Understanding NLSAT 2025 Exam Pattern and Syllabus

The NLSAT 2025 (National Law School Admission Test) is a pivotal examination for students aspiring to pursue law at one of the prestigious National Law Schools (NLS). This exam serves as a gateway for admission to these esteemed institutions, and understanding its exam pattern and syllabus is crucial for effective preparation. If you’re targeting NLSAT coaching or exploring options like CUET PG LLB or CLAT 2025, having a structured approach to the exam is essential.

Overview of NLSAT 2025 Exam Pattern

The NLSAT 2025 will be a computer-based test with a duration of two hours. The exam will consist of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) designed to assess candidates' skills in various areas. Here’s a quick breakdown of the exam pattern:

Mode of Exam: Online (CBT - Computer Based Test)

Duration: 2 Hours

Total Marks: 150

Type of Questions: Multiple-choice questions (MCQs)

Sections: The exam is divided into five major sections:

English Language

Logical Reasoning

Legal Reasoning

Quantitative Techniques

General Knowledge & Current Affairs

Each section will test your proficiency in various subject areas, and the number of questions in each section may vary slightly based on the final exam pattern set by the exam authorities.

Detailed Breakdown of the NLSAT Syllabus

The NLSAT syllabus includes a wide array of topics that candidates need to prepare for in order to succeed in the exam. Here’s a closer look at the syllabus for each section:

1. English Language

This section evaluates your reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, and writing skills. You’ll be expected to understand complex passages and answer questions related to them. Key topics to focus on include:

Reading Comprehension

Sentence Correction

Para Jumbles

Vocabulary and Word Usage

2. Logical Reasoning

The logical reasoning section tests your ability to think critically, identify patterns, and solve complex problems. You may encounter questions related to:

Analogy and Classification

Syllogisms

Blood Relations

Logical Puzzles

Series and Coding-Decoding

3. Legal Reasoning

This section assesses your understanding of legal principles and how they apply in different situations. Although prior knowledge of law is not mandatory, candidates should be familiar with basic legal concepts like:

Legal Maxims

Constitution and Legal Principles

Contracts and Torts

Legal Situations and Case Studies

4. Quantitative Techniques

The quantitative section assesses your mathematical abilities, primarily focusing on problem-solving and data interpretation. Topics to focus on include:

Arithmetic

Algebra

Probability

Data Interpretation

Ratio and Proportions

5. General Knowledge & Current Affairs

This section focuses on your awareness of the world around you, including important events, politics, economics, and international relations. Key areas include:

National and International News

Sports and Awards

Environmental Issues

Legal Reforms and Changes

How NLSAT 2025 Differs from Other Law Exams

It’s important to distinguish NLSAT 2025 from other law entrance exams like CLAT 2025 and CUET PG LLB. While CLAT 2025 is the common entrance test for multiple National Law Universities (NLUs), the NLSAT is specific to the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore. NLSAT coaching typically focuses on topics more closely aligned with NLSIU’s specific patterns, helping students prepare in a targeted manner.

On the other hand, the CUET PG LLB is part of the Central Universities Common Entrance Test, focusing on postgraduate law admissions. While the NLSAT 2025 and CLAT 2025 primarily target undergraduate law programs, CUET PG LLB focuses on postgraduate law aspirants, making its preparation and syllabus distinct.

How to Prepare for NLSAT 2025

Structured Coaching: Enrolling in NLSAT coaching can provide you with a structured study plan and access to expert guidance.

Practice Mock Tests: Take regular mock tests to simulate the exam environment and improve your time management skills.

Stay Updated: For General Knowledge & Current Affairs, staying updated on current affairs is crucial. Make it a habit to read newspapers and follow legal blogs.

Focus on Core Concepts: While preparing for Logical Reasoning and Legal Reasoning, focus on understanding core concepts rather than rote learning.

Time Management: Practice solving questions within the given time limits to improve speed and accuracy.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, understanding the NLSAT 2025 exam pattern and syllabus is the first step towards effective preparation. Whether you're taking NLSAT coaching, preparing for CLAT 2025, or exploring CUET PG LLB options, a strategic approach to preparation can significantly enhance your chances of success. Begin your preparation early, focus on the key areas, and use available resources like mock tests and coaching to sharpen your skills. Good luck with your NLSAT 2025 journey!

[findinjurylaw]

Medical errors are now the third leading cause of death in America, responsible for about 10% of all fatalities. That's a staggering statistic, especially considering the trust we place in healthcare professionals. Some politicians push for "tort reform" to limit malpractice suits, but the reality is that there may not be enough claims made for genuine medical errors. It's time to hold the system accountable for our safety.

Learn more : https://www.findinjurylaw.com/medical-practice/ 

[alicekassieoak]

The people who are demanding "tort reform" in government are plenty litigious themselves. They just don't want you to be able to sue their friend when they dump their runoff in your water supply

[masr356]

Lawmakers ponder ‘tort reform’ rebrand to fix car insurance crisis in Louisiana • Louisiana Illuminator | masr356.com

As Louisiana lawmakers continue to study solutions for the state’s out-of-control car insurance premiums, they’re also considering some creative rebranding to try to generate new support to curtail personal injury lawsuits.  “It’s a three-alarm fire,” Louisiana House Speaker Pro Tempore Mike Johnson, R-Pineville, said during a House Insurance Committee hearing last week. It was the latest among a…

[tanadrin]

i think the other thing that chaps my ass so much about the american conservative legal movement--as opposed to other flavors of conservatism in politics--is that it seems uniquely pro-business in a way which is totally unprincipled. fedsoc types will twist themselves into knots to help large businesses avoid penalties and lawsuits even when there’s basically no case to be made, on legal or public policy grounds, conservative or progressive--i think the exxon valdez oil spill and the final legal outcome there is a good example. heck, tort reform generally--like you could make a conservative argument that a regulatory state is expensive, we don’t want to pay for it, we think people suing businesses only when actual harm occurs is better for society. i think that’s wrong, incidentally; i think it means that only people with money have access to the law, and it means that companies that sell dangerous products or break the law are much less likely to suffer consequences. but that’s definitely a consistent way you can argue society should be arranged, and is frequently the option u.s. lawmakers have gone with.

but the conservative legal response to this has been, “hmm, this looks too much like businesses actually having to follow the law,” and then to push for tort reform to drastically limit punitive damages, so that even when firms do sell dangerous products or otherwise break the law, they don’t suffer significant consequences, because damages are capped at an absurdly low level. this gets cast as fat-cat plaintiffs somehow unjustly enriching themselves, even though the whole point of punitive damages is, well, punitive, to disincentivize certain behavior! and this money only goes to defendants because in a civil suit there’s no one else for it to go to--we explicitly opted for this regulatory model when we decided we weren’t going to have the government step in and fine these companies directly!

(the response to this, by the way, was mandatory arbitration clauses; but nowadays firms have decided that even arbitration favors plaintiffs too much, which is a self-evidently absurd thing to say, since companies largely get to pick and choose the terms of arbitration. so conservative legal movement types are hard at work trying to come up with ways to further favor companies in arbitration, because the alternative--allow companies to actually be incentivized to break the law less--is too absurd to contemplate)

by and large, i do not think many americans who are conservative are pro-business, except in the weak sense that they are broadly authoritarian and business is historically one of many local forms of baronial authority in society. but for modern, large firms, both the distribution of power and the ways which you might want to rein it in to prevent or mitigate negative externalities (like environmental disasters or risks to consumer health) are not naturally aligned with any ideology except what might loosely be termed a “pro-business” ideology. it’s not even a classical liberal/libertarian ideology, though, because it’s not an ideology which promotes competition of free markets--conditions under which competition and free markets flourish are very different from conditions under which sprawling, highly-integrated firms flourish!

it’s a bad and incoherent set of policies unless you are ideologically in favor of rent extraction and government corruption--so it masquerades as conservatism, but could probably just as easily cast itself as progressive if that particular political coalition broke down.