Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:


So perhaps the problem in the US is neither the plaintiffs or the
lawyers, but the system itself -- it rewards bad behaviour, and as
long as it does this then the unethical plaintiffs and lawyers will
continue to be attracted to these rewards.

....

Your post here has logic and I agree with what you have said. The system
is indeed bad down here and in need of drastic reform. It is truly
unfortunate that those we would entrust to reform it are those most
affected by any reforms.
I honestly believe that these much needed reforms will never see the light
of day, and it truly saddens me as an American to have had this opinion
forced upon me by those I would much rather have respected as I've made my
way through life.

The problem with the system is that rule of law has been debased and people
who run the system have learned how to "game the system". The system, as
devised, is fine. People though, have learned to ignore the parts that are
"inconvenient" (amongst other factors). In some places they call this
"corruption".

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools.

Been tires...doesn't work. It doesn't work because government still has
those schools by the jewels and to a great extent defines curriculum and
method.

All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

How about just having a straight tax CREDIT for school costs, regardless of
what school a parents kids attend?



Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.

Morgans wrote:

Straighten us out. Please tell us what we are not doing right. You will
get plenty of people listening, I'm sure. If you can not do this, then
you are just another person with all of the problems and no solutions,
which does nobody any good.

People, such as John Taylor Gatto (former NYC "Teacher of the Year"),
Sheldon Richman, Thomas Sowell, etc, have making these points for years.
Listening? What a laugh!

It's obvious the education establishment only wants solutions that keep
themselves in power and the teachers feeding at the public trough.

Morgans, your lithium prescription has evidently run out.

"randall g" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck
wrote:

This is a perfect example. Upon closer examination, the McDonalds case
does have merit. But people don't examine it more closely, because of
their jaundiced eye.

I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?


The woman was seriously injured and spent 8 days in hospital getting
skin grafts. That McD's had been selling super hot coffee for some time
and had previous warnings.

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
cups.

This case did have merit and I believe the
woman did not get rich from it either.


I guess someone being stupid has merit for you. That's appropriate:
birds-of-a-feather and all that.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education. Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got
to happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow
passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education.

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Operative word: "exactly"

To me, that sounds like you agree.

Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

Quite.

If you can't feed, clothe, provide for their education, provide for thei
health care, etc., for you kids, don't have them. Don't make them parasites
at the public trough.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."


Read his post in its entirety. You are focusing on one sentence
which takes out its context. I don't like any government welfare
programs... or income taxes actually. But there ways to improve
the way things are done now with a goal toward phasing out and
completely eliminating the nanny state entirely at some future time.

That was the gist of his post... at least as I read it.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions of
cups.


I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up, that
Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee was being
served too hot.

I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******, I
usually make my own anyway)

Tina wrote in news:ffe1625f-3791-4bad-8f88-
:

Bertie, the professional literature in the 60s was forming a consensus
for global cooling.


Yes, I know.


Predictions change as observations and science improves.


And, by the way, it would be gentlemanly of you to share your Mx
bashing pleasure. Greed is so unbecoming of you.


Oh I'm not greedy at all. I just like a bit of room when I tke a swing.


Bertie

Tina wrote in news:ffe1625f-3791-4bad-8f88-
:

Bertie, the professional literature in the 60s was forming a consensus
for global cooling.

Predictions change as observations and science improves.





I wouldn't be exactly what you might call "new" to this argument, but if we
get started on it here this group will become a subdivision of
alt.global.warming, a ski chalet for alt.usenet kooks and a toilet for teh
meowers.
Trust me here. I know of whence I speak.

I like arguing this one in different venues than this, but usually don't
use the bunyip handle much whilst doing so.

Anyhow, here's one of the better explanations out there of what I meant and
this guy says it so much better than I ever could anyway.. .

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...turated-gassy-
argument/


At the end of the day I might be wrong, but here's a question for you;
If you were to point a gun to your head which you thought was empty and I
were to point out to you that I might see a glimmer of a slug in the
chamber, do you think you might have a look in the chamber before you
pulled the trigger based on my say-so?


Bertie