Are there decimals in the Roman Number system? I mean, certainly they had to have terms for fractions. There had to be a one-half, but was it I/II? Or did they know about decimals and they represented it as 0.V?

This is the usual spot where you might find the weekly (correct) answer to the Homespun Blogger symposium question. However, this week, Major Dad 1984 seems to have forgotten his weekly duty...

I'm kidding, Major Dad! Taking a peek over at his blog, his last entry was on July 17 and was about "Operation Glamour Shot" -- about shot of the MajorBaby...those with kids can certainly understand why we may not hear from him for awhile...

But hey, Discovery Launched! How cool is that? An awesome picture and my first thoughts after watching it sail into space at an absolutely incredible speed are over at The Wide Awakes.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, was there ever any doubt?

Found at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:03 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You are a Supreme Computer Geek. Can you say, "Hey look at me, I'm a computer geek!"

Posted by: vw bug at July 26, 2005 11:35 AM (dkZJv)

2 You novice, you.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 11:45 AM (/k+l4)

3 I'm half the geek you are at 48. I guess hosting your own blog on your own linux server is just getting started, and far from the definition of a geek

Posted by: Echo Zoe at July 26, 2005 12:27 PM (K+h36)

4 Indeed it is a good start, too, I might add!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 12:55 PM (/k+l4)

5 You IT folks are scaring me! I scored way way low. I'm way OK with that... ;-)

Posted by: Bou at July 26, 2005 02:59 PM (5JHEt)

6 "Your computer geekiness is: 21 You are tech support's worst nightmare, you have no clue..." LMFAO! I'm not THAT bad!

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 26, 2005 05:12 PM (Er9BL)

7 Bou and GTL, that's WHY we're the IT geeks! They actually have a business around here called "Geeks on Call." I should probably be running it...

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:49 PM (L0IGK)

8 You're going to be horrified, but I actually hire someone to do my big computer stuff. Yup.

Posted by: Bou at July 27, 2005 02:21 PM (5JHEt)

9 And it's not me that she hires! Thank goodness. I think my actually number score was 91 or 92. I have just been around way too long and even with kids, I have been keeping my finger in the pie just enough to understand the terminology and what's coming up.

Posted by: vw bug at July 27, 2005 09:39 PM (dkZJv)

10 Well, a 92 is pretty impressive. And this test was clearly based on someone who's been around a bit, as there were very few current technology questions. Geez, I feel even more like a geek for having noticed that...

Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2005 05:50 AM (L0IGK)

11 um er (kickin the dirt),,,,,,,,,,,I got a 6. OH YEAH

Posted by: Tomslick at August 01, 2005 09:59 AM (xNjHI)

12 SIX? How did you even manage to complete the quiz?

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 10:07 AM (/k+l4)

13 perseverence and my die rolling skills. Ugh

Posted by: Tomslick at August 01, 2005 02:11 PM (xNjHI)

14 Die rolling? I think you took the wrong quiz...

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 02:47 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This editorial in the Sun News of Myrtle Beach has it right. The editorial talks about a "tax break" that's been proposed in North Carolina. This "break" would allow home builders to be exempt from property taxes for up to 5 years for homes they build that are not occupied immediately.

Of course, if this happens, then everyone else will have to pay more taxes to make up for the builder not paying taxes. Normally, I support any reduction in taxes. However, why should only ONE group get a tax deduction? Why not just reduce taxes for everyone? Heck, if vacant houses get no taxes charged on them, I want a tax deduction for my house when I go on vacation and it's empty.

The editorial is right -- this "tax break" is just plain wrong. Then again, that's how the North Carolina government works these days -- whatever special interest group gives the most in campaign contributions to the Democrats will get the deals while the working people get to pay more taxes. This IS today's Democrat Party in North Carolina.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, this past week I was busy plotting to take over the world planning some landscaping, so I forgot to put in my entries for the various carnivals of the week. Ah well, there goes my ecosystem ranking, right?

Anyway, I'd still like to point out a few carnivals for you this evening:

The Tarheel Tavern is again excellent. If you've never read this carnival, take a peek -- it's not just a conglomeration of posts, the hosts have really taken this one to an art form with poetry, rhyming, themes, pictures, and other fun stuff. I'm wanting to volunteer, but I don't know my version can compare with the top-notch stuff coming out of this carnival.

The Carnival of Liberty is posted as well. This one features posts from a wide variety of points of view and directions, all with a common focus: Liberty. Take a peek.

The New Blog Showcase is where you can go to find brand-spanking new blogs in the world. This week the showcase was to be found at Steal The Blinds -- however, there were exactly ZERO blogs entered! If you see a new blog, either tell them about the Showcase, or submit them yourself, please!

The Showcase is currently looking for hosts, so drop me an email if you'd like to host. Otherwise, head on over and read the shiny new blogs.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks, we really need to change lawsuit rules in this country. I don't think most people realize how much lawsuits affect the prices you pay for everything. Many people also don't understand, or simply don't care, where the money comes from that they get in a lawsuit.

For example, if you sue the school system, you're getting money from ME and YOU in higher taxes! That's insane. Government should get out of the school system and then that won't be a problem. When you sue a company, that simply creates higher prices for everyone to pay for the lawsuit and insurance. And then you just have complete, total idiots:

Elizabeth C. Wallenberg, fool from New York City, is apparently suing Con Ed. Why? Because she was burned when she fell off a skateboard onto a manhole cover and got burned. Apparently it's Con Ed's fault that their manhole cover gets hot when the sun shines on it. Perhaps she's be happier if she fell into an open manhole?

Hey, Miss Wallenberg, you are an idiot. And yes, I would say that to her face, were she standing here in front of me. This is completely wrong. You are costing the people of New York money because Con Ed has to pay to defend this moronic lawsuit. Everyone will have to pay higher utility fees because YOU wanted some free money because YOU fell on the ground.

We should change the rules of lawsuits -- when Miss Wallenberg loses this lawsuit, she should be required to pay all court costs, pay the lawyer's fees for Con Ed, and then be fined a punitive amount to ensure she won't cost taxpayers money for her foolishness again. That's what an evil business would have to do if they lost, wouldn't they?

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

1 She is one of the many playing Judiciary Lotto, hoping for a payoff, mostly on the odds that even a small payoff before trial is better for a large corporation than the cost of any trial and lawyer fees. I'm with you, make her pay for all court costs and lawyer fees on both sides for filing a dumb law suit. Then make the judge who permitted such a travisty forfit ( I never could spell) his pay and step down to let someone with more wisdom sit in his/her place. And we wonder why the court docket is full...

Posted by: TF Stern at July 25, 2005 06:09 PM (dz3wA)

2 Well, most of these problems are brought on by money hungry lawyers, some of these guys shouldn't even be allowed in the courthouse.

Posted by: J.R. at July 25, 2005 06:09 PM (VQYgi)

3 I'm with you, TF. It almost makes me angry enough to want to go to law school and become a lawyer. In NC, until very recently, you didn't have to be a lawyer to be a judge -- and that was a good thing! And you're on too, JR -- but if the plantiff is fined and has to pay the lawyer's fees, the lawyers won't find so many idiots to file suits.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 06:33 PM (L0IGK)

4 I was under the impression that the manhole cover was hot due to an electrical problem in the equipment that it was covering and that it could have killed somebody, nevermind severely burning her...

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 07:54 PM (kKZTW)

5 That's not in any reports I've seen. I've only seen it reported that the cover was hot...and it's 90+ degrees there, so I'm quite sure a manhole cover just sitting out in the sun will surely burn you.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:03 PM (L0IGK)

6 looked it up, the manhole was covering steam equipment and so it was hotter than it would have been if it had just been the sun. I think that she's entitled to her medical costs.

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:13 PM (kKZTW)

7 This news report: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/330332p-282308c.html says her lawsuit is based on an "excessive buildup of steam."

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:13 PM (L0IGK)

8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102057.html

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:15 PM (kKZTW)

9 you post too fast :p Anyway, I don't think it's as cut and dry to make a good example of a frivolous lawsuit. If she can show that the steam was in fact heating the manhole cover to a dangerous temperature then she does have a case.

Posted by: Flannel Avenger at July 25, 2005 08:16 PM (kKZTW)

10 I think we both hit "publish" at the same time there... I'm still not convinced she's entitled to her medical costs -- but that's not what she's going for. She is suing because of "excruciating pain, disability and grotesque cosmetic disfigurement" -- nowhere is it listed that she wants medical costs. And she wants "unspecified damages" -- which means as much cash as she can get, NOT medical bills.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 08:23 PM (L0IGK)

11 Here in Canada she'd be entitled to ZIP! She get patched up in a government funded hospital... if she had the time to sit around for hours before anybody would see her. Then, if she tried to make a court case out of it, she'd likely get laughed out of court. It's interesting how our two systems differ. Our government paid healthcare sucks; but our courts are pretty tight when it comes to dealing out cash. Both systems have their problems... there's got to be an inbetween someplace.

Posted by: Debris Trail at July 26, 2005 01:38 AM (Y1ykG)

12 Debris, indeed, she should get nothing here. However, if it gets to a jury, there's no telling if she'll get a pile of idiots on the jury or not. Either way, it's a tremendous waste of time and money and drain on the legal system. And yes, Jassalasca, the cases can be thrown out -- but even doing that takes up way too much time and taxpayer money, and in this case, money from everyone in the form of ConEd having to pay for lawyers to GET the case thrown out. And thanks for the link!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:48 AM (L0IGK)

13 I would guess that you have lost more in opportunity cost by churning this factlet than it will add to a ConEd customer's bill. From the decor of your site I wouldn't take you for a communist, but a Soviet apparatchik would have felt right at home with the argument you've just made. The collective interest should trump individual troublemakers from the get-go, it's too costly to hear them out. Worked pretty good so long as their luck held out, but Chernobyl was a bit of a downer.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 06:38 AM (jeXxM)

14 Wow. I've been called lots of nasty things over the years, but I don't think anyone has ever called me a communist (or a Soviet) before. Then again, I guess if my idea that idiots should not be able to rule over the people and that individuals should not be allowed to force millions of other people to pay more money for their own personal stupidity; and if the communist system were instead based on freedom and the individual; then I'd be a communist. I find your first statement interesting in that you presume to charge individuals just a small amount and that any fines that are required would only add a little to the customer's bill -- as if you have the sole right to determine how much each person should pay, and you know how much is a little for every person. It tells volumes of your position on the individual, freedom, and capitalism when you make such statements. I'll be waiting patiently for your next argument that it's "for the children."

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 06:55 AM (/k+l4)

15 Anytime you give people rights, some people will try to abuse them. It's the nature of the beast. So if you're going to give people rights, you need to have some way of sorting out the real claims from the garbage. That's what legal process is used for -- even in the military. It does cost money. If everyone followed the spirit and the letter of the rules, the costs would be zero, but they never are. That's why we have managers (and Dilbert). That's why we have IRS audits (and accountants). That's why we have police (and Internal Affairs). Enforcement overheads are part of the cost of doing business, and every enterprise that wants to survive factors those costs into its budget. Anyone who doesn't is living in fantasy land, because you just can't will away the possibility of dishonesty. People sometimes cheat, that's the way they are. If you don't believe me, ask Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh because they know better than either of us.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 08:18 AM (jeXxM)

16 And I completely agree with you. The place we seem to disagree, and correct me if I'm wrong, is in that WHO should pay. I think the person who causes the additional expenditure, especially when that cost falls upon taxpayers, should pay the additional money. In other words, in a case where a person brings a frivolous lawsuit, they should be forced to pay the cost of the lawsuit, not the company being sued.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 08:58 AM (/k+l4)

17 “Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an independent consulting firm, reports that in 2002, the total costs from tort litigation jumped by 13 percent to $233 billion. That's an astonishing 2.23 percent of our entire Gross National Product, and these costs are passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. According to the Department of Treasury, this "tort tax" works out to $809 for every individual and more than $3,200 for a family of four, every year,” I am with you comrade Ogre (nudge nudge). Too many people manipulate the system and the biggest reason is, they have nothing to lose. I read we are the only country that does not have a loser pays scenario or no deterrent for frivolous lawsuits. And since our Congress has no ties to trial lawyers, I am certain a "loser pays" legislation would pass unanimously.

Posted by: tomslick at July 26, 2005 09:34 AM (xNjHI)

18 Thanks for the really, really disgusting numbers, Tomslick! Certainly, "loser pays" legislation would reduce costs of doing business and costs of goods across the board. And you're right, I'm sure such legislation would fly through the Congress...sigh. I can't count how many times I see people just playing the lawsuit lottery, hoping to get rich off other people's backs, without working. It's disgusting and the people who do it should be called out for the lazy, good-for-nothing bums they are.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 09:58 AM (/k+l4)

19 She is one of the reasons so many people hate lawyers. That a lawyer would take this case is pathetic. Hell, next you will see warnings on manhole covers that say "caution, sun heats metal." Assinine. I would smack anyone coming into my office with this type of complaint. Too bad she didn't break her neck when falling off that skateboard. Arghhh!

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 26, 2005 10:44 AM (6Gm0j)

20 But, Oddy, it's apparently not her fault the manhole cover wasn't made of soft foam. Next she'll sue the city for running steam pipes underground!

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 11:01 AM (/k+l4)

21 @Ogre: I'm going to lose my temper slightly and suggest that you read things. Read the full account of the case, linked by Flannel Avenger above. Then read Rule 11 of the FRCP that I've linked above. Then read this case: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-256.ZS.html It's a Supreme Court case affirming the assessment of one million dollars in legal against a party, for wasting the court's time. As it happens, the case raised in your post isn't a frivolous case, but if it was, the judge would have perfect freedom to do exactly what you are suggesting. There is no point getting into a lather about this one.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 04:31 PM (jeXxM)

22 @tomslick: Tillinghast-Towers Perrin works for the insurance industry, which oddly enough is reporting record profits lately. The report you cite lumps everything the insurance industry spends on settling claims under the heading "litigation costs". Including the vast majority of cases that never involve a lawyer. It also uses figures provided by the insurance industry without questioning them. It's exactly the kind of dishonest reporting that would get a lawyer sanctioned under Rule 11. If you "read we are the only country that does not have a loser pays scenario or no deterrent for frivolous lawsuits," then your reading material is lying to you. As noted above, US courts do have tools for deterring frivolous lawsuits. The loser pays principle -- what a high-ranking conservative barrister once described to me as "trial by ambush" -- is not the rule in the United States of America, but your country is not alone in that. You could mount an argument for introducing it, but the country that does (England) suspends it in cases involving people with limited means. England also has a robust legal aid system, which the United States of America lacks. Introducing the former without the latter would take you right back to Chernobyl. If you're going to be the permanent party of power, you could do well to broaden your reading list. http://www.employerhealth_why_is_this_site_blocked_pray_tell.com/EHR_sample_pages/sp2277.htm http://www.atlanet.org/pressroom/sreports/TillinghastResponse.asp http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 05:43 PM (jeXxM)

23 I'm not saying it's not possible that loser pays, it's just very, very, very, very unlikely and almost unheard of. In fact, on a case where I served as a juror, we, the jury WANTED to make the loser pay for the defendant's fees, we wanted to fine the plaintiff who was clearly full of crap. The JUDGE refused to let us. He simply told us that we could not do that. So while it is POSSIBLE, it is very, very unlikely and certainly not the standard. I want it to be the standard, not the occasional exception. I'd also hesitate to say that America has a weak legal aid system -- that's all we need is yet another damn government program wasting even more of the money that I earn.

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:54 PM (L0IGK)

24 Yes, fee shifting is a question for the judge. It pains me to say it, but juries are too unpredictable to be given that power -- as you know, they can be swayed by all sorts of sob stories, and lawyers are masters of deception. If the case you sat on involved a significant amount of money, the lawyers on both sides would have known more about your fellow jurors than you could possibly have learned about them during the term of the case. In England, there is no jury at all in civil actions (except for defamation cases). "Loser pays" does not describe exactly how the English system works. Defendant can make a firm offer at any time before the trial begins. Plaintiff can choose to accept the offer or press on. If plaintiff carries the case to trial and recovers less than the payment in, the judge may shift defendant's fees to the plaintiff. Otherwise the fees may shift the other way. This arrangement saves court time by encouraging the parties to settle outside of court. It punishes weak parties. It does not punish weak claims. One big reason for not applying this treatment to legal aid cases (i.e. lawsuits filed by people who are not rich) is that it would do exactly nothing to discourage them from filing strike suits anyway. Economic sanctions don't work against people who don't have anything that you can take away from them. Legal aid (in which the lawyer does not collect a fat fee for winning the case) does a better job of sorting the wheat from the chaff in this category of cases than the payment-in rule would do. As for not trusting government with your hard earned money, what can I say. Judging from the catastrophic performance of the current administration, I think I know exactly how you feel.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at July 26, 2005 09:10 PM (ZkHgJ)

25 Except for that bit where the lawyers work for free, the system you describe isn't too bad. However, as you know, here in America, the people are completely trusted to do what's right. Juries HAVE the absolute power to determine damages and fines, even over the judge's opinion. However, many judges do not like that, and most people do not know enough to challenge it. We are, for all practical purposes, an oligarchy today, no matter what the actual laws dictate. I'm also sorry that you are so filled with hate for President George Bush.

Posted by: Ogre at July 27, 2005 06:02 AM (L0IGK)

26 JJ - I couldn't open all the links for some reason, but I did get into the trial lawyer site. Not a big surprise there. 2 sides to every story for sure. What makes me shake my head in disbelief are things,,,,, Like this In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles. Or this In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn’t operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman’s parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 – nearly twice the legal limit) couldn’t open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen’s death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case. This In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame. lol and this In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court. In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn’t doing him much good during the ten years he’s serving for armed robbery. Not to mention this In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out. And this lucky pain endurer In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer’s large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like “cement blocks” hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied Take a look at some warning labels such as product may cause drowsiness on sleeping pills. Do not use while wearing clothes on irons. Are these necessary? Maybe if a fly lands on my head, I will try to kill it using a hammer. I could get a good buck off of Stanley for that. It has gotten to the point where the juducial system is a free for all. Some people will sue for anything. How many times do insurance companies pay because it would cost them more in legal fees than to fight the lawsuit? I am not saying that companies should not be accountable for what they produce, but consumers with no common sense should not ride the gravy train for doing stupid things.

Posted by: tomslick at July 28, 2005 10:34 AM (xNjHI)

27 Good examples, TomSlick. Indeed, our current civil "justice" system has turned into nothing more than a lottery.

Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2005 10:46 AM (/k+l4)

28 Loser Pays America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is. . . . Continue reading... http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/ More damn lies I guess. Help me out here JJ I tried searching for frivolous lawsuits in Europe, Canada, Germany, France, international, etc, but all I came up with was the lawsuit against Donald Rumsfield. I then tried frivolous lawsuits in the US and only got 302,000 hits. Great topic as usual Ogre, I am learning things. I have learned we have more lawyers in California than there are in Europe for one. And also remember, we will accept no money, unless we win some for you.

Posted by: tomslick at July 28, 2005 01:38 PM (xNjHI)

29 That reminds me of an old joke, Tomslick. I'm not sure if I'll be prosecuted for a hate crime, but I'm not in New Jersey, so this might still be legal: What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. (Sorry Oddybobo)

Posted by: Ogre at July 28, 2005 07:56 PM (L0IGK)

30 I howled when I read this one. Sorry Oddy in advance So the lawyer is cross-examining the doctor about whether or not he had checked the pulse of the deceased before he signed the death certificate. "No," the doctor said, "I did not check his pulse." "And did you listen for a heartbeat?" said the lawyer. "No, I did not," said the doctor. "So," said the lawyer, "when you signed the death certificate, you had not taken steps to make sure he was dead." The doctor said, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's brain was in a jar on my desk, but for all I know he could be out practicing law somewhere."

Posted by: tomslick at July 29, 2005 10:46 AM (xNjHI)

31 ROFL! Oh, we're hoping Oddy is having a good day when she reads this...

Posted by: Ogre at July 29, 2005 11:08 AM (/k+l4)

32 The key, as stated above, is 'notice pleading'. Ms. Wallenberg, by her attorney, is permitted to aver, as generally as she likes, what she thinks is a cause of action, most likely for negligence -- be it the allegedly-negligent design of the manhole cover in retaining heat from the shining sun, or whatever allegedly-negligent buildup of heat may have resulted from the underground steam. The costs have already begun to incur, from the time of the filing the lawsuit, when Con Ed defends itself in litigation. Once a judge is assigned, in the course of 'discovery', all of the 'facts' of the case will begin to emerge. The bulk of the costs will aggregate when both sides engage in heavy research to produce some quantum of proof of the cause of Ms. Wallenberg's injury. Gathering NYC codes, regulations, permits, Con Ed practices, prior lawsuits, safety memoranda, expert engineers, witnesses, medical experts, and other documentary evidence, etc.etc. does NOT come cheap! To me, that's where Ms. Wallenberg should be required to pay for burdening the courts and society for what could most likely turn out to be a grandiose waste of time, resources and money, in an attempt prove what could be a fabricated, frivolous, baseless claim. Thank you very much.

Posted by: Binkley at August 03, 2005 12:53 AM (94Pt6)

33 You are certainly right there, Binkley. From what I've seen in the legal system, sometimes the lawyer actually picks up those costs, because they think they will be recovered, but other times the plaintiff has to pay them in advance, to be reimbursed if and when they win. Either way, Con Ed has to pay for their defense. I agree that if you sue someone and you lose, you should be liable for their costs there.

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:57 AM (L0IGK)

34 Me again, popping back in to grab the link. While I'm at it ... Oh, why bother. I could point out to tomslick that, before reaching for Google, he should note that they speak OTHER LANGUAGES in most of these countries. I could also drop a hint th since the phoney conservatism industry hasn't gotten a foothold in most of them, they don't spend so much of their time on hysterical whining. I could, in between gusts of laughter, indicate that if juries were put in control of, er, everything in litigation (thanks for that one, Ogre), litigation costs would rise to a point where even ConEd couldn't afford to use the legal system. But you're not listening, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that as a tort case, this claim will be litigated in a state court. Don't you think it's up to the people of New York to decide what sort of procedural rules should govern litigation in THEIR state? Or is this suddenly an exception to the whole States' Rights thing? Top-down, federally mandated rules for, oh, everything, are GOOD, so long as they work to the advantage of an insurance or an energy company? A laugh a minute, guys. Thanks for the bundle of contradictions. I'll be on my way again, now ...

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at August 11, 2005 05:17 PM (jeXxM)

35 Uh, thanks for dropping by, I think... I'm not sure anyone knows what the "phoney conservatism industry" is...or what state vs. federal has to do with this, but, glad to provide entertainment, that is one of my goals!

Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:43 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In case you're living under a rock, perhaps you don't know that Lance Armstrong won another Tour de France. When I told someone this yesterday, the response was, "Really? Well that's no surprise."

Have you ever tried to win this race? It's no simple matter. The idea that one person could be the absolute best cyclist in the world for seven years in a row is incredible to me. I'm not the best in the world at ANYTHING, much less able to do it year after year while younger people are trying to beat you.

Lance Armstrong, congratulations on an awesome win!

Posted by: Ogre at 01:03 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Congrats to Lance. One could make a fair argument that he is the best athlete in the documented history of the world. What he has accomplished is nothing short of historic, amazing, and almost unbelievable.

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 25, 2005 03:21 PM (Er9BL)

2 I think it would be a tough argument that he's not the greatest athlete ever.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 06:02 PM (L0IGK)

3 Wow, look at those muscles.

Posted by: Sissy at July 25, 2005 11:00 PM (uXS+O)

4 I'm with Sissy. I could never to get my calves to look like that. Sheesh.

Posted by: Bou at July 25, 2005 11:41 PM (5JHEt)

5 Stop that, Sissy! And Bou, if you had muscles that looked like that, well, they just wouldn't look right on you... especially the lats...

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:34 AM (L0IGK)

6 lmao that's so funny, my first thought was WOW look at those calves!

Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 26, 2005 10:33 PM (0Ea9a)

7 I thought they were kinda skinny myself...

Posted by: Ogre at July 27, 2005 06:03 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Interesting. It seems that a number of groups that were members of the AFL-CIO union conglomerate are leaving the AFL-CIO because they're not happy with the management of the union and not happy with the declining union members.

It is what it is, and it's a free country, so people should be able to associate with whomever they want to associate. I think the time for unions is past in this country and that they currently do more harm than good -- and it appears the vast majority of people in the United States agree, as less than 8% of all private workers belong to unions.

However, what's even more interesting is a quote near the end of the news story:

A divided labor movement worries Democratic leaders who rely on the AFL-CIO's money and manpower on Election Day.

"Anything that sidetracks us from our goals ... is not healthy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the House campaign committee.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:04 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Oops. It seems that a couple cities in North Carolina have let the truth slip out regarding the so-called "red light cameras." A recent court decision pointed out that cities and towns across the state were breaking the clear dictates of the State Constitution, and they were directed to stop doing so. At issue were the various millions of dollars collected in fines across the state.

Various cities and counties were using the fines collected for, well, whatever they wanted to use them for -- from neighborhood grants to paying operating costs of government. However, the courts recently ruled that "clear proceeds" of fines collected are required to go to the school system, as the Constitution dictates. With the red light cameras, the vast majority of money was going to the operating agencies.

Once the cities have been told that they must follow the Constitution, the cities have very quickly suspended all use of the red light cameras. You see, in many cases, the operators of the cameras and the city were making large profits from the fines. If the city is forced to follow the Constitution, the city will not make a cash profit -- it will instead actually cost the city money to operate these cameras.

As soon as the cities realize these were not a revenue-generator, they all stopped operating the cameras. In other words, as I have been telling people from the first time these were proposed -- the city is ONLY operating these red light cameras to make money. They have absolutely nothing to do with safety and the recent actions of Charlotte, High Point, and Greensboro clearly show that fact.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And your average citizen out there has no idea. But it sure looks clear to me, it was only for the mula.

Posted by: Jay at July 25, 2005 07:24 AM (2FcUc)

2 Actually Jay, I got out of one of those tickets by sending a 20 page affidavit to the district attorney's office, declaring the ticket uncostitutional, and I got away with it; however, it did take a lot of research to get away with it. Great Post Ogre!

Posted by: Michael Churchill at July 25, 2005 07:33 AM (eqaaP)

3 I got out of one of those tickets, too -- I simply refused to pay. I requested a hearing -- however, they will only give you a hearing AFTER you pay the fine and admit guilt. I refused.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 07:43 AM (/k+l4)

4 Minneapolis just started with the red-light cameras now too. I don't think we have a similar clause in our state constitution though. I will just stay out of Minneapolis as much as possible.

Posted by: Echo Zoe at July 25, 2005 10:13 AM (K+h36)

5 You can do what I did when they first started this crap -- just take your license plate off. I put it in my back window where the camera won't see it -- and it helps the window is tinted.

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 10:19 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Once again, it's that weekly time to introduce a new neighbor. Each week I scan the Evangelical blogroll (over there on the left, a ways down) and try to find someone new to introduce to you, my good reader. If you're surfing around this Sunday evening, you've got one more place to visit. This week I'd like to introduce:

Ales Rarus

As for the name of the blog, you'll have to let him explain it. I know some Latin, so I had at least a clue what it means -- if you don't know Latin, you're not going to have much chance of guessing it.

Next, the name. In case you were wondering, the author of the blog is not REALLY named Funky Dung. Once again, you'll have to read his description to get that answer.

The blog has been around since April 2002 -- that's ancient in Blog time, if you ask me. It appears to be updated quite regularly, but perhaps not quite daily. He's got a view on the recent actions in London that only briefly crossed my mind -- I wonder who else is thinking that way today. He's also got a post up for something called "Operation Cleansweep." This is an idea to completely replace ALL current members of the PA General Assembly. I think we need that operation in North Carolina in a BAD way, too.

The site is well-organized and easy to read. There's tons of links and link buttons down the sides, some I've never seen before. And check down the right side where he provides an image to his blogrolls -- it seems quite appropriate, somehow...

So head on over and have a read this Sunday evening.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Thanks for the plug. I'm glad you liked what you saw.

Posted by: Funky Dung at July 25, 2005 10:32 PM (6lA2O)

2 You bet! The penname had me wondering, though...

Posted by: Ogre at July 26, 2005 05:33 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, it was 93 degrees (F) here today, so some of you might wonder what an Ogre does when such things happen. Why, work in the yard, landscaping, of course! I moved just short of 2 tons (4,000 pounds) of rocks. I'm building a stairway, a fountain, and moving a bunch of poorly placed bushes. Pictures will come later, I assure you.

In the meantime, a story just happened up for me in North Carolina that will be interesting to watch. A woman is suing her gay husband's gay partner for alienation of affection -- stealing her husband away from her. You see, North Carolina still allows married people to sue when another person steals away their spouse. That's a law I support, but it will be very interesting to see how this one turns out.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:31 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

If you live in Hawaii, get ready for gas lines. It seems Hawaii politicians don't like the free market, so they're going with price caps on fuel. The only possible conclusion of price caps will be shortages.

It's simple economics. Let's say you make widgets. It costs you $15 to make them and you sell them for $20. For each one you sell, you earn $5. Enter government. If government declares that there is a price cap on widgets and you cannot sell them for more than $12, what do you do?

If you continue to sell them, you LOSE money on every sale. So you either stop selling them or go out of business. Gas companies will simply stop selling gas in Hawaii. So what will the politicians do then? They will have a choice -- get rid of the price cap that caused the problem, or start selling gas themselves. I wonder which they'll pick?

Posted by: Ogre at 08:02 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a pig:

This is a pig's ear:

Pig's ears, as I have seen them, are sold in many places in this country, usually a treats for dogs. Once again, I present a strong deterrent for terrorists and mass transit in this country:

Place a pig's ear at the entranceway to every mass transit vehicle (train, plane, bus) and force every person who wants to ride to touch the pig's ear. The twisted muslim terrorists will NOT touch it because if they die right after touching it, they will not go to their paradise.

It might not stop them completely, but it sure will slow them down!

(Linked to Basil's Supper -- Have fun at the game!)

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Lewis has a survey up, where he is trying to determine why people blog and where he wants to analyze the habits of various types of bloggers. Head on over and take the quiz, it only takes a few minutes.

HT to Basil.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:06 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

I had to check that a few times before I actually realized they did something right. That's one in a row for them. The Senate finally (after way too long debates and delays) passed a law to prosecute child molesters -- more specifically, internet molesters.

Previously, if a person were caught by an undercover agent posing as a youngster, the pervert couldn't be charged because the agent wasn't actually a youngster. This law finally makes it a felony for a monster to solicit or attempt to solicit sex from a person they believe is under 16 over the internet.

Now if they would just stop spending money on social services and hire some more investigators for the woefully understaffed state bureau of investigation, they could hang some of these monsters.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:08 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

By this evening, everyone I'm sure is aware of the additional attacks on London. Once again, mass transit is the target as the terrorists go for the easiest targets to obtain and where the largest potential damage (when measured in loss of life) can be found. I've got a simple solution to drastically slow the pedophilic muslim terrorists.

First, let me point out that Atlas Shrugged has an excellent reprint of some excellent ideas for fighting terrorism from Jihad Watch.

In addition to those excellent ideas, here's a very simple one that will certainly reduce Muslim terrorist attacks on mass transit -- and I'm serious, this is not your usual flippant remark.

Make everyone who enters a mass transit vehicle (bus, train, airport, etc.) touch a piece of dried pig fat. Really! It wouldn't be much of an inconvenience for regular, normal people, especially if it were dried -- nothing would get on you or affect you in any way. However, those Muslim terrorists who are literally dying to go to heaven and have their virgins wouldn't DARE touch the thing, because their religion says that they won't go to heaven if they touch something unclean!

Seriously! What's wrong with this plan? "Welcome to bus #125, fare is $1.10, please touch the pig fat there." Heck, if people are paranoid about germs, we could put some germ-X hand waterless hand sanitizer on the buses and trains, too. That would help normal people, while the Islamic terrorists would never enter.

Folks, I am not kidding about this. It would be very cheap and very effective. You don't touch the pig fat, you don't get on the bus.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Read the following paragraph and see what you think about it:

Because our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States, [our group will] not participate in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.

[Our group] bars recipients of its funds from engaging in any activity that “promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state."

Posted by: Ogre at 03:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.

Yessir, we need those illegal immigrants to come to our country and bring their culture with them because diversity is wonderful. That's what the mainstream media keeps reporting. Academics keep telling us that there is "strength in diversity," and we should "value other cultures," and not "force" our values on different cultures. Oh, and we should never deport them, because they're only here to work.

Enter one Ramiro Gallegos, 26, illegal alien from Mexico. He brought his culture with him -- a culture of "machoness" and heavy drinking. He has convictions for resisting arrest, DWI, and failure to appear in court. In 2003 he was sentenced to probation for DWI. In 2004 he received MORE probation for another DWI and driving while his license was revoked (please note he is NOT a citizen, yet freely uses and abuses his North Carolina driver's license).

About 5:30PM on Saturday, he decided to have a pile of beers and drive around with a number of his drinking pals. His blood alcohol level was 0.22% when he drove his pickup across the median, killed a man and critically injured his wife in a car crash. After the accident, he ran from the scene, but was caught by State Troopers.

Thank you, diversity supporters. Thank you, open borders supporters. Thank you, those of you who celebrate the value of other cultures over the uniquely American culture. Thanks to you, 2-year-old Avery and 5-year-old Jackson have no father and a critically injured wife.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:01 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Monday night the North Carolina passed what some have called a "Stop Gap" measure. Allegedly, this bill extends spending at the current levels until the House and Senate can agree on whether to increase taxes a huge amount or a gigantic amount. However, they snuck a little additional provision in that bill that passed the House 111-0: more spending.

Yes, that's right, without having a budget, they increased spending to schools to the tune of a brand-new $200 million. Combined with the $300 million (at least) from the lottery and $500 million from fees, that's at least ONE BILLION dollars in brand-new spending on schools.

That's $117.08 for every single resident of North Carolina in increased spending on schools. And that's a grand total of AT LEAST $754.52 for every single student in grades K-12 in the state. Oh, but this money should go for teachers, right? That's what they keep telling us.

I can't find the numbers for only teachers, only for "full-time personnel." Are you ready for this? If the politicians are telling the truth, this increase will give every single employee in the school system a $5,913.35 raise (that's 13.7%). School employees, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. But that is what the politicians have told us.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Fuzzy math?

Posted by: Jay at July 21, 2005 08:07 AM (2FcUc)

2 That might be it. I'm SURE the politicians wouldn't actually LIE now, would they?

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2005 09:56 AM (/k+l4)

3 It would have been a lot easier if they would have just fell into the "GAP". (sneaky-smile)

Posted by: mensaB at July 21, 2005 03:29 PM (TOHVc)

4 I tried pushing them, but they're too full of pork...

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2005 03:32 PM (L0IGK)

5 (sorry (hee) punchy today) Actually, sounds like your state is getting lessons from "California" (smile) (can I say that word here?) ha.

Posted by: mensaB at July 21, 2005 03:33 PM (TOHVc)

6 Sure, there's no censoring of bad words here.

Posted by: Ogre at July 21, 2005 03:54 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

By now I'm sure everyone knows that President George W. Bush has nominated one Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. As head of the Left (and rabidly anti-freedom) Charles Schumer (D-NY) prepares his questions for the nominee, I would like Mr. Roberts and the Democrats in the Senate to remember the words of Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) in 1993, CHAIRMAN of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when addressing the last potential Supreme Court nominee during the last Senate confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court Justice:

"You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."

Posted by: Ogre at 05:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Another week, another question from Cross Blogging in the weekly Christian Views Symposium. Those of you with writer's block, head on over -- the topics are always good, get you thinking, and give you things to write about if you can't think of anything else!

This week's question came from Lennie's viewing of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory:

You have to make the following choice:

1. Move into and inherit the largest chocolate factory in the world, but never see your family again; or
2. Stay with your family who is very poor, but are loving and supportive.

Questions:

Would you choose #1 or #2 and why?
Is there anything that could be offered to you to make you abandon your family?

Posted by: Ogre at 02:01 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 2 kb.